Najma Siddiqi

The ethics of consent in delirium studies

BACKGROUND Delirium is a syndrome of acute, fluctuating confusion, which affects older people who are unwell. Although common and associated with significant poor outcomes, little is known about its pathophysiology, prevention, or treatment. Delirium research could potentially deliver important benefits for patients and is urgently required. However, such research is challenging as it inevitably involves the recruitment of patients who have impaired capacity to consent, due to the nature of delirium itself and the fact that it is people with dementia or severe illness who are most at risk. AIM This article explores the ethical tensions inherent in the need to protect vulnerable participants in delirium research and the urgent need for high-quality research in a neglected condition. CONCLUSIONS The current research regulations are unnecessarily stringent and may impede good-quality delirium research. There is in particular the danger that they lead to the recruitment of unrepresentative study populations. We suggest a number of changes to the regulations, such as extending the use of the existing European Union procedures for registered medical practitioner proxy consent. We invite comments and feedback from the research community.

Delirium in care homes

Delirium is a distressing but preventable condition associated with increased morbidity and mortality, and significant financial costs. Most research on delirium has focused on high-risk patients in hospitals. Another group also at high risk are residents in care homes for older people. This report reviews the literature on the occurrence, aetiology, outcomes, prevention and treatment of delirium in long-term care. Delirium appears to be common in this setting, with a median point prevalence estimate of 14.2% in studies comparable to the UK. However, there is a paucity of high-quality studies, likely to reflect the difficulty in conducting research in this population and the particular challenges of investigating delirium. Addressing delirium successfully in care homes presents an opportunity to improve care standards and to reduce inequalities in health and social care. Well-designed prospective cohort studies and robust evaluations of interventions to prevent and treat delirium are needed.

The Effectiveness of Pharmacological and Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Improving Glycaemic Control in Adults with Severe Mental Illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

People with severe mental illness (SMI) have reduced life expectancy compared with the general population, which can be explained partly by their increased risk of diabetes. We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the clinical effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for improving glycaemic control in people with SMI (PROSPERO registration: CRD42015015558). A systematic literature search was performed on 30/10/2015 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with SMI, with or without a diagnosis of diabetes that measured fasting blood glucose or glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). Screening and data extraction were carried out independently by two reviewers. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate effectiveness, and subgroup analysis and univariate meta-regression to explore heterogeneity. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool was used to assess risk of bias. We found 54 eligible RCTs in 4,392 adults (40 pharmacological, 13 behavioural, one mixed intervention). Data for meta-analysis were available from 48 RCTs (n = 4052). Both pharmacological (mean difference (MD), -0.11mmol/L; 95% confidence interval (CI), [-0.19, -0.02], p = 0.02, n = 2536) and behavioural interventions (MD, -0.28mmol//L; 95% CI, [-0.43, -0.12], p<0.001, n = 956) were effective in lowering fasting glucose, but not HbA1c (pharmacological MD, -0.03%; 95% CI, [-0.12, 0.06], p = 0.52, n = 1515; behavioural MD, 0.18%; 95% CI, [-0.07, 0.42], p = 0.16, n = 140) compared with usual care or placebo. In subgroup analysis of pharmacological interventions, metformin and antipsychotic switching strategies improved HbA1c. Behavioural interventions of longer duration and those including repeated physical activity had greater effects on fasting glucose than those without these characteristics. Baseline levels of fasting glucose explained some of the heterogeneity in behavioural interventions but not in pharmacological interventions. Although the strength of the evidence is limited by inadequate trial design and reporting and significant heterogeneity, there is some evidence that behavioural interventions, antipsychotic switching, and metformin can lead to clinically important improvements in glycaemic measurements in adults with SMI.

