Pharmacologic treatment of delirium symptoms: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted an updated, comprehensive, and contemporary systematic review to examine the efficacy of existing pharmacologic agents employed for management of delirium symptoms among hospitalized adults. METHODS: Searches of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to May 2021 were performed to identify studies investigating efficacy of pharmacologic agents for management of delirium. RESULTS: Of 11,424 articles obtained from searches, a total of 33 articles (N = 3030 participants) of randomized or non-randomized trials, in which pharmacologic treatment was compared to active comparator, placebo, or no treatment, met all criteria and were included in this review. Medications used for management of delirium symptoms included antipsychotic medications (N = 27), alpha-2 agonists (N = 5), benzodiazepines (N = 2), antidepressants (n = 1), acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (N = 2), melatonin (N = 2), opioids (N = 1), and antiemetics (N = 2). Despite somewhat mixed findings and a relative lack of high-quality trials, it appears that antipsychotic medications (e.g., haloperidol, olanzapine, risperidone, or quetiapine) and dexmedetomidine have the potential to improve delirium outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacologic agents can reduce delirium symptoms (e.g., agitation) in some hospitalized patients. Additional double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials are critically needed to investigate the efficacy of pharmacologic agents for diverse hospitalized populations (e.g., post-surgical patients, patients at the end-of-life, or in intensive care units).

Peer support in patients with hematologic malignancies: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Peer support has been utilized and associated with clinical outcomes (e.g., improved mood) in patients with solid malignancies. However, to date, there is minimal literature examining peer support among patients with hematologic malignancies and/or patients who have undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). METHODS: In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we completed a systematic review using five databases to assess the relationship between peer support and clinical outcomes (e.g., distress, physical symptoms) among patients with hematologic malignancies or HSCT recipients. RESULTS: The eight included studies examined peer support in a total of 574 patients. Four intervention studies highlighted the potential benefits of peer support, such as improved physical symptoms. Two studies, one interventional and one cross-sectional, highlighted the need for more empirically based peer support interventions in the HSCT population. CONCLUSION: Among patients with hematologic malignancies and/or HSCT recipients, there is a dearth of literature examining the association between peer support and outcomes, although few studies have described a positive association between peer support and better health outcomes. More randomized controlled studies are needed to better understand the role of peer support and peer support interventions on outcomes in these vulnerable populations.