Effect of intravenous haloperidol on the duration of delirium and coma in critically ill patients (Hope-ICU):A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background: Delirium is frequently diagnosed in critically ill patients and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Haloperidol is the most commonly used drug for delirium despite little evidence of its effectiveness. The aim of this study was to establish whether early treatment with haloperidol would decrease the time that survivors of critical illness spent in delirium or coma. Methods: We did this double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in a general adult intensive care unit (ICU). Critically ill patients (≥18 years) needing mechanical ventilation within 72 h of admission were enrolled. Patients were randomised (by an independent nurse, in 1:1 ratio, with permuted block size of four and six, using a centralised, secure web-based randomisation service) to receive haloperidol 2·5 mg or 0·9% saline placebo intravenously every 8 h, irrespective of coma or delirium status. Study drug was discontinued on ICU discharge, once delirium-free and coma-free for 2 consecutive days, or after a maximum of 14 days of treatment, whichever came first. Delirium was assessed using the confusion assessment method for the ICU (CAM-ICU). The primary outcome was delirium-free and coma-free days, defined as the number of days in the first 14 days after randomisation during which the patient was alive without delirium and not in coma from any cause. Patients who died within the 14 day study period were recorded as having 0 days free of delirium and coma. ICU clinical and research staff and patients were masked to treatment throughout the study. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry, number ISRCTN83567338. Findings: 142 patients were randomised, 141 were included in the final analysis (71 haloperidol, 70 placebo). Patients in the haloperidol group spent about the same number of days alive, without delirium, and without coma as did patients in the placebo group (median 5 days [IQR 0-10] vs 6 days [0-11] days; p=0·53). The most common adverse events were oversedation (11 patients in the haloperidol group vs six in the placebo group) and QTc prolongation (seven patients in the haloperidol group vs six in the placebo group). No patient had a serious adverse event related to the study drug. Interpretation: These results do not support the hypothesis that haloperidol modifies duration of delirium in critically ill patients. Although haloperidol can be used safely in this population of patients, pending the results of trials in progress, the use of intravenous haloperidol should be reserved for short-term management of acute agitation. Funding: National Institute for Health Research. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd.

Levosimendan for the Prevention of Acute Organ Dysfunction in Sepsis

BACKGROUND Levosimendan is a calcium-sensitizing drug with inotropic and other properties that may improve outcomes in patients with sepsis. 
METHODS We conducted a double-blind, randomized clinical trial to investigate whether levosimendan reduces the severity of organ dysfunction in adults with sepsis. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a blinded infusion of levosimendan (at a dose of 0.05 to 0.2 μg per kilogram of body weight per minute) for 24 hours or placebo in addition to standard care. The primary outcome was the mean daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score in the intensive care unit up to day 28 (scores for each of five systems range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating more severe dysfunction; maximum score, 20). Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, time to weaning from mechanical ventilation, and adverse events. 
RESULTS The trial recruited 516 patients; 259 were assigned to receive levosimendan and 257 to receive placebo. There was no significant difference in the mean (±SD) SOFA score between the levosimendan group and the placebo group (6.68±3.96 vs. 6.06±3.89; mean difference, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.07 to 1.29; P=0.053). Mortality at 28 days was 34.5% in the levosimendan group and 30.9% in the placebo group (absolute difference, 3.6 percentage points; 95% CI, −4.5 to 11.7; P=0.43). Among patients requiring ventilation at baseline, those in the levosimendan group were less likely than those in the placebo group to be successfully weaned from mechanical ventilation over the period of 28 days (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.97; P=0.03). More patients in the levosimendan group than in the placebo group had supraventricular tachyarrhythmia (3.1% vs. 0.4%; absolute difference, 2.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1 to 5.3; P=0.04). 
CONCLUSIONS The addition of levosimendan to standard treatment in adults with sepsis was not associated with less severe organ dysfunction or lower mortality. Levosimendan was associated with a lower likelihood of successful weaning from mechanical ventilation and a higher risk of supraventricular tachyarrhythmia. (Funded by the NIHR Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme and others; LeoPARDS Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN12776039.)

The thinking doctor: clinical decision making in contemporary medicine

Diagnostic errors are responsible for a significant number of adverse events. Logical reasoning and good decision-making skills are key factors in reducing such errors, but little emphasis has traditionally been placed on how these thought processes occur, and how errors could be minimised. In this article, we explore key cognitive ideas that underpin clinical decision making and suggest that by employing some simple strategies, physicians might be better able to understand how they make decisions and how the process might be optimised.

