Opioid Analgesic Use among Patients with Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid analgesics are often used to manage moderate to severe pain. A significant proportion of patients taking opioids have compromised kidney function. This systematic review aimed to examine the available evidence on the safety and analgesic effect of opioid use in adults with kidney disease. METHODS: We searched eight electronic databases from inception to January 26, 2023. Published original research articles in English reporting on opioid use and pharmacokinetic data among adults with reduced renal function were included. Article screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted by at least two investigators independently. This review was registered prospectively on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42020159091). RESULTS: There were 32 observational studies included, 14 of which reported on morphine use, three involved fentanyl use, two involved hydromorphone use, and 13 articles reported on other opioids including codeine, dihydrocodeine, and buprenorphine. CONCLUSION: There is limited and low-quality evidence to inform the safety and analgesic effect of opioid use in reduced renal function. Morphine remains the opioid for which there is the most evidence available on safety and analgesic effect in the context of renal disease. Greater caution and consideration of potential risks and benefits should be applied when using other opioids. Further high-quality studies examining clinical outcomes associated with the use of different opioids and opioid doses in renal disease are warranted.

The detection of delirium in admitted oncology patients: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: Delirium leads to poor outcomes for patients and careers and has negative impacts on staff and service provision. Cancer rates in elderly populations are increasing and frequently, cancer diagnoses are a co-morbidity in the context of frailty. Data relating to the epidemiology of delirium in hospitalised cancer patients are limited. With the overarching purpose of improving delirium detection and reducing the morbidity and mortality of delirium in cancer patients, we reviewed the epidemiological data and approach to delirium detection in hospitalised, adult oncology patients. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS databases were searched from January 1996 to August 2017. Key concepts were delirium, cancer, inpatient oncology and delirium screening/detection. RESULTS: Of 896 unique studies identified; 91 met full-text review criteria. Of 12 eligible studies, four applied recommended case ascertainment methods to all patients, three used delirium screening tools alone or with case ascertainment tools sub-optimally applied, four used tools not recommended for delirium screening or case ascertainment, one used the Confusion Assessment Method with insufficient information to determine if it met case ascertainment status. Two studies presented delirium incidence rates: 7.8%, and 17% respectively. Prevalence rates ranged from 18-33% for general medical or oncology wards; 42-58% for Acute Palliative Care Units (APCU); and for older cancer patients: 22% and 57%. Three studies reported reversibility; 26% and 49% respectively (APCUs) and 30% (older patients with cancer). Six studies had a low risk of bias according to QUADAS-2 criteria; all studies in the APCU setting were rated at higher risk of bias. Tool selection, study flow and recruitment bias reduced study quality. CONCLUSION: The knowledge base for improved interventions and clinical care for adults with cancer and delirium is limited by the low number of studies. A clear distinction between screening tools and diagnostic tools is required to provide an improved understanding of the rates of delirium and its reversibility in this population.

Delirium screening tools validated in the context of palliative care: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a distressing neuropsychiatric disorder affecting patients in palliative care. Although many delirium screening tools exist, their utility, and validation within palliative care settings has not undergone systematic review. AIM: To systematically review studies that validate delirium screening tools conducted in palliative care settings. DESIGN: Systematic review with narrative synthesis (PROSPERO ID: CRD42019125481). A risk of bias assessment via Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 was performed. DATA SOURCES: Five electronic databases were systematically searched (January 1, 1982-May 3, 2020). Quantitative studies validating a screening tool in adult palliative care patient populations were included. Studies involving alcohol withdrawal, critical or perioperative care were excluded. RESULTS: Dual-reviewer screening of 3749 unique titles and abstracts identified 95 studies for full-text review and of these, 17 studies of 14 screening tools were included (n = 3496 patients). Data analyses revealed substantial heterogeneity in patient demographics and variability in screening and diagnostic practices that limited generalizability between study populations and care settings. A risk of bias assessment revealed methodological and reporting deficits, with only 3/17 studies at low risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: The processes of selecting a delirium screening tool and determining optimal screening practices in palliative care are complex. One tool is unlikely to fit the needs of the entire palliative care population across all palliative care settings. Further research should be directed at evaluating and/or adapting screening tools and practices to fit the needs of specific palliative care settings and populations.

"SQiD, the Single Question in Delirium; can a single question help clinicians to detect delirium in hospitalised cancer patients?" running heading Single Question in Delirium" (Bcan-D-20-01665).

AIM: A serious syndrome for cancer in-patients, delirium risk increases with age and medical acuity. Screening tools exist but detection is frequently delayed or missed. We test the 'Single Question in Delirium' (SQiD), in comparison to psychiatrist clinical interview. METHODS: Inpatients in two comprehensive cancer centres were prospectively screened. Clinical staff asked informants to respond to the SQiD: "Do you feel that [patient's name] has been more confused lately?". The primary endpoint was negative predictive value (NPV) of the SQiD versus psychiatrist diagnosis (Diagnostic and Statistics Manual criteria). Secondary endpoints included: NPV of the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), sensitivity, specificity and Cohen's Kappa coefficient. RESULTS: Between May 2012 and July 2015, the SQiD plus CAM was applied to 122 patients; 73 had the SQiD and psychiatrist interview. Median age was 65 yrs. (interquartile range 54-74), 46% were female; median length of hospital stay was 12 days (5-18 days). Major cancer types were lung (19%), gastric or other upper GI (15%) and breast (14%). 70% of participants had stage 4 cancer. Diagnostic values were similar between the SQiD (NPV = 74, 95% CI 67-81; kappa = 0.32) and CAM (NPV = 72, 95% CI 67-77, kappa = 0.32), compared with psychiatrist interview. Overall the CAM identified only a small number of delirious cases but all were true positives. The specificity of the SQiD was 87% (74-95) The SQiD had higher sensitivity than CAM (44% [95% CI 41-80] vs 26% [10-48]). CONCLUSION: The SQiD, administered by bedside clinical staff, was feasible and its psychometric properties are now better understood. The SQiD can contribute to delirium detection and clinical care for hospitalised cancer patients.