Delirium occurring in patients with dementia is referred to as delirium superimposed on dementia (DSD). People who are older with dementia and who are institutionalized are at increased risk of developing delirium when hospitalized. In addition, their prior cognitive impairment makes detecting their delirium a challenge. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision are considered the standard reference for the diagnosis of delirium and include criteria of impairments in cognitive processes such as attention, additional cognitive disturbances, or altered level of arousal. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision does not provide guidance regarding specific tests for assessment of the cognitive process impaired in delirium. Importantly, the assessment or inclusion of preexisting cognitive impairment is also not addressed by these standards. The challenge of DSD gets more complex as types of dementia, particularly dementia with Lewy bodies, which has features of both delirium and dementia, are considered. The objective of this article is to critically review key elements for the diagnosis of DSD, including the challenge of neuropsychological assessment in patients with dementia and the influence of particular tests used to diagnose DSD. To address the challenges of DSD diagnosis, we present a framework for guiding the focus of future research efforts to develop a reliable reference standard to diagnose DSD. A key feature of a reliable reference standard will improve the ability to clinically diagnose DSD in facility-based patients and research studies.

Introduction Increased mortality has been demonstrated in older adults with COVID-19, but the effect of frailty has been unclear. Methods This multi-centre cohort study involved patients aged 18 years and older hospitalised with COVID-19, using routinely collected data. We used Cox regression analysis to assess the impact of age, frailty, and delirium on the risk of inpatient mortality, adjusting for sex, illness severity, inflammation, and co-morbidities. We used ordinal logistic regression analysis to assess the impact of age, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), and delirium on risk of increased care requirements on discharge, adjusting for the same variables. Results Data from 5,711 patients from 55 hospitals in 12 countries were included (median age 74, IQR 54–83; 55.2% male). The risk of death increased independently with increasing age (>80 vs 18–49: HR 3.57, CI 2.54–5.02), frailty (CFS 8 vs 1–3: HR 3.03, CI 2.29–4.00) inflammation, renal disease, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, but not delirium. Age, frailty (CFS 7 vs 1–3: OR 7.00, CI 5.27–9.32), delirium, dementia, and mental health diagnoses were all associated with increased risk of higher care needs on discharge. The likelihood of adverse outcomes increased across all grades of CFS from 4 to 9. Conclusions Age and frailty are independently associated with adverse outcomes in COVID-19. Risk of increased care needs was also increased in survivors of COVID-19 with frailty or older age.

No abstract

Older people are disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has had a profound impact on research as well as clinical service delivery. This commentary identifies key challenges and opportunities in continuing to conduct research with and for older people, both during and after the current pandemic. It shares opinions from responders to an international survey, a range of academic authors and opinions from specialist societies. Priorities in COVID-19 research include its specific presentation in older people, consequences for physical, cognitive and psychological health, treatments and vaccines, rehabilitation, supporting care homes more effectively, the impact of social distancing, lockdown policies and system reconfiguration to provide best health and social care for older people. COVID-19 research needs to be inclusive, particularly involving older people living with frailty, cognitive impairment or multimorbidity, and those living in care homes. Non-COVID-19 related research for older people remains of critical importance and must not be neglected in the rush to study the pandemic. Profound changes are required in the way that we design and deliver research for older people in a world where movement and face-to-face contact are restricted, but we also highlight new opportunities such as the ability to collaborate more widely and to design and deliver research efficiently at scale and speed.

BackgroundDelirium is a common severe neuropsychiatric condition secondary to physical illness, which predominantly affects older adults in hospital. Prior to this study, the UK point prevalence of delirium was unknown. We set out to ascertain the point prevalence of delirium across UK hospitals and how this relates to adverse outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a prospective observational study across 45 UK acute care hospitals. Older adults aged 65 years and older were screened and assessed for evidence of delirium on World Delirium Awareness Day (14th March 2018). We included patients admitted within the previous 48 h, excluding critical care admissions.ResultsThe point prevalence of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual on Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) delirium diagnosis was 14.7% (222/1507). Delirium presence was associated with higher Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS): CFS 4–6 (frail) (OR 4.80, CI 2.63–8.74), 7–9 (very frail) (OR 9.33, CI 4.79–18.17), compared to 1–3 (fit). However, higher CFS was associated with reduced delirium recognition (7–9 compared to 1–3; OR 0.16, CI 0.04–0.77). In multivariable analyses, delirium was associated with increased length of stay (+ 3.45 days, CI 1.75–5.07) and increased mortality (OR 2.43, CI 1.44–4.09) at 1 month. Screening for delirium was associated with an increased chance of recognition (OR 5.47, CI 2.67–11.21).ConclusionsDelirium is prevalent in older adults in UK hospitals but remains under-recognised. Frailty is strongly associated with the development of delirium, but delirium is less likely to be recognised in frail patients. The presence of delirium is associated with increased mortality and length of stay at one month. A national programme to increase screening has the potential to improve recognition.

