Ana Hategan, MD

Although all health care professionals are at risk for burnout, physicians have especially high rates of self-reported burnout—which is commonly understood as a work-related syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a decreased sense of accomplishment that develops over time.¹ In a 2019 report investigating burnout in approximately 15,000 physicians, 39% of psychiatrists and nearly 50% of physicians from multiple other specialities described themselves as “burned out.”² In addition, 15% reported symptoms of clinical depression (4%) or subclinical depression (11%). In comparison, in 2017, 7.1% of US adults experienced at least 1 major depressive episode.³ Because physician burnout and depression can be associated with adverse outcomes in patient care and personal health, rapid identification and differentiation of the 2 conditions is paramount.

Differentiating burnout and depression

Burnout and depression are distinct but overlapping entities. Although burnout can be difficult to recognize and is not currently a DSM diagnosis, physicians can learn to identify the signs with reference to the more familiar features of depression (Table^4,5). Many features of burnout are work-related, while the negative feelings and thoughts of depression pertain to all areas of life. Furthermore, a major depressive episode often includes hopelessness, suicidality, or mood-congruent delusions; burnout does not. Shared symptoms of burnout and depression include extreme exhaustion, feeling unhappy, and reduced performance.

Surprisingly, there is no universally accepted definition of burnout.^4,5 Some researchers have proposed that physicians who are categorized as “burned out” may actually have underlying anxiety or depressive disorders that have been misdiagnosed and not appropriately treated.^4,5 Others claim that burnout is best formulated as a depressive condition in need of formal diagnostic criteria.^4,5 Because the definition of burnout is in question,^4,5 strategies to prevent and detect burnout in individual clinicians remain elusive.

Key areas that contribute to vulnerability to burnout include one’s sense of community, fairness, and control in the workplace; personal and organization values; and work-life balance. We propose the mnemonic WORK to help clinicians quickly assess their vulnerability to burnout in these areas.

Workload. Outside of working hours, are you satisfied with the amount of time you devote to self-care, recreation, and other activities that are important to you? Do you honor your “down time”?

Oversight. Are you satisfied with the flexibility and autonomy in your professional life? Are you able to cope with the systemic demands of your practice while upholding your priorities within these restrictions?

Reward. Are the mechanisms for feedback, opportunities for advancement, and financial compensation in your workplace fair? Do you find positive meaning in the work that you do?

Continue to: Kinship

Kinship. Does your place of work support cooperation and collaboration, rather than competition and isolation? Do you approach and receive support from your colleagues when you need assistance?

Persistent dissatisfaction in any of these aspects should prompt clinicians to further develop strategies that promote workplace engagement, job satisfaction, and resilience. We hope this mnemonic helps clinicians to take responsibility for their own well-being and ultimately reap the rewards of a fulfilling professional life.

Although all health care professionals are at risk for burnout, physicians have especially high rates of self-reported burnout—which is commonly understood as a work-related syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a decreased sense of accomplishment that develops over time.¹ In a 2019 report investigating burnout in approximately 15,000 physicians, 39% of psychiatrists and nearly 50% of physicians from multiple other specialities described themselves as “burned out.”² In addition, 15% reported symptoms of clinical depression (4%) or subclinical depression (11%). In comparison, in 2017, 7.1% of US adults experienced at least 1 major depressive episode.³ Because physician burnout and depression can be associated with adverse outcomes in patient care and personal health, rapid identification and differentiation of the 2 conditions is paramount.

Differentiating burnout and depression

Burnout and depression are distinct but overlapping entities. Although burnout can be difficult to recognize and is not currently a DSM diagnosis, physicians can learn to identify the signs with reference to the more familiar features of depression (Table^4,5). Many features of burnout are work-related, while the negative feelings and thoughts of depression pertain to all areas of life. Furthermore, a major depressive episode often includes hopelessness, suicidality, or mood-congruent delusions; burnout does not. Shared symptoms of burnout and depression include extreme exhaustion, feeling unhappy, and reduced performance.

Surprisingly, there is no universally accepted definition of burnout.^4,5 Some researchers have proposed that physicians who are categorized as “burned out” may actually have underlying anxiety or depressive disorders that have been misdiagnosed and not appropriately treated.^4,5 Others claim that burnout is best formulated as a depressive condition in need of formal diagnostic criteria.^4,5 Because the definition of burnout is in question,^4,5 strategies to prevent and detect burnout in individual clinicians remain elusive.

