BACKGROUND: The International Psychogeriatric Association (IPA) published a provisional consensus definition of agitation in cognitive disorders in 2015. As proposed by the original work group, we summarize the use and validation of criteria in order to remove \"provisional\" from the definition.
METHODS: This report summarizes information from the academic literature, research resources, clinical guidelines, expert surveys, and patient and family advocates on the experience of use of the IPA definition. The information was reviewed by a working group of topic experts to create a finalized definition.
RESULTS: We present a final definition which closely resembles the provisional definition with modifications to address special circumstances. We also summarize the development of tools for diagnosis and assessment of agitation and propose strategies for dissemination and integration into precision diagnosis and agitation interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: The IPA definition of agitation captures a common and important entity that is recognized by many stakeholders. Dissemination of the definition will permit broader detection and can advance research and best practices for care of patients with agitation.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an agitation reduction and prevention algorithm is intended to guide implementation of the definition of agitation developed by the International Psychogeriatric Association (IPA).
METHODS: Review of literature on treatment guidelines and recommended algorithms; algorithm development through reiterative integration of research information and expert opinion.
METHODS: IPA Agitation Workgroup.
METHODS: IPA panel of international experts on agitation.
METHODS: Integration of available information into a comprehensive algorithm.
METHODS: None.
RESULTS: The IPA Agitation Work Group recommends the Investigate, Plan, and Act (IPA) approach to agitation reduction and prevention. A thorough investigation of the behavior is followed by planning and acting with an emphasis on shared decision-making; the success of the plan is evaluated and adjusted as needed. The process is repeated until agitation is reduced to an acceptable level and prevention of recurrence is optimized. Psychosocial interventions are part of every plan and are continued throughout the process. Pharmacologic interventions are organized into panels of choices for nocturnal/circadian agitation; mild-moderate agitation or agitation with prominent mood features; moderate-severe agitation; and severe agitation with threatened harm to the patient or others. Therapeutic alternatives are presented for each panel. The occurrence of agitation in a variety of venues-home, nursing home, emergency department, hospice-and adjustments to the therapeutic approach are presented.
CONCLUSIONS: The IPA definition of agitation is operationalized into an agitation management algorithm that emphasizes the integration of psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions, reiterative assessment of response to treatment, adjustment of therapeutic approaches to reflect the clinical situation, and shared decision-making.

Excited delirium syndrome (ExDS) is a controversial and disputed diagnosis involving altered mentation, agitation, and, frequently, substance abuse. Recently, it has become a common pre-hospital diagnosis, serving as justification for use of force, restraint, and/or medication administration. To conduct a scoping review across three databases to describe the most frequently reported diagnostic criteria for ExDS, as well as to explore its use as a diagnosis for deaths of individuals in the custody of law enforcement. In 2021, three literature databases were searched: Ovid Medline, PsycInfo, and Scopus. Studies were included if they were peer-reviewed, English articles describing (1) ExDS symptoms, (2) substance intoxication with at least 2 ExDS symptoms present, or (3) centering on deaths occurring in the custody of law enforcement and attributed to ExDS. Key study data were extracted and the current literature was described qualitatively. Analysis took place between March and December 2021. A total of 97 studies were identified through initial abstract and secondary full-text review, with noted discrepancies in the definition of ExDS itself. After review, differences in ExDS diagnosis among organizations were explored, along with subsequent clinical impact, particularly in the pre-hospital setting. Resulting impact on patients, particularly those of minoritized ethnic and racial groups, was also noted. Prone aggressive restraint, in particular, is noted as an established risk factor for fatalities in ExDS cases. At this time, ExDS should not be utilized as a diagnosis; major medical organizations have an urgent responsibility to convene to formalize consensus-based diagnostic criteria or to propose alternate management guidelines for agitated and altered persons.

