RESUMO
Background Delirium is a syndrome of acute brain failure that represents a change from an individual's baseline cognitive functioning characterized by deficits in attention and multiple aspects of cognition that fluctuate in severity over time. The symptomatic management of delirium's behavioral manifestations remains difficult. The alpha-2 agonists, dexmedetomidine and clonidine, are efficacious, but their potential cardiovascular adverse effects limit their utilization. Guanfacine is an oral alpha-2 agonist with a lower potential for such adverse outcomes; however, its use in delirium has not been studied. Methods A retrospective descriptive analysis of guanfacine for managing hyperactive or mixed delirium at Tampa General Hospital from January 2020 to October 2020 was conducted. The primary outcome was the time reduction in acute sedative administration. Secondary outcomes included renewed participation in physical therapy or occupational therapy (PT/OT), decreased opioid use, and an incidence of cardiovascular adverse effects. Results One hundred forty-nine patients were identified as having received guanfacine for managing delirium during the study period. All experienced a reduction in acute sedative use after the initiation of guanfacine. In 93 patients receiving PT/OT and no longer participating due to behavioral agitation, 74% had a documented renewal of services within four days. Of 112 patients on opioids, 70% experienced a 25% reduction in opioid administration within four days. No patients experienced consecutive episodes of hypotension that required a change in their clinical care. Two patients experienced a single episode of consecutive bradycardia that led to the discontinuation of guanfacine. Conclusions Based on our retrospective study, guanfacine is a well-tolerated medication for the management of delirium. Even in medically and critically ill patients, cardiovascular adverse events were rare with guanfacine. Patients treated with guanfacine experienced decreased acute sedative use for behavioral agitation. Additionally, patients treated with guanfacine received fewer opioids and were better able to participate in PT/OT. Future studies with prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled designs are warranted to evaluate this promising intervention for delirium further.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Antidepressant augmentation strategies for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) are discussed here with an analysis of patient out-of-pocket costs for various medications. The choice of agent ranges from newer atypical antipsychotics (aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, quetiapine) to older agents including buspirone, liothyronine (T3), and lithium. We sought to better understand the differences among these agents to aid in clinical decision making. METHODS: We conducted a focused review of the support for each of the aforementioned agents in antidepressant augmentation. We then compared the approximate out-of-pocket cost for each medication during a typical augmentation trial using the typical prescription costs on ClinCalc.com derived from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. We calculated the cost to achieve response for one patient with TRD based on the number needed to treat (NNT). FINDINGS: We observed significant variance in cost to achieve response based on the NNT derived from our review of each of the medications. For example, the overall out-of-pocket cost for one patient to achieve response with aripiprazole (the costliest generic agent) could cover lithium prescriptions for 4 to 5 patients with TRD to achieve response. Although brexpiprazole was estimated separately because of its brand name cost, we estimated that 324 patients receiving lithium could achieve response for same cost of single patient receiving brexpiprazole. IMPLICATIONS: These findings suggest that among augmentation agents, there are differences in cost that may be highly important in clinical decision making. Other issues of medication monitoring may incur additional costs, and brand name medications offer significantly greater complexity and potential out-of-pocket costs to patients. The use of lithium as a first-line agent for TRD should be considered based on low cost, lowest NNT, and data in support of its efficacy.