Key areas that contribute to vulnerability to burnout include one’s sense of community, fairness, and control in the workplace; personal and organization values; and work-life balance. We propose the mnemonic WORK to help clinicians quickly assess their vulnerability to burnout in these areas.

Workload. Outside of working hours, are you satisfied with the amount of time you devote to self-care, recreation, and other activities that are important to you? Do you honor your “down time”?

Oversight. Are you satisfied with the flexibility and autonomy in your professional life? Are you able to cope with the systemic demands of your practice while upholding your priorities within these restrictions?

Reward. Are the mechanisms for feedback, opportunities for advancement, and financial compensation in your workplace fair? Do you find positive meaning in the work that you do?

Continue to: Kinship

Kinship. Does your place of work support cooperation and collaboration, rather than competition and isolation? Do you approach and receive support from your colleagues when you need assistance?

Persistent dissatisfaction in any of these aspects should prompt clinicians to further develop strategies that promote workplace engagement, job satisfaction, and resilience. We hope this mnemonic helps clinicians to take responsibility for their own well-being and ultimately reap the rewards of a fulfilling professional life.

Although all health care professionals are at risk for burnout, physicians have especially high rates of self-reported burnout—which is commonly understood as a work-related syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a decreased sense of accomplishment that develops over time.¹ In a 2019 report investigating burnout in approximately 15,000 physicians, 39% of psychiatrists and nearly 50% of physicians from multiple other specialities described themselves as “burned out.”² In addition, 15% reported symptoms of clinical depression (4%) or subclinical depression (11%). In comparison, in 2017, 7.1% of US adults experienced at least 1 major depressive episode.³ Because physician burnout and depression can be associated with adverse outcomes in patient care and personal health, rapid identification and differentiation of the 2 conditions is paramount.

Differentiating burnout and depression

Burnout and depression are distinct but overlapping entities. Although burnout can be difficult to recognize and is not currently a DSM diagnosis, physicians can learn to identify the signs with reference to the more familiar features of depression (Table^4,5). Many features of burnout are work-related, while the negative feelings and thoughts of depression pertain to all areas of life. Furthermore, a major depressive episode often includes hopelessness, suicidality, or mood-congruent delusions; burnout does not. Shared symptoms of burnout and depression include extreme exhaustion, feeling unhappy, and reduced performance.

Surprisingly, there is no universally accepted definition of burnout.^4,5 Some researchers have proposed that physicians who are categorized as “burned out” may actually have underlying anxiety or depressive disorders that have been misdiagnosed and not appropriately treated.^4,5 Others claim that burnout is best formulated as a depressive condition in need of formal diagnostic criteria.^4,5 Because the definition of burnout is in question,^4,5 strategies to prevent and detect burnout in individual clinicians remain elusive.

Key areas that contribute to vulnerability to burnout include one’s sense of community, fairness, and control in the workplace; personal and organization values; and work-life balance. We propose the mnemonic WORK to help clinicians quickly assess their vulnerability to burnout in these areas.

Workload. Outside of working hours, are you satisfied with the amount of time you devote to self-care, recreation, and other activities that are important to you? Do you honor your “down time”?

Oversight. Are you satisfied with the flexibility and autonomy in your professional life? Are you able to cope with the systemic demands of your practice while upholding your priorities within these restrictions?

Reward. Are the mechanisms for feedback, opportunities for advancement, and financial compensation in your workplace fair? Do you find positive meaning in the work that you do?

Continue to: Kinship

Kinship. Does your place of work support cooperation and collaboration, rather than competition and isolation? Do you approach and receive support from your colleagues when you need assistance?

Persistent dissatisfaction in any of these aspects should prompt clinicians to further develop strategies that promote workplace engagement, job satisfaction, and resilience. We hope this mnemonic helps clinicians to take responsibility for their own well-being and ultimately reap the rewards of a fulfilling professional life.