Antidepressant augmentation with metyrapone for treatment-resistant depression (the ADD study): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND Many patients with major depressive disorder have treatment-resistant depression, defined as no adequate response to two consecutive courses of antidepressants. Some evidence suggests that antiglucocorticoid augmentation of antidepressants might be efficacious in patients with major depressive disorder. We aimed to test the proof of concept of metyrapone for the augmentation of serotonergic antidepressants in the clinically relevant population of patients with treatment-resistant depression. METHODS This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial recruited patients from seven UK National Health Service (NHS) Mental Health Trusts from three areas (northeast England, northwest England, and the Leeds and Bradford area). Eligible patients were aged 18-65 years with treatment-resistant depression (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale 17-item score of ≥18 and a Massachusetts General Hospital Treatment-Resistant Depression staging score of 2-10) and taking a single-agent or combination antidepressant treatment that included a serotonergic drug. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) through a centralised web-based system to metyrapone (500 mg twice daily) or placebo, in addition to their existing antidepressant regimen, for 21 days. Permuted block randomisation was done with a block size of two or four, stratified by centre and primary or secondary care setting. The primary outcome was improvement in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score 5 weeks after randomisation, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population of all randomly assigned patients that completed the MADRS assessment at week 5. The study has an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN45338259) and is registered with the EU Clinical Trial register, number 2009-015165-31. FINDINGS Between Feb 8, 2011, and Dec 10, 2012, 165 patients were recruited and randomly assigned (83 to metyrapone and 82 to placebo), with 143 (87%) completing the primary outcome assessment (69 [83%] in the metyrapone and 74 [90%] in the placebo group). At 5 weeks, MADRS score did not significantly differ between groups (21·7 points [95% CI 19·2-24·4] in the metyrapone group vs 22·6 points [20·1-24·8] in the placebo group; adjusted mean difference of -0·51 points [95% CI -3·48 to 2·46]; p=0·74). 12 serious adverse events were reported in four (5%) of 83 patients in the metyrapone group and six (7%) of 82 patients in the placebo group, none of which were related to study treatment. 134 adverse events occurred in 58 (70%) patients in the metyrapone group compared with 95 events in 45 (55%) patients in the placebo group, of which 11 (8%) events in the metyrapone group and four (4%) in the placebo group were judged by principle investigators at the time of occurrence to be probably related to the study drug. INTERPRETATION Metyrapone augmentation of antidepressants is not efficacious in a broadly representative population of patients with treatment-resistant depression within the NHS and therefore is not an option for patients with treatment-resistant depression in routine clinical practice at this time. Further research is needed to clarify if such augmentation might benefit subpopulations with demonstrable hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis abnormalities. FUNDING Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, a UK Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research partnership.

The PiTSTOP study: a feasibility cluster randomized trial of delirium prevention in care homes for older people

Background and objectives: delirium is a distressing but potentially preventable condition common in older people in long-term care. It is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, functional decline, hospitalization and significant healthcare costs. Multicomponent interventions, addressing delirium risk factors, have been shown to reduce delirium by one-third in hospitals. It is not known whether this approach is also effective in long-term care. In previous work, we designed a bespoke delirium prevention intervention, called ‘Stop Delirium!’ In preparation for a definitive trial of Stop Delirium, we sought to address key aspects of trial design for the particular circumstances of care homes. Design: a cluster randomized feasibility study with an embedded process evaluation. Setting and participants: residents of 14 care homes for older people in one metropolitan district in the UK. Intervention: Stop Delirium!: a 16-month-enhanced educational package to support care home staff to address key delirium risk factors. Control homes received usual care. Measurements: we collected data to determine the following: recruitment and attrition; delirium rates and variability between homes; feasibility of measuring delirium, resource use, quality of life, hospital admissions and falls; and intervention implementation and adherence. Results: two-thirds (215) of eligible care home residents were recruited. One-month delirium prevalence was 4.0% in intervention and 7.1% in control homes. Proposed outcome measurements were feasible, although our approach appeared to underestimate delirium. Health economic evaluation was feasible using routinely collected data. Conclusion: a definitive trial of delirium prevention in long-term care is needed but will require some further design modifications and pilot work.