Statin withdrawal in people with dementia

Background: There are approximately 24 million people worldwide with dementia; this is likely to increase to 81 million by 2040. Dementia is a progressive condition, and usually leads to death eight to ten years after first symptoms. End-of-life care should emphasise treatments that optimise quality of life and physicians should minimise unnecessary or non-beneficial interventions. Statins are 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors; they have become the cornerstone of pharmacotherapy for the management of hypercholesterolaemia but their ability to provide benefit is unclear in the last weeks or months of life. Withdrawal of statins may improve quality of life in people with advanced dementia, as they will not be subjected to unnecessary polypharmacy or side effects. However, they may help to prevent further vascular events in people of advanced age who are at high risk of such events.

Objectives: To evaluate the effects of withdrawal or continuation of statins in people with dementia on: cognitive outcomes, adverse events, behavioural and functional outcomes, mortality, quality of life, vascular morbidity, and healthcare costs.

Search methods: We searched ALOIS (medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois/), the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialised Register on 11 February 2016. We also ran additional searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Clinical.Trials.gov and the WHO Portal/ICTRP on 11 February 2016, to ensure that the searches were as comprehensive and as up-to-date as possible.

Selection criteria: We included all randomised, controlled clinical trials with either a placebo or 'no treatment' control group. We applied no language restrictions.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria, using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We found no studies suitable for inclusion therefore analysed no data.

Main results: The search strategy identified 28 unique references, all of which were excluded.

Authors' conclusions: We found no evidence to enable us to make an informed decision about statin withdrawal in dementia. Randomised controlled studies need to be conducted to assess cognitive and other effects of statins in participants with dementia, especially when the disease is advanced.

Time-limited home-care reablement services for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults

Background: Reablement, also known as restorative care, is one possible approach to home-care services for older adults at risk of functional decline. Unlike traditional home-care services, reablement is frequently time-limited (usually six to 12 weeks) and aims to maximise independence by offering an intensive multidisciplinary, person-centred and goal-directed intervention. Objectives:Objectives To assess the effects of time-limited home-care reablement services (up to 12 weeks) for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults (aged 65 years or more) when compared to usual home-care or wait-list control group. Search methods:We searched the following databases with no language restrictions during April to June 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (OvidSP); Embase (OvidSP); PsycINFO (OvidSP); ERIC; Sociological Abstracts; ProQuest Dissertations and Theses; CINAHL (EBSCOhost); SIGLE (OpenGrey); AgeLine and Social Care Online. We also searched the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews as well as contacting authors in the field.Selection criteria:We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised or quasi-randomised trials of time-limited reablement services for older adults (aged 65 years or more) delivered in their home; and incorporated a usual home-care or wait-list control group. Data collection and analysis:Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of individual studies and considered quality of the evidence using GRADE. We contacted study authors for additional information where needed.Main results:Two studies, comparing reablement with usual home-care services with 811 participants, met our eligibility criteria for inclusion; we also identified three potentially eligible studies, but findings were not yet available. One included study was conducted in Western Australia with 750 participants (mean age 82.29 years). The second study was conducted in Norway (61 participants; mean age 79 years). We are very uncertain as to the effects of reablement compared with usual care as the evidence was of very low quality for all of the outcomes reported. The main findings were as follows. Functional status: very low quality evidence suggested that reablement may be slightly more effective than usual care in improving function at nine to 12 months (lower scores reflect greater independence; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53 to -0.06; 2 studies with 249 participants). Adverse events: reablement may make little or no difference to mortality at 12 months’ follow-up (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.29; 2 studies with 811 participants) or rates of unplanned hospital admission at 24 months (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03; 1 study with 750 participants). The very low quality evidence also means we are uncertain whether reablement may influence quality of life (SMD -0.23; 95% CI -0.48 to 0.02; 2 trials with 249 participants) or living arrangements (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.34; 1 study with 750 participants) at time points up to 12 months. People receiving reablement may be slightly less likely to have been approved for a higher level of personal care than people receiving usual care over the 24 months’ follow-up (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; 1 trial, 750 participants). Similarly, although there may be a small reduction in total aggregated home and healthcare costs over the 24-month follow-up (reablement: AUD 19,888; usual care: AUD 22,757; 1 trial with 750 participants), we are uncertain about the size and importance of these effects as the results were based on very low quality evidence. Neither study reported user satisfaction with the serviceAuthors’ conclusions:There is considerable uncertainty regarding the effects of reablement as the evidence was of very low quality according to our GRADE ratings. Therefore, the effectiveness of reablement services cannot be supported or refuted until more robust evidence becomes available. There is an urgent need for high quality trials across different health and social care systems due to the increasingly high profile of reablement services in policy and practice in several countries.