Oh, Esther S

Abstract INTRODUCTION Cognitive impairment in hospitalized older adults without delirium is often undiagnosed. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy and prognostic value of two brief bedside screening tools—the 10‐point Cognitive Screener (10‐CS) and Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire (SPMSQ). METHODS Multicenter prospective cohort of 2003 patients ≥65 years of age without delirium, admitted to 43 hospitals in five countries of the Creating a Hospital Assessment Network in Geriatrics (CHANGE) Study. Screening was completed within 48 h of admission. Dementia was defined as informant‐based Clinical Dementia Rating ≥1. RESULTS Dementia prevalence was 22%, with 35% undiagnosed. Both tools showed good accuracy for detecting dementia, with the 10‐CS slightly more accurate than SPMSQ (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.87 vs 0.85; p = 0.02). After adjustment, cognitive impairment detected by either tool was associated with increased risk of incident delirium, hospital‐associated disability in self‐care activities, and 90‐day mortality, but not prolonged stay. DISCUSSION Brief bedside screening identified dementia and predicted adverse outcomes, supporting its integration into routine hospital care.

Abstract Background Delirium, an acute brain dysfunction, is proposed to be highly prevalent in clinical care and shown to significantly increase the risk of mortality and dementia. Objectives To report on the global prevalence of clinically documented delirium and delirium-related clinical practices in wards caring for paediatric and adult patients in healthcare facilities. Design A prospective, cross-sectional, 39-question survey completed on World Delirium Awareness Day, 15 March 2023. Participants Clinicians or researchers with access to clinical data. Main Outcome and Measure The primary outcome was the prevalence of clinically documented delirium at 8:00 a.m. (4 h) and 8:00 p.m. (±4 h). Secondary outcomes included delirium-related care practices and barriers to use. Descriptive statistics were calculated and multilevel modelling was completed. Results 1664 wards submitted surveys from 44 countries, reporting on delirium assessments at 8:00 a.m. (n = 36 048) and 8:00 p.m. (n = 32 867); 61% reported use of validated delirium assessment tools. At 8:00 a.m., 18% (n = 2788/15 458) and at 8:00 p.m., 17.7% (n = 2454/13 860) were delirium positive. Top prevention measures were pain management (86.7%), mobilisation (81.4%) and adequate fluids (80.4%). Frequently reported pharmacologic interventions were benzodiazepines (52.7%) and haloperidol (46.2%). Top barriers included the shortage of staff (54.3%), lack of time to educate staff (48.6%) and missing knowledge about delirium (38%). Conclusion and Relevance In this study, approximately one out of five patients were reported as delirious. The reported high use of benzodiazepines needs further evaluation as it is not aligned with best-practice recommendations. Findings provide a benchmark for future quality improvement projects and research.

Abstract Background Delirium is a common complication of older people in hospitals, rehabilitation and long-term facilities. Objective To assess the worldwide use of validated delirium assessment tools and the presence of delirium management protocols. Design Secondary analysis of a worldwide one-day point prevalence study on World Delirium Awareness Day, 15 March 2023. Setting Cross-sectional online survey including hospitals, rehabilitation and long-term facilities. Methods Participating clinicians reported data on delirium, the presence of protocols, delirium assessments, delirium-awareness interventions, non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions, and ward/unit-specific barriers. Results Data from 44 countries, 1664 wards/units and 36 048 patients were analysed. Validated delirium assessments were used in 66.7% (n = 1110) of wards/units, 18.6% (n = 310) used personal judgement or no assessment, and 10% (n = 166) used other assessment methods. A delirium management protocol was reported in 66.8% (n = 1094) of wards/units. The presence of protocols for delirium management varied across continents, ranging from 21.6% (on 21/97 wards/units) in Africa to 90.4% (235/260) in Australia, similar to the use of validated delirium assessments with 29.6% (29/98) in Africa to 93.5% (116/124) in North America. Wards/units with a delirium management protocol [n = 1094/1664, 66.8%] were more likely to use a validated delirium test than those without a protocol [odds ratio 6.97 (95% confidence interval 5.289–9.185)]. The presence of a delirium protocol increased the chances for valid delirium assessment and, likely, evidence-based interventions. Conclusion Wards/units that reported the presence of delirium management protocols had a higher probability of using validated delirium assessments tools to assess for delirium.