We revised and expanded the \"2010 Guideline for the Use of Sedatives and Analgesics in the Adult Intensive Care Unit (ICU).\" We revised the 2010 Guideline based mainly on the 2018 \"Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption (PADIS) in Adult Patients in the ICU,\" which was an updated 2013 pain, agitation, and delirium guideline with the inclusion of two additional topics (rehabilitation/mobility and sleep). Since it was not possible to hold face-to-face meetings of panels due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, all discussions took place via virtual conference platforms and e-mail with the participation of all panelists. All authors drafted the recommendations, and all panelists discussed and revised the recommendations several times. The quality of evidence for each recommendation was classified as high (level A), moderate (level B), or low/very low (level C), and all panelists voted on the quality level of each recommendation. The participating panelists had no conflicts of interest on related topics. The development of this guideline was independent of any industry funding. The Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility (rehabilitation/mobilization), and Sleep Disturbance panels issued 42 recommendations (level A, 6; level B, 18; and level C, 18). The 2021 clinical practice guideline provides up-to-date information on how to prevent and manage pain, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disturbance in adult ICU patients. We believe that these guidelines can provide an integrated method for clinicians to manage PADIS in adult ICU patients.

Given the importance of the management of sedation, analgesia and delirium in Intensive Care Units, and in order to update the previously published guidelines, a new clinical practice guide is presented, addressing the most relevant management and intervention aspects based on the recent literature. A group of 24 intensivists from 9 countries of the Pan-American and Iberian Federation of Societies of Critical Medicine and Intensive Therapy met to develop the guidelines. Assessment of evidence quality and recommendations was made according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group. A systematic search of the literature was carried out using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library databases such as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and the database of Latin American and Caribbean Literature in Health Sciences (LILACS). A total of 438 references were selected. After consensus, 47 strong recommendations with high and moderate quality evidence, 14 conditional recommendations with moderate quality evidence, and 65 conditional recommendations with low quality evidence were established. Finally, the importance of initial and multimodal pain management was underscored. Emphasis was placed on decreasing sedation levels and the use of deep sedation only in specific cases. The evidence and recommendations for the use of drugs such as dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, ketamine and others were incremented.

In clinical practice, several strategies and pharmacological options are available to treat neuropsychiatric symptoms of Huntington disease (HD). However, there is currently insufficient data for evidence-based guidelines on the management of these common symptoms.
We aimed to develop expert-based recommendations regarding the management of agitation, anxiety, apathy, psychosis, and sleep disorders.
Guideline development was based on a modified Institute of Medicine guideline process that accounted for a lack of evidence base. An international committee of 11 multidisciplinary experts proposed a series of statements regarding the description and management of each symptom. Statement assessment and validation was performed using a web-based survey tool and 84 international HD experts (neurologists and psychiatrists) who assessed the statements and indicated their level of agreement.
High-level agreement (≥85% experts strongly agreed or agreed) was reached for 107 of the 110 statements that have been incorporated into the expert-based clinical recommendations presented herein.
Clinical statements to guide the routine management of agitation, anxiety, apathy, psychosis, and sleep disorders in HD have been developed. Although not specifically tested in the HD population, clinical experience has shown that most of the neuropsychiatric symptoms discussed, when considered in isolation are treatable using pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic strategies developed for use in other populations. However, the management of neuropsychiatric symptoms in HD can be complex because neuropsychiatric symptoms often co-exist and treatment decisions should be adapted to cover all symptoms while limiting polypharmacy.

Critically ill patients experience several severe, distressing, and often life-altering symptoms during their intensive care unit stay. A clinical practice guideline released by the American College of Critical Care Medicine provides a template for improving the care and outcomes of the critically ill through evidence-based pain, agitation, and delirium assessment, prevention, and management. Key strategies include the use of valid and reliable assessment tools, setting a desired sedation level target, a focus on light sedation, choosing appropriate sedative medications, the use of nonpharmacologic symptom management strategies, and engaging and empowering patients and their family to play an active role in their intensive care unit care.

BACKGROUND: Psychomotor agitation is associated with different psychiatric conditions and represents an important issue in psychiatry. Current recommendations on agitation in psychiatry are not univocal. Actually, an improper assessment and management may result in unnecessary coercive or sedative treatments. A thorough and balanced review plus an expert consensus can guide assessment and treatment decisions.
METHODS: An expert task force iteratively developed consensus using the Delphi method. Initial survey items were based on systematic review of the literature. Subsequent surveys included new, re-worded or re-rated items.
RESULTS: Out of 2175 papers assessing psychomotor agitation, 124 were included in the review. Each component was assigned a level of evidence. Integrating the evidence and the experience of the task force members, a consensus was reached on 22 statements on this topic.
CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations on the assessment of agitation emphasise the importance of identifying any possible medical cause. For its management, experts agreed in considering verbal de-escalation and environmental modification techniques as first choice, considering physical restraint as a last resort strategy. Regarding pharmacological treatment, the \"ideal\" medication should calm without over-sedate. Generally, oral or inhaled formulations should be preferred over i.m. routes in mildly agitated patients. Intravenous treatments should be avoided.

