Spanish list of potentially inappropriate drugs in the elderly (ES-PIA project).

PURPOSE: In the last decades, different criteria have been developed for detecting inappropriate prescription in older patients. In Spain, translations and adaptations of international lists are available but it would be necessary a national list which could cope with the peculiarities of our health system, existing pharmaceutical market, and prescription habits. We propose in this project the creation of a Spanish potentially inappropriate drugs list which could be applicable in our clinical scenario. METHODS: We use a Delphi method involving 25 experts from different backgrounds (Clinical Pharmacology, Geriatrics, Rational Use of Drugs and Pharmacy, Primary Care and Pharmacoepidemiology, and Pharmacovigilance) that were asked to participate in two-round questionnaires. For analysis, current recommendations of Worth and Pigni were applied, and every statement was classified into one of three groups: strong, moderate, or low agreement. Statements with strong agreement were accepted to be part of the inadequate prescription list. Moderate agreement statements were selected to enter the second questionnaire, and statements with low agreement were further analyzed to determine if it was due to heterogeneity or due to dispersion in the answers. RESULTS: The first questionnaire consisted of 160 proposed sentences, of which 106 reached a high agreement, 32 a moderate agreement, and 22 a low agreement. All sentences proposed in the second questionnaire reached a strong agreement. The total accepted sentences were 138. CONCLUSIONS: We offer a list of inadequate prescription in older patients adapted to the Spanish pharmacopeia and according to the prescription habits in our environment.

Síndrome neuroléptico maligno tras suspensión del tratamiento con levodopa / Neuroleptic malignant syndrome after withdrawal of levopoda

No disponible

Effect of the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus on the development of cognitive impairment and dementia.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of cognitive impairment and dementia is an important public health goal. Epidemiological evidence shows a relationship between cognitive impairment and Type 2 diabetes mellitus. The risk of dementia increases with duration of disease. This updated systematic review investigated the effect on cognitive function of the type of treatment and level of metabolic control in people with Type 2 diabetes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different strategies for managing Type 2 diabetes mellitus on cognitive function and the incidence of dementia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS (the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (CDCIG)), the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS on 15 October 2016. ALOIS contains records from all major health care databases, (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS), as well as from many trials' registers and grey literature sources. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared two or more different treatments for Type 2 diabetes mellitus and in which cognitive function was measured at baseline and after treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the included RCTs. We pooled data for comparable trials and estimated the effects of treatment by using risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs), according to the nature of the outcome. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We identified seven eligible studies but only four provided data we could include in efficacy analyses. Two of these studies compared intensive versus standard glycaemic control and two compared different pharmacological treatments. All studies were at unclear risk of bias in at least two domains and one large study was at high risk of performance and detection bias.(a) Two studies with 13,934 participants at high cardiovascular risk provided efficacy data on intensive versus standard glycaemic control. A third study with 1791 participants provided additional data on hypoglycaemic episodes and mortality. There is probably no difference between treatment groups in the number of participants who decline by at least 3 points on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) over five years (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; 1 study; n = 11,140; moderate-quality evidence); and there may also be little or no difference in the incidence of dementia (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.85; 1 study; n = 11,140; low-quality evidence). From another study, there was probably little or no difference in MMSE score after 40 months (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.16; 1 study; n = 2794; moderate quality evidence). Participants exposed to the intensive glycaemic control strategy probably experience more episodes of severe hypoglycaemia than those who have standard treatment (RR 2.18, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.14; 2 studies; n = 12,827; moderate-quality evidence). The evidence from these trials suggests that the intensity of glycaemic control may have little or no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.13; 3 studies; n = 15,888; low-quality evidence).(b) One study with 156 participants compared glibenclamide (glyburide) with repaglinide. There may be a small advantage of glibenclamide on global cognitive function measured with the MMSE after 12 months (MD -0.90, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.12; low-quality evidence). No data were reported on the incidence of dementia, hypoglycaemic events or all-cause mortality.(c) One study with 145 participants compared rosiglitazone plus metformin to glibenclamide (glyburide) plus metformin over 24 weeks. It reported only on cognitive subdomains and not on global cognitive function, incidence of MCI or dementia, hypoglycaemic events or all causes of mortality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no good evidence that any specific treatment or treatment strategy for Type 2 diabetes can prevent or delay cognitive impairment. The best available evidence related to the comparison of intensive with standard glycaemic control strategies. Here there was moderate-quality evidence that the strategies do not differ in their effect on global cognitive functioning over 40 to 60 months.

Benzodiazepines for delirium.