Important predictors of poor outcomes in patients with delirium have been demonstrated. These could be used in clinical practice to focus direct management and guide discussions regarding prognosis. These results also demonstrate a number of key unknowns, where further research to explore delirium prognosis is recommended and is vital to improve understanding and management of this condition.

BackgroundDelirium is increasingly considered to be an important determinant of trajectories of cognitive decline. Therefore, analyses of existing cohort studies measuring cognitive outcomes could benefit from methods to ascertain a retrospective delirium diagnosis. This study aimed to develop and validate such a method for delirium detection using routine medical records in UK and Ireland.MethodsA point prevalence study of delirium provided the reference-standard ratings for delirium diagnosis. Blinded to study results, clinical vignettes were compiled from participants' medical records in a standardised manner, describing any relevant delirium symptoms recorded in the whole case record for the period leading up to case-ascertainment. An expert panel rated each vignette as unlikely, possible, or probable delirium and disagreements were resolved by consensus.ResultsFrom 95 case records, 424 vignettes were abstracted by 5 trained clinicians. There were 29 delirium cases according to the reference standard. Median age of subjects was 76.6 years (interquartile range 54.6 to 82.5). Against the original study DSM-IV diagnosis, the chart abstraction method gave a positive likelihood ratio (LR) of 7.8 (95% CI 5.7–12.0) and the negative LR of 0.45 (95% CI 0.40–0.47) for probable delirium (sensitivity 0.58 (95% CI 0.53–0.62); specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.90–0.95); AUC 0.86 (95% CI 0.82–0.89)). The method diagnosed possible delirium with positive LR 3.5 (95% CI 2.9–4.3) and negative LR 0.15 (95% CI 0.11–0.21) (sensitivity 0.89 (95% CI 0.85–0.91); specificity 0.75 (95% CI 0.71–0.79); AUC 0.86 (95% CI 0.80–0.89)).ConclusionsThis chart abstraction method can retrospectively diagnose delirium in hospitalised patients with good accuracy. This has potential for retrospectively identifying delirium in cohort studies where routine medical records are available. This example of record linkage between hospitalisations and epidemiological data may lead to further insights into the inter-relationship between acute illness, as an exposure, for a range of chronic health outcomes.

Background Delirium is common, distressing and associated with poor outcomes. Previous studies investigating the impact of delirium on cognitive outcomes have been limited by incomplete ascertainment of baseline cognition or lack of prospective delirium assessments. This study quantified the association between delirium and cognitive function over time by prospectively ascertaining delirium in a cohort aged ≥ 65 years in whom baseline cognition had previously been established. Methods For 12 months, we assessed participants from the Cognitive Function and Ageing Study II-Newcastle for delirium daily during hospital admissions. At 1-year, we assessed cognitive decline and dementia in those with and without delirium. We evaluated the effect of delirium (including its duration and number of episodes) on cognitive function over time, independently of baseline cognition and illness severity. Results Eighty two of 205 participants recruited developed delirium in hospital (40%). One-year outcome data were available for 173 participants: 18 had a new dementia diagnosis, 38 had died. Delirium was associated with cognitive decline (−1.8 Mini-Mental State Examination points [95% CI –3.5 to –0.2]) and an increased risk of new dementia diagnosis at follow up (OR 8.8 [95% CI 1.9–41.4]). More than one episode and more days with delirium (>5 days) were associated with worse cognitive outcomes. Conclusions Delirium increases risk of future cognitive decline and dementia, independent of illness severity and baseline cognition, with more episodes associated with worse cognitive outcomes. Given that delirium has been shown to be preventable in some cases, we propose that delirium is a potentially modifiable risk factor for dementia.