The primary aim was to systematically review the literature regarding the effectiveness of clozapine in reducing symptoms of primary psychotic and bipolar disorders in older adults. The secondary aim was to describe other reported patient and caregiver outcomes of clozapine treatment in older adults.

MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, ProQuest, and PubMed databases were searched according to PRISMA guidelines for original empirical research examining the effectiveness of clozapine in adults aged 65 years or more with primary psychotic and bipolar disorders. Identified studies were assessed for methodological quality using the QualSyst tool.

1121 records were screened, of which 7 studies met the inclusion criteria. In total, 128 subjects participated in the included studies (111 of whom were from a single study), with an age range of 65–86 years, and diagnoses including schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, and delusional disorder. Indications for clozapine use included treatment resistance and inability to tolerate other treatments. While six out of seven studies reported some improvement on the primary measure of psychopathology after treatment with clozapine, the group effects were modest and based on low-level evidence. Additional reported outcomes included discharge destination, death, and relapse. Most of the included studies were only of adequate methodological quality, with significant risks of bias identified.

Clozapine may have positive effects for primary psychotic and bipolar illnesses in some older adults, but the group effects reported were modest and based on low-level evidence studies with methodological limitations. Based on these findings, clinical decision-making about whether or not to trial clozapine should involve an individualized analysis of potential benefits and risks in collaboration with patients and their families and caregivers.

This systematic review aims to identify published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the use of anticonvulsants for the prevention and/or treatment of delirium among older adults.

A comprehensive search of databases: MEDLINE ALL (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled was conducted.

The search identified four RCTs that evaluated the use of anticonvulsants among older adults with delirium. One RCT evaluated the perioperative use of gabapentin among individuals undergoing spinal surgery and the development of postoperative delirium. One RCT evaluated the relationship between the use of perioperative gabapentin and the development of postoperative delirium among individuals undergoing spinal surgery and hip and knee arthroplasty. Two post-hoc analyses of RCTs evaluated the use of gabapentin and pregabalin among individuals undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA). The perioperative use of gabapentin reduced the incidence of postoperative delirium among older adults undergoing spinal surgery. The perioperative use of gabapentin did not reduce the rates, severity or duration of postoperative delirium among older adults who were undergoing spine and hip and knee arthroplasty. The perioperative use of gabapentin did not reduce the incidence or duration of postoperative delirium among older adults undergoing elective TKA. The perioperative use of pregabalin did not reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium among older adults undergoing elective THA. Gabapentin and pregabalin were well tolerated among the individuals enrolled in these trials. There were no RCTs identified that evaluated the use of other anticonvulsants for the prevention and/or treatment of delirium among older adults.

Based on current evidence, the routine use of anticonvulsants for the prevention and/or treatment of delirium among older adults cannot be recommended.

To examine the costs and cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine compared to placebo over 12-week follow-up.

Economic evaluation in a double-blind randomized controlled trial of mirtazapine vs. placebo.

Community settings and care homes in 26 UK centers.

People with probable or possible Alzheimer’s disease and agitation.

Primary outcome included incremental cost of participants’ health and social care per 6-point difference in CMAI score at 12 weeks. Secondary cost-utility analyses examined participants’ and unpaid carers’ gain in quality-adjusted life years (derived from EQ-5D-5L, DEMQOL-Proxy-U, and DEMQOL-U) from the health and social care and societal perspectives.

One hundred and two participants were allocated to each group; 81 mirtazapine and 90 placebo participants completed a 12-week assessment (87 and 95, respectively, completed a 6-week assessment). Mirtazapine and placebo groups did not differ on mean CMAI scores or health and social care costs over the study period, before or after adjustment for center and living arrangement (independent living/care home). On the primary outcome, neither mirtazapine nor placebo could be considered a cost-effective strategy with a high level of confidence. Groups did not differ in terms of participant self- or proxy-rated or carer self-rated quality of life scores, health and social care or societal costs, before or after adjustment.

On cost-effectiveness grounds, the use of mirtazapine cannot be recommended for agitated behaviors in people living with dementia. Effective and cost-effective medications for agitation in dementia remain to be identified in cases where non-pharmacological strategies for managing agitation have been unsuccessful.

This study examined the effectiveness of an integrated care pathway (ICP), including a medication algorithm, to treat agitation associated with dementia.

Analyses of data (both prospective and retrospective) collected during routine clinical care.

Geriatric Psychiatry Inpatient Unit.

Patients with agitation associated with dementia (n = 28) who were treated as part of the implementation of the ICP and those who received treatment-as-usual (TAU) (n = 28) on the same inpatient unit before the implementation of the ICP. Two control groups of patients without dementia treated on the same unit contemporaneously to the TAU (n = 17) and ICP groups (n = 36) were included to account for any secular trends.

ICP.

Cohen Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI), Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPIQ), and assessment of motor symptoms were completed during the ICP implementation. Chart review was used to obtain length of inpatient stay and rates of psychotropic polypharmacy.

Patients in the ICP group experienced a reduction in their scores on the CMAI and NPIQ and no changes in motor symptoms. Compared to the TAU group, the ICP group had a higher chance of an earlier discharge from hospital, a lower rate of psychotropic polypharmacy, and a lower chance of having a fall during hospital stay. In contrast, these outcomes did not differ between the two control groups.

These preliminary results suggest that an ICP can be used effectively to treat agitation associated with dementia in inpatients. A larger randomized study is needed to confirm these results.

Shared decision making is the process in which the person, their representative, and health care professional share information with each other, participate in the decision-making process, and agree on a course of action. At present, very little is known about shared decision making (SDM) in medication management from the perspective of long-term care facility residents. The objective of this study was to identify residents’ beliefs, motivation, and aspects of the environment that facilitate or impede SDM.

A qualitative study was conducted using face-to-face semi-structured interviews, and data analysis was carried out using a thematic approach.

Six long-term care facilities in Sydney, Australia.

Thirty-one residents.

Enablers to resident involvement in SDM were resident beliefs in exercising their right to take part in medication-related decisions, preference to maintain control over decisions, and motivation to raise concern about medication. Residents were not motivated to be involved in SDM if they believed they had no control over life circumstance, perceived that medications were necessary, or experienced no problems with their medications. Participation in SDM was hindered by limitations in opportunities for resident involvement, engagement with staff and primary care physician to discuss issues related to medications, and continuity of care with their regular physician.

This study highlights that the residents’ beliefs in control over decisions and concerns about medication are a significant function of the SDM process. It is important that residents are given the choice to take part in SDM, their beliefs and values regarding SDM are understood, and the culture of the care facility respects residents’ right to participate in SDM.