Baby Boomers represent a rapidly growing segment of digital device users.¹ As these people age, their continued, even increasing, use of the Internet can be expected.¹ At the same time, many older adults (age ≥65) are engaged in intimate relationships and regard sexuality as an important part of life.²

At this intersection, the Internet is likely to play a role in geriatric sexuality and “digital intimacy”—in that older adults can adopt patterns of using online dating sites similar to what their younger counterparts engage in. There is a need among clinicians to avoid stereotypical perceptions of “ageism” and the myth of “geriatric asexuality” as a result of older patients’ continued sexual interest and their adoption of social media technologies to facilitate the development of new intimate relationships. Acknowledgement of these realities by clinicians may assist in understanding and communication regarding these important areas of patients’ lives.

Why online dating?
Contemporary social and demographic changes (eg, higher divorce rates, increased longevity, aging of Baby Boomers) have influenced patterns of dating behaviors.³ Consistent with evolutionary theory, studies on courtship behaviors show that women remain the “choosers” of partners in relationships at all ages³; in contemporary society, however, there is an increasing ratio of women to men in later life, and the degree to which this demographic change might influence older men and women who are pursuing sexual relationships is unclear.³ Older adults might be aware of these demographic realities, and may use the Internet to increase their chances of finding a relationship.

For older homosexual men and women, demographic trends also are important because fewer available partners of similar sexual orientation might be available in their immediate communities, similarly incentivizing the use of online dating sites.

Hand in hand: Risk and vulnerability
Clinicians can discuss with geriatric patients who present with questions or concerns about sexuality and risks of online dating. Although risks associated with digital dating can involve anyone, those who are recently divorced, widowed, disabled, or elderly can be targeted by predators or fraudulent schemes, and thus become victims. Recognizing those risks and the vulnerability in the geriatric patient is crucial.

Chronic illness. Age-related physiological changes do not necessarily make one vulnerable; however, chronic diseases of aging, including major neurocognitive disorders, can impair daily function and increase disability and vulnerability. The majority of online dating sites do not discriminate among users, including those with disabilities such as incapacitating neuropsychiatric disorders. The clinician may need to assess cognitive status of patients specific to their capacity to fully understand the risks of use of social media. Inability to accomplish basic mastery of computer skills or inability to maintain appropriate boundaries and safeguards in relationships initiated and maintained using the Internet may assist in this determination. Patients with other problematic Internet use (eg, excessive devotion to online shopping or online gambling) may be prone to misusing social media and dating sites as well. Patients with clear impairment of memory or poor social judgment based on a neurocognitive disorder also might not maintain proper boundaries with social media use.

Feeling alone. Older persons might feel socially isolated, and therefore may be more willing to participate in online dating to increase their chances of establishing an intimate relationship or companionship. Research has shown that increased social ties, participation in groups, contact with friends and family, and perceived social support are associated with longer survival; on the other hand, social disengagement, low participation in leisure activities, and limited social networks are associated with higher risk of major neurocognitive disorders and increased disability.⁴

Little is known about social vulnerability in institutional settings, but institutional living could decrease social vulnerability in important ways (eg, access to social support, networks and activities, not living alone).⁴ Although the literature on older adults and “digital” or “virtual” dating is limited, there are essentially no such data from within institutional settings. It is important to separately address the issue of cognitively impaired patients’ capacity to consent to sexual activity both within institutional settings and elsewhere, as it raises numerous ethical dilemmas for clinicians.

Being sexually active. Early research into online dating focused particularly on the risks of sexually transmitted infections (STIs),⁵ which could be acquired through failure to use condoms with a new partner.⁶ Older women particularly are less likely to use condoms with new sexual partners.⁶ Screening at-risk adults should occur regardless of age. Effective interventions are needed to increase condom use in this age group. Research in the general population has started to investigate how the use of technology can minimize the risks associated with online dating.⁵ The Table^5,6 lists strategies that can be used to minimize some of the risks of online dating among geriatric patients, including STIs and victimization.

Clinicians working with sexually active geriatric patients need to perform sexual risk assessments, complete capacity assessments, and provide preventive measures.

Legal issues
Criminal and civil liability issues have arisen with online dating involving cases of murder, rape, fraud, identity theft, loans, theft, domestic violence, stalking, and burglary. Online dating also raises concerns around the right to fair use of the Internet in different contexts. Flirting in cyberspace can occur with e-mail, text, Twitter, Skype, and Instant Messenger. Practices likely will vary depending on whether older adults are institutionalized or living in the community, as well as their mental status (eg, having a major neurocognitive disorder).

