推进老年人谵妄治疗试验:谵妄调查网络对未来试验的建议:统一科学家(NIDUS)。

IF 7.7 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Critical Care Medicine Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-22 DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000006514
John W Devlin, Frederick Sieber, Oluwaseun Akeju, Babar A Khan, Alasdair M J MacLullich, Edward R Marcantonio, Esther S Oh, Meera R Agar, Thiago J Avelino-Silva, Miles Berger, Lisa Burry, Elizabeth A Colantuoni, Lis A Evered, Timothy D Girard, Jin H Han, Annmarie Hosie, Christopher Hughes, Richard N Jones, Pratik P Pandharipande, Balachundhar Subramanian, Thomas G Travison, Mark van den Boogaard, Sharon K Inouye
{"title":"推进老年人谵妄治疗试验:谵妄调查网络对未来试验的建议:统一科学家(NIDUS)。","authors":"John W Devlin, Frederick Sieber, Oluwaseun Akeju, Babar A Khan, Alasdair M J MacLullich, Edward R Marcantonio, Esther S Oh, Meera R Agar, Thiago J Avelino-Silva, Miles Berger, Lisa Burry, Elizabeth A Colantuoni, Lis A Evered, Timothy D Girard, Jin H Han, Annmarie Hosie, Christopher Hughes, Richard N Jones, Pratik P Pandharipande, Balachundhar Subramanian, Thomas G Travison, Mark van den Boogaard, Sharon K Inouye","doi":"10.1097/CCM.0000000000006514","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To summarize the delirium treatment trial literature, identify the unique challenges in delirium treatment trials, and formulate recommendations to address each in older adults.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A 39-member interprofessional and international expert working group of clinicians (physicians, nurses, and pharmacists) and nonclinicians (biostatisticians, epidemiologists, and trial methodologists) was convened. Four expert panels were assembled to explore key subtopics (pharmacological/nonpharmacologic treatment, methodological challenges, and novel research designs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To provide background and context, a review of delirium treatment randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2003 and 2023 was conducted and evidence gaps were identified. The four panels addressed the identified subtopics. For each subtopic, research challenges were identified and recommendations to address each were proposed through virtual discussion before a live, full-day, and in-person conference. General agreement was reached for each proposed recommendation across the entire working group via moderated conference discussion. Recommendations were synthesized across panels and iteratively discussed through rounds of virtual meetings and draft reviews.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified key evidence gaps through a systematic literature review, yielding 43 RCTs of delirium treatments. From this review, eight unique challenges for delirium treatment trials were identified, and recommendations to address each were made based on panel input. The recommendations start with design of interventions that consider the multifactorial nature of delirium, include both pharmacological and nonpharmacologic approaches, and target pathophysiologic pathways where possible. Selecting appropriate at-risk patients with moderate vulnerability to delirium may maximize effectiveness. Targeting patients with at least moderate delirium severity and duration will include those most likely to experience adverse outcomes. Delirium severity should be the primary outcome of choice; measurement of short- and long-term clinical outcomes will maximize clinical relevance. Finally, plans for handling informative censoring and missing data are key.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>By addressing key delirium treatment challenges and research gaps, our recommendations may serve as a roadmap for advancing delirium treatment research in older adults.</p>","PeriodicalId":10765,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Medicine","volume":"53 1","pages":"e15-e28"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Advancing Delirium Treatment Trials in Older Adults: Recommendations for Future Trials From the Network for Investigation of Delirium: Unifying Scientists (NIDUS).\",\"authors\":\"John W Devlin, Frederick Sieber, Oluwaseun Akeju, Babar A Khan, Alasdair M J MacLullich, Edward R Marcantonio, Esther S Oh, Meera R Agar, Thiago J Avelino-Silva, Miles Berger, Lisa Burry, Elizabeth A Colantuoni, Lis A Evered, Timothy D Girard, Jin H Han, Annmarie Hosie, Christopher Hughes, Richard N Jones, Pratik P Pandharipande, Balachundhar Subramanian, Thomas G Travison, Mark van den Boogaard, Sharon K Inouye\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/CCM.0000000000006514\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To summarize the delirium treatment trial literature, identify the unique challenges in delirium treatment trials, and formulate recommendations to address each in older adults.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A 39-member interprofessional and international expert working group of clinicians (physicians, nurses, and pharmacists) and nonclinicians (biostatisticians, epidemiologists, and trial methodologists) was convened. Four expert panels were assembled to explore key subtopics (pharmacological/nonpharmacologic treatment, methodological challenges, and novel research designs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To provide background and context, a review of delirium treatment randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2003 and 2023 was conducted and evidence gaps were identified. The four panels addressed the identified subtopics. For each subtopic, research challenges were identified and recommendations to address each were proposed through virtual discussion before a live, full-day, and in-person conference. General agreement was reached for each proposed recommendation across the entire working group via moderated conference discussion. Recommendations were synthesized across panels and iteratively discussed through rounds of virtual meetings and draft reviews.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified key evidence gaps through a systematic literature review, yielding 43 RCTs of delirium treatments. From this review, eight unique challenges for delirium treatment trials were identified, and recommendations to address each were made based on panel input. The recommendations start with design of interventions that consider the multifactorial nature of delirium, include both pharmacological and nonpharmacologic approaches, and target pathophysiologic pathways where possible. Selecting appropriate at-risk patients with moderate vulnerability to delirium may maximize effectiveness. Targeting patients with at least moderate delirium severity and duration will include those most likely to experience adverse outcomes. Delirium severity should be the primary outcome of choice; measurement of short- and long-term clinical outcomes will maximize clinical relevance. Finally, plans for handling informative censoring and missing data are key.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>By addressing key delirium treatment challenges and research gaps, our recommendations may serve as a roadmap for advancing delirium treatment research in older adults.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10765,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Care Medicine\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"e15-e28\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Care Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006514\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006514","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:总结谵妄治疗试验文献,确定谵妄治疗试验中独特的挑战,并制定建议,以解决每个老年人。设计:召集了一个由临床医生(医生、护士和药剂师)和非临床医生(生物统计学家、流行病学家和试验方法学家)组成的39名成员的跨专业和国际专家工作组。召集了四个专家小组来探讨关键的子主题(药理学/非药理学治疗、方法学挑战和新的研究设计)。方法:为了提供背景和背景,对2003年至2023年间发表的谵妄治疗随机对照试验(rct)进行了回顾,并确定了证据缺口。四个小组讨论了确定的分主题。对于每个子主题,通过虚拟讨论确定了研究挑战,并在现场全天面对面会议之前提出了解决每个问题的建议。通过主持的会议讨论,整个工作组就每项建议达成了普遍一致。各小组综合了各项建议,并通过几轮虚拟会议和草案审查进行了反复讨论。结果:我们通过系统的文献回顾确定了关键的证据缺口,产生了43项谵妄治疗的随机对照试验。从这篇综述中,确定了谵妄治疗试验的八个独特挑战,并根据小组输入提出了解决每个挑战的建议。建议从考虑谵妄的多因素性质的干预措施设计开始,包括药理学和非药理学方法,以及可能的目标病理生理途径。选择适当的中度谵妄易感性的高危患者可使疗效最大化。针对至少中度谵妄严重程度和持续时间的患者将包括那些最有可能经历不良后果的患者。谵妄严重程度应该是选择的主要结果;短期和长期临床结果的测量将最大限度地提高临床相关性。最后,处理信息审查和丢失数据的计划是关键。结论:通过解决谵妄治疗的关键挑战和研究空白,我们的建议可以作为推进老年人谵妄治疗研究的路线图。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Advancing Delirium Treatment Trials in Older Adults: Recommendations for Future Trials From the Network for Investigation of Delirium: Unifying Scientists (NIDUS).

