A meta-analysis comparing cognitive function across the mood/psychosis diagnostic spectrum.

BACKGROUND: The nature and degree of cognitive impairments in schizoaffective disorder is not well established. The aim of this meta-analysis was to characterise cognitive functioning in schizoaffective disorder and compare it with cognition in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Schizoaffective disorder was considered both as a single category and as its two diagnostic subtypes, bipolar and depressive disorder. METHODS: Following a thorough literature search (468 records identified), we included 31 studies with a total of 1685 participants with schizoaffective disorder, 3357 with schizophrenia and 1095 with bipolar disorder. Meta-analyses were conducted for seven cognitive variables comparing performance between participants with schizoaffective disorder and schizophrenia, and between schizoaffective disorder and bipolar disorder. RESULTS: Participants with schizoaffective disorder performed worse than those with bipolar disorder (g = -0.30) and better than those with schizophrenia (g = 0.17). Meta-analyses of the subtypes of schizoaffective disorder showed cognitive impairments in participants with the depressive subtype are closer in severity to those seen in participants with schizophrenia (g = 0.08), whereas those with the bipolar subtype were more impaired than those with bipolar disorder (g = -0.23) and less impaired than those with schizophrenia (g = 0.29). Participants with the depressive subtype had worse performance than those with the bipolar subtype but this was not significant (g = 0.25, p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Cognitive impairments increase in severity from bipolar disorder to schizoaffective disorder to schizophrenia. Differences between the subtypes of schizoaffective disorder suggest combining the subtypes of schizoaffective disorder may obscure a study's results and hamper efforts to understand the relationship between this disorder and schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

Real World Patterns of Antimicrobial Use and Microbiology Investigations in Patients with Sepsis outside the Critical Care Unit: Secondary Analysis of Three Nation-Wide Point Prevalence Studies.

Recent description of the microbiology of sepsis on the wards or information on the real-life antibiotic choices used in sepsis is lacking. There is growing concern of the indiscriminate use of antibiotics and omission of microbiological investigations in the management of septic patients. We performed a secondary analysis of three annual 24-h point-prevalence studies on the general wards across all Welsh acute hospitals in years 2016-2018. Data were collected on patient demographics, as well as radiological, laboratory and microbiological data within 48-h of the study. We screened 19,453 patients over the three 24 h study periods and recruited 1252 patients who fulfilled the entry criteria. 775 (64.9%) patients were treated with intravenous antibiotics. Only in 33.65% (421/1252) of all recruited patients did healthcare providers obtain blood cultures; in 25.64% (321/1252) urine cultures; in 8.63% (108/1252) sputum cultures; in 6.79% (85/1252) wound cultures; in 15.25% (191/1252) other cultures. Out of the recruited patients, 59.1% (740/1252) fulfilled SEPSIS-3 criteria. Patients with SEPSIS-3 criteria were significantly more likely to receive antibiotics than the non-septic cohort (p < 0.0001). In a multivariable regression analysis increase in SOFA score, increased number of SIRS criteria and the use of the official sepsis screening tool were associated with antibiotic administration, however obtaining microbiology cultures was not. Our study shows that antibiotics prescription practice is not accompanied by microbiological investigations. A significant proportion of sepsis patients are still at risk of not receiving appropriate antibiotics treatment and microbiological investigations; this may be improved by a more thorough implementation of sepsis screening tools.

Sepsis-related deaths in the at-risk population on the wards: attributable fraction of mortality in a large point-prevalence study.

OBJECTIVE: Sepsis mortality is reported to be high worldwide, however recently the attributable fraction of mortality due to sepsis (AFsepsis) has been questioned. If improvements in treatment options are to be evaluated, it is important to know what proportion of deaths are potentially preventable or modifiable after a sepsis episode. The aim of the study was to establish the fraction of deaths directly related to the sepsis episode on the general wards and emergency departments. RESULTS: 839 patients were recruited over the two 24-h periods in 2016 and 2017. 521 patients fulfilled SEPSIS-3 criteria. 166 patients (32.4%) with sepsis and 56 patients (17.6%) without sepsis died within 90 days. Out of the 166 sepsis deaths 12 (7.2%) could have been directly related to sepsis, 28 (16.9%) possibly related and 96 (57.8%) were not related to sepsis. Overall AFsepsis was 24.1%. Upon analysis of the 40 deaths likely to be attributable to sepsis, we found that 31 patients (77.5%) had the Clinical Frailty Score ≥ 6, 28 (70%) had existing DNA-CPR order and 17 had limitations of care orders (42.5%).

Red-flag sepsis and SOFA identifies different patient population at risk of sepsis-related deaths on the general ward.

Controversy exists regarding the best diagnostic and screening tool for sepsis outside the intensive care unit (ICU). Sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score has been shown to be superior to systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, however, the performance of "Red Flag sepsis criteria" has not been tested formally.The aim of the study was to investigate the ability of Red Flag sepsis criteria to identify the patients at high risk of sepsis-related death in comparison to SOFA based sepsis criteria. We also investigated the comparison of Red Flag sepsis to quick SOFA (qSOFA), SIRS, and national early warning score (NEWS) scores and factors influencing patient mortality.Patients were recruited into a 24-hour point-prevalence study on the general wards and emergency departments across all Welsh acute hospitals. Inclusion criteria were: clinical suspicion of infection and NEWS 3 or above in-line with established escalation criteria in Wales. Data on Red Flag sepsis and SOFA criteria was collected together with qSOFA and SIRS scores and 90-day mortality.459 patients were recruited over a 24-hour period. 246 were positive for Red Flag sepsis, mortality 33.7% (83/246); 241 for SOFA based sepsis criteria, mortality 39.4% (95/241); 54 for qSOFA, mortality 57.4% (31/54), and 268 for SIRS, mortality 33.6% (90/268). 55 patients were not picked up by any criteria. We found that older age was associated with death with OR (95% CI) of 1.03 (1.02-1.04); higher frailty score 1.24 (1.11-1.40); DNA-CPR order 1.74 (1.14-2.65); ceiling of care 1.55 (1.02-2.33); and SOFA score of 2 and above 1.69 (1.16-2.47).The different clinical tools captured different subsets of the at-risk population, with similar sensitivity. SOFA score 2 or above was independently associated with increased risk of death at 90 days. The sequalae of infection-related organ dysfunction cannot be reliably captured based on routine clinical and physiological parameters alone.