Some questions with legal implications worth considering include:

• To what extent is there a duty to accommodate healthy sexual relationships in institutionalized settings?
• At what point does monitoring and supervision become overly intrusive?
• Are older adults fully aware of the potential ramifications of sharing sensitive information in cyberspace?
• What is the threshold for capacity to consent among older adults to understand the sexual nature of the act and consent to the act?

Nursing homes and health care providers may become concerned about potential liability if their organization provides digital devices or electronic platforms that are not closely monitored. Clinicians have a duty to protect patients under their care from risks associated with predators who target vulnerable and lonely people, whether financially, emotionally, or physically. Some patients in nursing home settings may benefit from discussing with their family members or attorney the possibility of completing a “sexual power of attorney”⁷ that could be completed in conjunction with an advance health care directive that addresses or authorizes an agent to make decisions about their sexual activities if cognitively impaired in the future.

One might also consider to what extent local regulatory oversight will protect your patient. Not all jurisdictions regulate online dating services similarly; many existing regulations focus on unfair contracts and pay less heed to safety concerns.

As a result, some dissatisfied clients have been known to sue an online dating service for breach of contract or misrepresentation. One of the most significant issues, however, is making sure there are appropriate background checks. Online dating services may need to change their policies to screen and verify for criminal background checks.⁸ Older adults interested in online dating should be made aware of these emerging issues.

Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationship with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.

Baby Boomers represent a rapidly growing segment of digital device users.¹ As these people age, their continued, even increasing, use of the Internet can be expected.¹ At the same time, many older adults (age ≥65) are engaged in intimate relationships and regard sexuality as an important part of life.²

At this intersection, the Internet is likely to play a role in geriatric sexuality and “digital intimacy”—in that older adults can adopt patterns of using online dating sites similar to what their younger counterparts engage in. There is a need among clinicians to avoid stereotypical perceptions of “ageism” and the myth of “geriatric asexuality” as a result of older patients’ continued sexual interest and their adoption of social media technologies to facilitate the development of new intimate relationships. Acknowledgement of these realities by clinicians may assist in understanding and communication regarding these important areas of patients’ lives.

Why online dating?
Contemporary social and demographic changes (eg, higher divorce rates, increased longevity, aging of Baby Boomers) have influenced patterns of dating behaviors.³ Consistent with evolutionary theory, studies on courtship behaviors show that women remain the “choosers” of partners in relationships at all ages³; in contemporary society, however, there is an increasing ratio of women to men in later life, and the degree to which this demographic change might influence older men and women who are pursuing sexual relationships is unclear.³ Older adults might be aware of these demographic realities, and may use the Internet to increase their chances of finding a relationship.

For older homosexual men and women, demographic trends also are important because fewer available partners of similar sexual orientation might be available in their immediate communities, similarly incentivizing the use of online dating sites.

Hand in hand: Risk and vulnerability
Clinicians can discuss with geriatric patients who present with questions or concerns about sexuality and risks of online dating. Although risks associated with digital dating can involve anyone, those who are recently divorced, widowed, disabled, or elderly can be targeted by predators or fraudulent schemes, and thus become victims. Recognizing those risks and the vulnerability in the geriatric patient is crucial.

Chronic illness. Age-related physiological changes do not necessarily make one vulnerable; however, chronic diseases of aging, including major neurocognitive disorders, can impair daily function and increase disability and vulnerability. The majority of online dating sites do not discriminate among users, including those with disabilities such as incapacitating neuropsychiatric disorders. The clinician may need to assess cognitive status of patients specific to their capacity to fully understand the risks of use of social media. Inability to accomplish basic mastery of computer skills or inability to maintain appropriate boundaries and safeguards in relationships initiated and maintained using the Internet may assist in this determination. Patients with other problematic Internet use (eg, excessive devotion to online shopping or online gambling) may be prone to misusing social media and dating sites as well. Patients with clear impairment of memory or poor social judgment based on a neurocognitive disorder also might not maintain proper boundaries with social media use.