BACKGROUND: Delirium occurs in 30% of hospitalised patients and is associated with prolonged hospital stay and increased morbidity and mortality. The results of uncontrolled studies have been unclear, with some suggesting that benzodiazepines may be useful in controlling non-alcohol related delirium. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and incidence of adverse effects of benzodiazapines in the treatment of non-alcohol withdrawal related delirium. SEARCH STRATEGY: The trials were identified from a search of the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group on 26 February 2008 using the search terms: (deliri* or confusion) and (benzo* or lorazepam," or "alprazolam" or "ativan" or diazepam or valium or chlordiazepam).The CDCIG Specialized Register contains records from major health databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, LILACS) as well as many ongoing trial databases and grey literature sources. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials had to be unconfounded, randomized and with concealed allocation of subjects. Additionally, selected trials had to have assessed patients pre- and post-treatment. Where crossover design was present, only data from the first part of the trial were to be examined. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers extracted data from included trials. Data were pooled where possible, and were to be analysed using appropriate statistical methods. Odd ratios or average differences were to be calculated. Only "intention to treat" data were to be included. MAIN RESULTS: Only one trial satisfying the selection criteria could be identified. In this trial, comparing the effect of the benzodiazepine, lorazepam, with dexmedetomidine, a selective alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonist, on delirium among mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients, dexmedetomidine treatment was associated with an increased number of delirium- and coma-free days compared with lorazepam treated patients (dexmedetomidine patients, average seven days; lorazepam patients, average three days; P = 0.01). One partially controlled study showed no advantage of a benzodiazepine (alprazolam) compared with neuroleptics in treating agitation associated with delirium, and another partially controlled study showed decreased effectiveness of a benzodiazepine (lorazepam), and increased adverse effects, compared with neuroleptics (haloperidol, chlorpromazine) for the treatment of acute confusion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No adequately controlled trials could be found to support the use of benzodiazepines in the treatment of non-alcohol withdrawal related delirium among hospitalised patients, and at this time benzodiazepines cannot be recommended for the control of this condition. Because of the scarcity of trials with randomization of patients, placebo control, and adequate concealment of allocation of subjects, it is clear that further research is required to determine the role of benzodiazepines in the treatment of non-alcohol withdrawal related delirium.

Benzodiazepines for delirium.

BACKGROUND: Delirium occurs in 30% of hospitalised patients and is associated with prolonged hospital stay and increased morbidity and mortality. The results of uncontrolled studies have been unclear, with some suggesting that benzodiazepines may be useful in controlling non-alcohol related delirium. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and incidence of adverse effects of benzodiazapines in the treatment of non-alcohol withdrawal related delirium. SEARCH STRATEGY: The trials were identified from a search of the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group on 26 February 2008 using the search terms: (deliri* or confusion) and (benzo* or lorazepam," or "alprazolam" or "ativan" or diazepam or valium or chlordiazepam).The CDCIG Specialized Register contains records from major health databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, LILACS) as well as many ongoing trial databases and grey literature sources. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials had to be unconfounded, randomized and with concealed allocation of subjects. Additionally, selected trials had to have assessed patients pre- and post-treatment. Where crossover design was present, only data from the first part of the trial were to be examined. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers extracted data from included trials. Data were pooled where possible, and were to be analysed using appropriate statistical methods. Odd ratios or average differences were to be calculated. Only "intention to treat" data were to be included. MAIN RESULTS: Only one trial satisfying the selection criteria could be identified. In this trial, comparing the effect of the benzodiazepine, lorazepam, with dexmedetomidine, a selective alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonist, on delirium among mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients, dexmedetomidine treatment was associated with an increased number of delirium- and coma-free days compared with lorazepam treated patients (dexmedetomidine patients, average seven days; lorazepam patients, average three days; P = 0.01). One partially controlled study showed no advantage of a benzodiazepine (alprazolam) compared with neuroleptics in treating agitation associated with delirium, and another partially controlled study showed decreased effectiveness of a benzodiazepine (lorazepam), and increased adverse effects, compared with neuroleptics (haloperidol, chlorpromazine) for the treatment of acute confusion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No adequately controlled trials could be found to support the use of benzodiazepines in the treatment of non-alcohol withdrawal related delirium among hospitalised patients, and at this time benzodiazepines cannot be recommended for the control of this condition. Because of the scarcity of trials with randomization of patients, placebo control, and adequate concealment of allocation of subjects, it is clear that further research is required to determine the role of benzodiazepines in the treatment of non-alcohol withdrawal related delirium.