No abstract

DSM-IV is the most inclusive diagnostic method for delirium, while DSM-5 is the most restrictive. In addition, these classification systems identify different cases of delirium. This could have clinical, financial, and research implications. However, both classification systems have significant agreement in the identification of the same concept (delirium). Clarity of diagnosis is required for classification but also further research considering the relevance in predicting outcomes can allow for more detailed evaluation of the DSM-5 criteria.

Latent inhibition (LI) refers to a retardation of learning about the consequences of a stimulus when that stimulus has been passively presented a number of times without reinforcement. Acute positive-symptom schizophrenics, normal volunteers who score high on questionnaire measures of schizotypy and non-patients or animals treated with dopamine agonists show reduced LI. Neuroleptic drugs, such as haloperidol, administered at low doses, potentiate LI and effectively reverse disruption of LI induced by dopamine agonists in animals. However, a high dose of haloperidol, administered on its own, has been found to reduce LI. We examined the effects on LI of acute oral administration of an indirect dopamine-agonist, d-amphetamine (5 mg), and a nonselective dopamine receptor antagonist, haloperidol (5 mg), in normal male volunteers, using an associative learning task. Replicating previous reports, we found that d-amphetamine reduced LI; haloperidol also reduced LI, but only in subjects who scored low on the Psychoticism scale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. In a subsequent study, no effect was found of 2 mg oral haloperidol administration on LI. The effect of 5 mg haloperidol on LI is interpreted as similar to that observed with a high dose of haloperidol in rats.

The effects of an indirect dopamine-agonist, d-amphetamine, and a non-selective dopamine receptor antagonist, haloperidol, were investigated in normal male volunteers using a between-subjects double-blind design in a procedural learning task, thought mainly to involve unconscious/automatic learning. The results showed: (1) d-amphetamine facilitated response speed, whereas haloperidol inhibited it, in comparison to placebo; (2) the linear increase in procedural learning corresponded with pharmacological manipulation of degree of dopaminergic activity, i.e. subjects given haloperidol showed the least, and subjects given d-amphetamine the greatest, procedural learning. The implications of these findings are discussed in relation to investigation of abnormalities of procedural learning processes in schizophrenia.

Aim: Impaired attention is a core diagnostic feature for delirium. The present study examined the discriminating properties for patients with delirium versus those with dementia and/or no neurocognitive disorder of four objective tests of attention: digit span, vigilance "A" test, serial 7s subtraction and months of the year backwards together with global clinical subjective rating of attention.Methods: This as a prospective study of older patients admitted consecutively in a general hospital. Participants were assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method, Delirium Rating Scale-98 Revised and Montreal Cognitive Assessment scales, and months of the year backwards. Pre-existing dementia was diagnosed according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition criteria. Results:The sample consisted of 200 participants (mean age 81.1 ± 6.5 years; 50% women; pre-existing cognitive impairment in 126 [63%]). A total of 34 (17%) were identified with delirium (Confusion Assessment Method +). The five approaches to assessing attention had statistically significant correlations (P < 0.05). Discriminant analysis showed that clinical subjective rating of attention in conjunction with the months of the year backwards had the best discriminatory ability to identify Confusion Assessment Method-defined delirium, and to discriminate patients with delirium from those with dementia and/or normal cognition. Both of these approaches had high sensitivity, but modest specificity. Conclusion:Objective tests are useful for prediction of non-delirium, but lack specificity for a delirium diagnosis. Global attentional deficits were more indicative of delirium than deficits of specific domains of attention. Geriatr