Feeling alone. Older persons might feel socially isolated, and therefore may be more willing to participate in online dating to increase their chances of establishing an intimate relationship or companionship. Research has shown that increased social ties, participation in groups, contact with friends and family, and perceived social support are associated with longer survival; on the other hand, social disengagement, low participation in leisure activities, and limited social networks are associated with higher risk of major neurocognitive disorders and increased disability.⁴

Little is known about social vulnerability in institutional settings, but institutional living could decrease social vulnerability in important ways (eg, access to social support, networks and activities, not living alone).⁴ Although the literature on older adults and “digital” or “virtual” dating is limited, there are essentially no such data from within institutional settings. It is important to separately address the issue of cognitively impaired patients’ capacity to consent to sexual activity both within institutional settings and elsewhere, as it raises numerous ethical dilemmas for clinicians.

Being sexually active. Early research into online dating focused particularly on the risks of sexually transmitted infections (STIs),⁵ which could be acquired through failure to use condoms with a new partner.⁶ Older women particularly are less likely to use condoms with new sexual partners.⁶ Screening at-risk adults should occur regardless of age. Effective interventions are needed to increase condom use in this age group. Research in the general population has started to investigate how the use of technology can minimize the risks associated with online dating.⁵ The Table^5,6 lists strategies that can be used to minimize some of the risks of online dating among geriatric patients, including STIs and victimization.

Clinicians working with sexually active geriatric patients need to perform sexual risk assessments, complete capacity assessments, and provide preventive measures.

Legal issues
Criminal and civil liability issues have arisen with online dating involving cases of murder, rape, fraud, identity theft, loans, theft, domestic violence, stalking, and burglary. Online dating also raises concerns around the right to fair use of the Internet in different contexts. Flirting in cyberspace can occur with e-mail, text, Twitter, Skype, and Instant Messenger. Practices likely will vary depending on whether older adults are institutionalized or living in the community, as well as their mental status (eg, having a major neurocognitive disorder).

Some questions with legal implications worth considering include:

• To what extent is there a duty to accommodate healthy sexual relationships in institutionalized settings?
• At what point does monitoring and supervision become overly intrusive?
• Are older adults fully aware of the potential ramifications of sharing sensitive information in cyberspace?
• What is the threshold for capacity to consent among older adults to understand the sexual nature of the act and consent to the act?

Nursing homes and health care providers may become concerned about potential liability if their organization provides digital devices or electronic platforms that are not closely monitored. Clinicians have a duty to protect patients under their care from risks associated with predators who target vulnerable and lonely people, whether financially, emotionally, or physically. Some patients in nursing home settings may benefit from discussing with their family members or attorney the possibility of completing a “sexual power of attorney”⁷ that could be completed in conjunction with an advance health care directive that addresses or authorizes an agent to make decisions about their sexual activities if cognitively impaired in the future.

One might also consider to what extent local regulatory oversight will protect your patient. Not all jurisdictions regulate online dating services similarly; many existing regulations focus on unfair contracts and pay less heed to safety concerns.

As a result, some dissatisfied clients have been known to sue an online dating service for breach of contract or misrepresentation. One of the most significant issues, however, is making sure there are appropriate background checks. Online dating services may need to change their policies to screen and verify for criminal background checks.⁸ Older adults interested in online dating should be made aware of these emerging issues.

Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationship with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.

Baby Boomers represent a rapidly growing segment of digital device users.¹ As these people age, their continued, even increasing, use of the Internet can be expected.¹ At the same time, many older adults (age ≥65) are engaged in intimate relationships and regard sexuality as an important part of life.²

At this intersection, the Internet is likely to play a role in geriatric sexuality and “digital intimacy”—in that older adults can adopt patterns of using online dating sites similar to what their younger counterparts engage in. There is a need among clinicians to avoid stereotypical perceptions of “ageism” and the myth of “geriatric asexuality” as a result of older patients’ continued sexual interest and their adoption of social media technologies to facilitate the development of new intimate relationships. Acknowledgement of these realities by clinicians may assist in understanding and communication regarding these important areas of patients’ lives.

Why online dating?
Contemporary social and demographic changes (eg, higher divorce rates, increased longevity, aging of Baby Boomers) have influenced patterns of dating behaviors.³ Consistent with evolutionary theory, studies on courtship behaviors show that women remain the “choosers” of partners in relationships at all ages³; in contemporary society, however, there is an increasing ratio of women to men in later life, and the degree to which this demographic change might influence older men and women who are pursuing sexual relationships is unclear.³ Older adults might be aware of these demographic realities, and may use the Internet to increase their chances of finding a relationship.