OBJECTIVE: To test the effect of a complex guideline-based intervention on agitation and psychotropic prescriptions.
METHODS: Cluster randomized controlled trial (VIDEANT) with blinded assessment of outcome in 18 nursing homes in Berlin, Germany, comprising 304 dementia patients.
METHODS: Training, support, and activity therapy intervention, delivered at the level of each nursing home, focusing on the management of agitation in dementia. Control group nursing homes received treatment as usual.
METHODS: Levels of agitated and disruptive behavior (Cohen-Mansfield agitation inventory [CMAI]) as the primary outcome. Number of neuroleptics, antidepressants, and cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) prescribed in defined daily dosages (DDDs).
RESULTS: Of 326 patients screened, 304 (93.3%) were eligible and cluster-randomized to 9 intervention (n = 163) and 9 control (n = 141) nursing homes. Data were collected from 287 (94.4%) patients at 10 months. At 10 months, compared with controls, nursing home residents with dementia in the intervention group exhibited significantly less agitation as measured with the CMAI (adjusted mean difference, 6.24; 95% CI 2.03-14.14; P = .009; Cohen\'s d = 0.43), received fewer neuroleptics (P < .05), more ChEIs (P < .05), and more antidepressants (P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Complex guideline-based interventions are effective in reducing agitated and disruptive behavior in nursing home residents with dementia. At the same time, increased prescription of ChEIs and antidepressants together with decreased neuroleptic prescription suggests an effect toward guideline-based pharmacotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management of sedation, analgesia and delirium offers comfort and security for the critical care patient, allows support measures to be applied more easily and enables an integral approach of medical care, at the same time that lowers the incidence of complications, wich translates in better patient outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To update the Guía de práctica clínica basada en la evidencia para el manejo de la sedoanalgesia en el paciente adulto críticamente enfermo published in Medicina Intensiva in 2007, and give recommendations for the management of sedation, analgesia, and delirium.
METHODS: A group of 21 intensivists from 9 countries of the Federación Panamericana e Ibérica de Sociedades de Medicina Crítica y Terapia Intensiva, 3 of them also specialists in clinical epidemiology and methodology, gathered for the development of guidelines. Assessment of evidence quality and recommendations were made based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Strength of recommendations was classified as 1=strong, or 2=weak, and quality of evidence as A=high, B=moderate, or C=low. Two authors searched the following databases: MEDLINE through PUBMED, The Cochrane Library and Literatura Latinoamericana y del Caribe en Ciencias de la Salud and retrieved pertinent information. Members assigned to the 11 sections of the guidelines, based on the literature review, formulated the recommendations, that were discussed in plenary sessions. Only those recommendations that achieved more than 80% of consensus were approved for the final document. The Colombian Association of Critical Medicine and Intensive Care (AMCI) supported the elaboration of this guidelines.
RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-seven articles were included for review. An increase in number and quality of publications was observed. This allowed to generate 64 strong recommendations with high and moderate quality of evidence in contrast to the 28 recommendations of the previous edition.
CONCLUSIONS: This Guidelines contains recommendations and suggestions based on the best evidence available for the management of sedation, analgesia and delirium of the critically ill patient, including a bundle of strategies that serves this purpose. We highlight the assessment of pain and agitation/sedation through validated scales, the use of opioids initially to apropiate analgesic control, associated with multimodal strategies in order to reduce opioide consumption; to promote the lowest level of sedation necessary avoiding over-sedation. Also, in case of the need of sedatives, choose the most appropiate for the patient needs, avoiding the use of benzodiazepines and identify risk factors for delirium, in order to prevent its occurrence, diagnose delirium and treat it with the most suitable pharmacological agent, whether it is haloperidol, atypical antipsychotics or dexmedetomidine, once again, avoiding the use of benzodiazepines and decreasing the use of opioids.