Delirium is common in hospitalised patients, and there is currently no specific treatment. Identifying and treating underlying somatic causes of delirium is the first priority once delirium is diagnosed. Several international guidelines provide clinicians with an evidence-based approach to screening, diagnosis and symptomatic treatment. However, current guidelines do not offer a structured approach to identification of underlying causes. A panel of 37 internationally recognised delirium experts from diverse medical backgrounds worked together in a modified Delphi approach via an online platform. Consensus was reached after five voting rounds. The final product of this project is a set of three delirium management algorithms (the Delirium Delphi Algorithms), one for ward patients, one for patients after cardiac surgery and one for patients in the intensive care unit.

AbstractBACKGROUNDDelirium, a common syndrome with heterogeneous etiologies and clinical presentations, is associated with poor long‐term outcomes. Recording and analyzing all delirium equally could be hindering the field's understanding of pathophysiology and identification of targeted treatments. Current delirium subtyping methods reflect clinically evident features but likely do not account for underlying biology.METHODSThe Delirium Subtyping Initiative (DSI) held three sessions with an international panel of 25 experts.RESULTSMeeting participants suggest further characterization of delirium features to complement the existing Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition Text Revision diagnostic criteria. These should span the range of delirium‐spectrum syndromes and be measured consistently across studies. Clinical features should be recorded in conjunction with biospecimen collection, where feasible, in a standardized way, to determine temporal associations of biology coincident with clinical fluctuations.DISCUSSIONThe DSI made recommendations spanning the breadth of delirium research including clinical features, study planning, data collection, and data analysis for characterization of candidate delirium subtypes.Highlights Delirium features must be clearly defined, standardized, and operationalized. Large datasets incorporating both clinical and biomarker variables should be analyzed together. Delirium screening should incorporate communication and reasoning.

Despite many studies of potential delirium biomarkers, delirium pathophysiology remains unclear. Evidence shows that the quality of reporting delirium biomarker studies is sub-optimal. Better reporting of delirium biomarker studies is needed to understand delirium pathophysiology better. To improve robustness, transparency and uniformity of delirium biomarker study reports, the REDEEMS (Reporting Essentials for DElirium bioMarker Studies) guideline was developed by an international group of delirium researchers through a three-stage process, including a systematic review, a three-round Delphi study, and a follow-up consensus meeting. This process resulted in a 9-item guideline to inform delirium fluid biomarker studies. To enhance implementation of the REDEEMS guideline, this Explanation and Elaboration paper provides a detailed explanation of each item. We anticipate that the REDEEMS guideline will help to accelerate our understanding of delirium pathophysiology by improving the reporting of delirium biomarker research and, consequently the capacity to synthesise results across studies.