For older homosexual men and women, demographic trends also are important because fewer available partners of similar sexual orientation might be available in their immediate communities, similarly incentivizing the use of online dating sites.

Hand in hand: Risk and vulnerability
Clinicians can discuss with geriatric patients who present with questions or concerns about sexuality and risks of online dating. Although risks associated with digital dating can involve anyone, those who are recently divorced, widowed, disabled, or elderly can be targeted by predators or fraudulent schemes, and thus become victims. Recognizing those risks and the vulnerability in the geriatric patient is crucial.

Chronic illness. Age-related physiological changes do not necessarily make one vulnerable; however, chronic diseases of aging, including major neurocognitive disorders, can impair daily function and increase disability and vulnerability. The majority of online dating sites do not discriminate among users, including those with disabilities such as incapacitating neuropsychiatric disorders. The clinician may need to assess cognitive status of patients specific to their capacity to fully understand the risks of use of social media. Inability to accomplish basic mastery of computer skills or inability to maintain appropriate boundaries and safeguards in relationships initiated and maintained using the Internet may assist in this determination. Patients with other problematic Internet use (eg, excessive devotion to online shopping or online gambling) may be prone to misusing social media and dating sites as well. Patients with clear impairment of memory or poor social judgment based on a neurocognitive disorder also might not maintain proper boundaries with social media use.

Feeling alone. Older persons might feel socially isolated, and therefore may be more willing to participate in online dating to increase their chances of establishing an intimate relationship or companionship. Research has shown that increased social ties, participation in groups, contact with friends and family, and perceived social support are associated with longer survival; on the other hand, social disengagement, low participation in leisure activities, and limited social networks are associated with higher risk of major neurocognitive disorders and increased disability.⁴

Little is known about social vulnerability in institutional settings, but institutional living could decrease social vulnerability in important ways (eg, access to social support, networks and activities, not living alone).⁴ Although the literature on older adults and “digital” or “virtual” dating is limited, there are essentially no such data from within institutional settings. It is important to separately address the issue of cognitively impaired patients’ capacity to consent to sexual activity both within institutional settings and elsewhere, as it raises numerous ethical dilemmas for clinicians.

Being sexually active. Early research into online dating focused particularly on the risks of sexually transmitted infections (STIs),⁵ which could be acquired through failure to use condoms with a new partner.⁶ Older women particularly are less likely to use condoms with new sexual partners.⁶ Screening at-risk adults should occur regardless of age. Effective interventions are needed to increase condom use in this age group. Research in the general population has started to investigate how the use of technology can minimize the risks associated with online dating.⁵ The Table^5,6 lists strategies that can be used to minimize some of the risks of online dating among geriatric patients, including STIs and victimization.

Clinicians working with sexually active geriatric patients need to perform sexual risk assessments, complete capacity assessments, and provide preventive measures.

Legal issues
Criminal and civil liability issues have arisen with online dating involving cases of murder, rape, fraud, identity theft, loans, theft, domestic violence, stalking, and burglary. Online dating also raises concerns around the right to fair use of the Internet in different contexts. Flirting in cyberspace can occur with e-mail, text, Twitter, Skype, and Instant Messenger. Practices likely will vary depending on whether older adults are institutionalized or living in the community, as well as their mental status (eg, having a major neurocognitive disorder).

Some questions with legal implications worth considering include:

• To what extent is there a duty to accommodate healthy sexual relationships in institutionalized settings?
• At what point does monitoring and supervision become overly intrusive?
• Are older adults fully aware of the potential ramifications of sharing sensitive information in cyberspace?
• What is the threshold for capacity to consent among older adults to understand the sexual nature of the act and consent to the act?

Nursing homes and health care providers may become concerned about potential liability if their organization provides digital devices or electronic platforms that are not closely monitored. Clinicians have a duty to protect patients under their care from risks associated with predators who target vulnerable and lonely people, whether financially, emotionally, or physically. Some patients in nursing home settings may benefit from discussing with their family members or attorney the possibility of completing a “sexual power of attorney”⁷ that could be completed in conjunction with an advance health care directive that addresses or authorizes an agent to make decisions about their sexual activities if cognitively impaired in the future.

One might also consider to what extent local regulatory oversight will protect your patient. Not all jurisdictions regulate online dating services similarly; many existing regulations focus on unfair contracts and pay less heed to safety concerns.