Objectives: To summarize the delirium treatment trial literature, identify the unique challenges in delirium treatment trials, and formulate recommendations to address each in older adults.

Design: A 39-member interprofessional and international expert working group of clinicians (physicians, nurses, and pharmacists) and nonclinicians (biostatisticians, epidemiologists, and trial methodologists) was convened. Four expert panels were assembled to explore key subtopics (pharmacological/nonpharmacologic treatment, methodological challenges, and novel research designs).

Methods: To provide background and context, a review of delirium treatment randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2003 and 2023 was conducted and evidence gaps were identified. The four panels addressed the identified subtopics. For each subtopic, research challenges were identified and recommendations to address each were proposed through virtual discussion before a live, full-day, and in-person conference. General agreement was reached for each proposed recommendation across the entire working group via moderated conference discussion. Recommendations were synthesized across panels and iteratively discussed through rounds of virtual meetings and draft reviews.

Results: We identified key evidence gaps through a systematic literature review, yielding 43 RCTs of delirium treatments. From this review, eight unique challenges for delirium treatment trials were identified, and recommendations to address each were made based on panel input. The recommendations start with design of interventions that consider the multifactorial nature of delirium, include both pharmacological and nonpharmacologic approaches, and target pathophysiologic pathways where possible. Selecting appropriate at-risk patients with moderate vulnerability to delirium may maximize effectiveness. Targeting patients with at least moderate delirium severity and duration will include those most likely to experience adverse outcomes. Delirium severity should be the primary outcome of choice; measurement of short- and long-term clinical outcomes will maximize clinical relevance. Finally, plans for handling informative censoring and missing data are key.

Conclusions: By addressing key delirium treatment challenges and research gaps, our recommendations may serve as a roadmap for advancing delirium treatment research in older adults.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Care Medicine
Critical Care Medicine 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
16.30
自引率
5.70%
发文量
728
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Critical Care Medicine is the premier peer-reviewed, scientific publication in critical care medicine. Directed to those specialists who treat patients in the ICU and CCU, including chest physicians, surgeons, pediatricians, pharmacists/pharmacologists, anesthesiologists, critical care nurses, and other healthcare professionals, Critical Care Medicine covers all aspects of acute and emergency care for the critically ill or injured patient. Each issue presents critical care practitioners with clinical breakthroughs that lead to better patient care, the latest news on promising research, and advances in equipment and techniques.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信