AbstractBackgroundAlthough both age‐related and highly prevalent, little is known regarding the prevalence of hearing loss among persons with dementia (PwD). Current understanding is based on convenience samples primarily from specialized memory clinics. The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Neurocognitive Study (ARIC‐NCS) is a large, prospective study of a population‐based cohort from 4 U.S. community sites with audiometric and neurocognitive testing and bi‐racial representation. We examined the prevalence of hearing loss and hearing aid use among older adults with cognitive impairment and whether cognitive status influences hearing aid use.MethodWe analyzed audiometric and hearing care data from ARIC‐NCS Visit 6 (2016‐2018). Participants underwent a full neurocognitive battery and audiometric evaluation at Visit 6. Participants with complete audiometric data and an adjudicated diagnosis of cognitively normal, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or dementia were included in the analytical cohort (N=3,385). Differences in participant characteristics by cognitive status were descriptively compared using Chi‐square tests or one‐way ANOVAs. We performed a series of logistic regression models to estimate the odds of hearing aid non‐use by cognitive status.ResultPrevalence of hearing loss was greater with increasing cognitive impairment (cognitively normal:64.7%; MCI:71.3%; dementia:83.3%). Prevalence of hearing aid use among those with hearing loss and cognitive impairment varied by race (African Americans 7.2%; whites 32.8%). In a multivariable‐adjusted model, cognitive impairment was independently associated with higher odds of non‐use of hearing aids (MCI odds ratio (OR):1.4 (95%CI:1.0‐1.8); dementia OR:1.8 (95%CI:1.2‐2.9) versus cognitively normal). The strongest risk factor for non‐use of hearing aids was race, where African Americans have almost a 5 times higher odds of not using hearing aids compared to whites (95% CI:2.9‐7.4).ConclusionHearing loss is highly prevalent but vastly untreated among older adults with cognitive impairment, particularly African Americans, and cognitive impairment is independently associated with hearing aid use. These estimates are some of the first population‐based estimates of audiometric hearing loss among diverse older adults with adjudicated diagnoses of MCI or dementia. With increased calls to address ethnic/racial disparities, we must include hearing loss, as one of the most common co‐morbidities, in order to optimize health and well‐being among all PwD.

Abstract Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRDs) are a global crisis facing the aging population and society as a whole. With the numbers of people with ADRDs predicted to rise dramatically across the world, the scientific community can no longer neglect the need for research focusing on ADRDs among underrepresented ethnoracial diverse groups. The Alzheimer's Association International Society to Advance Alzheimer's Research and Treatment (ISTAART; alz.org/ISTAART ) comprises a number of professional interest areas (PIAs), each focusing on a major scientific area associated with ADRDs. We leverage the expertise of the existing international cadre of ISTAART scientists and experts to synthesize a cross‐PIA white paper that provides both a concise “state‐of‐the‐science” report of ethnoracial factors across PIA foci and updated recommendations to address immediate needs to advance ADRD science across ethnoracial populations.

Cognitive change affecting patients after anaesthesia and surgery has been recognised for more than 100 yr. Research into cognitive change after anaesthesia and surgery accelerated in the 1980s when multiple studies utilised detailed neuropsychological testing for assessment of cognitive change after cardiac surgery. This body of work consistently documented decline in cognitive function in elderly patients after anaesthesia and surgery, and cognitive changes have been identified up to 7.5 yr afterwards. Importantly, other studies have identified that the incidence of cognitive change is similar after non-cardiac surgery. Other than the inclusion of non-surgical control groups to calculate postoperative cognitive dysfunction, research into these cognitive changes in the perioperative period has been undertaken in isolation from cognitive studies in the general population. The aim of this work is to develop similar terminology to that used in cognitive classifications of the general population for use in investigations of cognitive changes after anaesthesia and surgery. A multispecialty working group followed a modified Delphi procedure with no prespecified number of rounds comprised of three face-to-face meetings followed by online editing of draft versions. Two major classification guidelines [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, fifth edition (DSM-5) and National Institute for Aging and the Alzheimer Association (NIA-AA)] are used outside of anaesthesia and surgery, and may be useful for inclusion of biomarkers in research. For clinical purposes, it is recommended to use the DSM-5 nomenclature. The working group recommends that ‘perioperative neurocognitive disorders’ be used as an overarching term for cognitive impairment identified in the preoperative or postoperative period. This includes cognitive decline diagnosed before operation (described as neurocognitive disorder ); any form of acute event ( postoperative delirium ) and cognitive decline diagnosed up to 30 days after the procedure ( delayed neurocognitive recovery ) and up to 12 months ( postoperative neurocognitive disorder ).