As a result, some dissatisfied clients have been known to sue an online dating service for breach of contract or misrepresentation. One of the most significant issues, however, is making sure there are appropriate background checks. Online dating services may need to change their policies to screen and verify for criminal background checks.⁸ Older adults interested in online dating should be made aware of these emerging issues.

Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationship with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.

Recent studies suggest that most older adults main­tain sexual interest well into late life; many, however, experience sexual dysfunction. This article provides psychiatric practitioners with current information regard­ing sexuality and aging, as well as psychiatric and systemic medical comorbidities and sexual side effects of medi­cations. Practice guidelines for assessing and managing sexual dysfunction have been developed for use in many medical specialties, and such guidance would be welcome in psychiatric practice.

This article addresses the myth of “geriatric asexuality” and its potential impact on clinical practice, the effects of age-related physiological changes on sexual activity, the importance of sexuality in the lives of older adults, and sensitive questions clinicians can pose about geriatric sexu­ality. We also will discuss:  
   • the importance of including a sexual assessment in the comprehensive psychiatric evaluation  
   • recognizing sexual dysfunction  
   • providing appropriate management within a multi-disciplinary, collaborative approach.

Sexuality after 65
Regardless of age, sexual activity can provide a sense of com­fort and elicit a positive emotional and physical response.¹ Hillman² defined human sexuality as any combination of sex­ual behavior, emotional intimacy, and sense of sexual identity.

Sexuality in the aging population gen­erally is an understudied area, obscured by the myth of “geriatric asexuality” and subject to numerous psychosocial vari­ables.¹ Previous research, focused on a bio­logical perspective of sexuality, has largely overlooked psychological and social influ­ences.³ It has been assumed that, with age, physical and hormonal changes or chronic illness ordinarily reduce or eliminate sex­ual desire and sexual behavior.³ However, the majority of older adults (defined as age ≥65) report a moderate-to-high level of sexual interest well into late life.^1,3

Sexual function remains a subject often neglected in psychiatry. Sexual dysfunc­tions, as described in the DSM-5,⁴ do not include age-related changes in sexual func­tion. In addition to physiological changes, sexual difficulties can result from relation­ship strain, systemic medical or psychi­atric disorders, and sexual side effects of medications.

CASE REPORT
Mr. C, age 71 and married, is being treated for a major depressive episode that followed a course of shingles and persistent posther­petic neuralgia. Medications are: escitalo­pram, 20 mg/d; pregabalin, 150 mg/d; and ramipril, 5 mg/d. Mr. C is physically active and involved in social activities; he has no substance use history. He attends clinic visits with his wife.

Mr. C reports that despite significant improvement of his depressive and pain symptoms, he now experiences sexual dif­ficulties, which he seems hesitant to discuss in detail. According to his wife, Mr. C appears to lack sexual desire and has difficulty initi­ating and maintaining an erection. She asks Mr. C’s psychiatrist whether she should stop her estrogen treatment, intended to enhance her sexual function, given that the couple is no longer engaging in sexual intercourse.

Mr. C admits to missing physical inti­macy; however, he states, “If I have to make a choice between having sex with my wife and getting this depression out of my head, I’m going to pick getting rid of the depres­sion.” Mrs. C says she is becoming dissatisfied with their marriage and the limited time she and her husband now spend together. Mr. C’s psychiatrist suggests that Mr. C and his wife undergo couples counseling.

Physiological changes with aging
In both women and men, the reproductive system undergoes age-related physiologi­cal changes.

Women. In women, the phase of decline in ovarian function and resulting decline in sex steroid production (estradiol and pro­gesterone) is referred to as the climacteric, with menopause being determined retro­spectively by the cessation of a menstrual period for 1 year.⁵

Menopausal symptoms typically occur between age 40 and 58; the average age of menopause is 51.^6,7 Both estradiol and pro­gesterone levels decline with menopause, and anovulation and ovarian failure ensue. A more gradual decline of female testoster­one levels also occurs with aging, starting in the fourth decade of life.⁸