Protocol for validation of the 4AT, a rapid screening tool for delirium: a multicentre prospective diagnostic test accuracy study

Introduction Delirium is a severe neuropsychiatric syndrome of rapid onset, commonly precipitated by acute illness. It is common in older people in the emergency department (ED) and acute hospital, but greatly under-recognised in these and other settings. Delirium and other forms of cognitive impairment, particularly dementia, commonly coexist. There is a need for a rapid delirium screening tool that can be administered by a range of professional-level healthcare staff to patients with sensory or functional impairments in a busy clinical environment, which also incorporates general cognitive assessment. We developed the 4 ’A’s Test (4AT) for this purpose. This study’s primary objective is to validate the 4AT against a reference standard. Secondary objectives include (1) comparing the 4AT with another widely used test (the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM)); (2) determining if the 4AT is sensitive to general cognitive impairment; (3) assessing if 4AT scores predict outcomes, including (4) a health economic analysis. Methods and analysis 900 patients aged 70 or over in EDs or acute general medical wards will be recruited in three sites (Edinburgh, Bradford and Sheffield) over 18 months. Each patient will undergo a reference standard delirium assessment and will be randomised to assessment with either the 4AT or the CAM. At 12 weeks, outcomes (length of stay, institutionalisation and mortality) and resource utilisation will be collected by a questionnaire and via the electronic patient record. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was granted in Scotland and England. The study involves administering tests commonly used in clinical practice. The main ethical issues are the essential recruitment of people without capacity. Dissemination is planned via publication in high impact journals, presentation at conferences, social media and the website www.the4AT.com. Trial registration number ISRCTN53388093; Pre-results.

Development of core outcome sets for effectiveness trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium (Del-COrS): Study protocol

Introduction Delirium is a common, serious and potentially preventable condition with devastating impact on the quality of life prompting a proliferation of interventional trials. Core outcome sets aim to standardise outcome reporting by identifying outcomes perceived fundamental for measurement in trials of a specific interest area. Our aim is to develop international consensus on two core outcome sets for trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium, irrespective of study population. We aim to identify additional core outcomes specific to the critically ill, acutely hospitalised patients, palliative care and older adults. Methods and analysis We will conduct a systematic review of published and ongoing delirium trials (1980 onwards) and one-on-one interviews of patients who have experienced delirium and family members. These data will inform Delphi round 1 of a two-stage consensus process. In round 2, we will provide participants their own response, summarised group responses and those of patient/family participants for rescoring. We will randomise participants to receive feedback as proportion scoring the outcome as critical or as group mean responses. We will hold a consensus meeting using nominal group technique to finalise outcomes for inclusion. We will repeat the Delphi process and consensus meeting to select measures for each core outcome. We will recruit 240 Delphi participants giving us 80% power to detect a 1.0–1.5 point (9-point scale) difference by feedback method between rounds. We will analyse differences for subsequent scores, magnitude of opinion change, items retained and level of agreement. Ethics and dissemination We are obtaining research ethics approvals according to local governance. Participation will be voluntary and data deidentified. Support from three international delirium organisations will be instrumental in dissemination and core outcome set uptake. We will disseminate through peer-reviewed open access publications and present at conferences selected to reach a wide range of knowledge users.

Evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ to enable person-centred care for people with dementia and their carers (DCM-EPIC) in care homes: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundUp to 90 % of people living with dementia in care homes experience one or more behaviours that staff may describe as challenging to support (BSC). Of these agitation is the most common and difficult to manage. The presence of agitation is associated with fewer visits from relatives, poorer quality of life and social isolation. It is recommended that agitation is treated through psychosocial interventions. Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM™) is an established, widely used observational tool and practice development cycle, for ensuring a systematic approach to providing person-centred care. There is a body of practice-based literature and experience to suggests that DCM™ is potentially effective but limited robust evidence for its effectiveness, and no examination of its cost-effectiveness, as a UK health care intervention. Therefore, a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) of DCM™ in the UK is urgently needed.Methods/designA pragmatic, multi-centre, cluster-randomised controlled trial of Dementia Care Mapping (DCM™) plus Usual Care (UC) versus UC alone, where UC is the normal care delivered within the care home following a minimum level of dementia awareness training. The trial will take place in residential, nursing and dementia-specialist care homes across West Yorkshire, Oxfordshire and London, with residents with dementia. A random sample of 50 care homes will be selected within which a minimum of 750 residents will be registered. Care homes will be randomised in an allocation ratio of 3:2 to receive either intervention or control. Outcome measures will be obtained at 6 and 16 months following randomisation. The primary outcome is agitation as measured by the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory, at 16 months post randomisation. Key secondary outcomes are other BSC and quality of life. There will be an integral cost-effectiveness analysis and a process evaluation.DiscussionThe protocol was refined following a pilot of trial procedures. Changes include replacement of a questionnaire, whose wording caused some residents distress, to an adapted version specifically designed for use in care homes, a change to the randomisation stratification factors, adaption in how the staff measures are collected to encourage greater compliance, and additional reminders to intervention homes of when mapping cycles are due, via text message.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN82288852. Registered on 16 January 2014.Full protocol version and date: v7.1: 18 December 2015.

A core outcome set for evaluating self-management interventions in people with comorbid diabetes and severe mental illness: study protocol for a modified Delphi study and systematic review

BackgroundPeople with diabetes and comorbid severe mental illness (SMI) form a growing population at risk of increased mortality and morbidity compared to those with diabetes or SMI alone. There is increasing interest in interventions that target diabetes in SMI in order to help to improve physical health and reduce the associated health inequalities. However, there is a lack of consensus about which outcomes are important for this comorbid population, with trials differing in their focus on physical and mental health. A core outcome set, which includes outcomes across both conditions that are relevant to patients and other key stakeholders, is needed.MethodsThis study protocol describes methods to develop a core outcome set for use in effectiveness trials of self-management interventions for adults with comorbid type-2 diabetes and SMI. We will use a modified Delphi method to identify, rank, and agree core outcomes. This will comprise a two-round online survey and multistakeholder workshops involving patients and carers, health and social care professionals, health care commissioners, and other experts (e.g. academic researchers and third sector organisations). We will also select appropriate measurement tools for each outcome in the proposed core set and identify gaps in measures, where these exist.DiscussionThe proposed core outcome set will provide clear guidance about what outcomes should be measured, as a minimum, in trials of interventions for people with coexisting type-2 diabetes and SMI, and improve future synthesis of trial evidence in this area. We will also explore the challenges of using online Delphi methods for this hard-to-reach population, and examine differences in opinion about which outcomes matter to diverse stakeholder groups.Trial registrationCOMET registration: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/911. Registered on 1 July 2016

Improving health outcomes for adults with severe mental illness and comorbid diabetes: is supporting diabetes self‐management the right approach?

Diabetes is a common problem in people with severe mental illness [SMI is an umbrella term used to describe disorders in which psychosis occurs, and includes schizophrenia and bipolar disorder], and is associated with poor health outcomes and reduced life expectancy (Holt & Mitchell 2015). Prevalence estimates pooled across 42 international studies suggest that around 13% of the SMI population has diabetes (Ward & Druss 2015), a figure more than twice that in the general population (Shaw et al. 2010). This inequality is likely to increase, as recent analyses of primary care data show diabetes prevalence increasing year-on-year for the whole population, with the difference between people with and without SMI widening (Reilly et al. 2015). We have established a multidisciplinary research programme called DIAMONDS (Diabetes and Mental Illness: Improving Outcomes and Services), which aims to increase understanding about the comorbid relationship between diabetes and SMI, and develop effective interventions for people living with both these conditions. In this paper, we explore whether supporting diabetes self-management, which is the cornerstone of good diabetes management, offers the right approach. We draw on evidence from the diabetes and mental health literature to outline why improving diabetes care for people with SMI is important; consider why diabetes self-management education offers the potential to improve health outcomes; discuss the risks of using this approach for people with SMI; set out the key research questions that need to be answered in order to make this approach work; and consider the implications for mental health nursing. Why is it an important area?