Clinical manifestations of menopause include vasomotor symptoms (ie, “hot flushes”), sleep disturbances, anxiety and depressive symptoms, decreased bone min­eral density, and increased risk of cardio­vascular disease.^6,7 Loss of estrogen as well as continued loss of testosterone can result in dyspareunia because of atrophy and decreased vulvar and vaginal lubrication, with sexual excitement achieved less quickly, and a decreased intensity of orgasm.⁷

Men. Research has shown that testosterone levels are highest in men in the second and third decades, with a subsequent gradual decline.⁹ Older men with a low testosterone level are described as experiencing “late-onset hypogonadism,” also known by the popularized term “andropause.”¹⁰ This is attributed to decreased activity at the tes­ticular and hypothalamic levels.¹⁰

Nonetheless, only a small fraction of older men with confirmed androgen defi­ciency are clinically symptomatic.^11,12 Low testosterone is associated with decreased libido; it can hinder morning erections, contribute to erectile dysfunction, and result in erections that require physical stimulation.¹³

Notably, erectile dysfunction involves several other etiologic factors: psychiatric (eg, relationship difficulties, depression), neurogenic (eg, spinal cord injury), endo­crine (eg, hyperprolactinemia), arteriogenic (eg, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus), and drug-induced (eg, antidepressants, antihypertensives).¹⁴ A low testosterone level also has been associated with potential cognitive changes, decreased bone mineral density, metabolic syndrome (eg, increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus), and cardio­vascular mortality.¹⁰

Effects on sexual activity. How much age-related physiological changes impact sexual practices in the geriatric popula­tion is uncertain. A study following 3,302 women through menopause over 6 years found some decline in sexual activity; how­ever, this decline was not associated with increased sexual pain, decreased desire, or lack of arousal.¹⁵ Men continue to find ways to remain sexually active despite physiolog­ical changes (eg, erectile difficulties), but the etiology of sexual dysfunction in later life remains multi-modal, involving physical, psychological, and relational factors.^16,17

Sexual practices in older adults
Researchers for the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project (NSHAP) have examined sexual activities, behaviors, and problems in >3,000 older community-dwelling men and women across the United States, using information collected from in-home interviews.18 This study found that sexual activity, defined as any mutually voluntary sexual contact with another person, declines with age; how­ever, even in the oldest age group (age 75 to 85), 39% of men and 17% of women reported being sexually active in the last 12 months. Among these persons, 54% reported sexual activity at least 2 times per month; 23% reported having sex at least once a week; and 32% reported engaging in oral sex. Partner availability predicted sexual activity.

Respondents with self-reported poor physical health were more likely to experi­ence sexual problems (eg, difficulty with erection or lubrication, dyspareunia, and lack of pleasure). The most commonly reported reason for sexual inactivity in those with a spouse or other intimate partner was the male partner’s poor physical health.¹⁸

A longitudinal study, part of the Women’s Healthy Ageing Project, examined changes in sexual function at late menopause com­pared with early menopause. Although the researchers also found an age-related decrease in sexual activity, 50% of their late-menopause respondents (mean age, 70; range, 64 to 77) still reported sexual activity in the previous month, with 35% of this subgroup reporting sexual activity at least once a week; 83% reported sexual thoughts or fantasies.¹⁹ Availability of a partner, absence of a history of depression, moder­ate (compared with no) alcohol consump­tion, and better cognitive function were significantly associated with a higher level of sexual activity.¹⁹

In the Successful Aging Evaluation study, conducted in San Diego County, California, community-dwelling older partnered adults age 50 to 99 (mean age, 75) were surveyed about their sexual health after a cogni­tive screen by telephone²⁰; rating scales for depression, anxiety, and physical function also were included. Results included 41% of men and 35% of women reporting sexual activity at least once a week, and only 21% of men and 24% of women reporting no sex­ual activity in the previous year. Depressive symptoms were most highly correlated with lack of sexual activity.²⁰

Overall, these studies reveal that posi­tive physical and mental health, access to a healthy partner, and a positive attitude toward sex are correlated with sexual activ­ity in later life, whereas barriers to sexual activity include lack of a healthy sexual partner, depression, and chronic systemic medical illnesses, such as coronary artery disease or type 2 diabetes mellitus.^13,17,21-24 Sexual activity and satisfaction have been positively associated with perceived general well-being and self-esteem.^25,26 Conversely, sexual difficulties secondary to disease can be a source of distress for couples.²⁷

Possibly overlooked? It is important to note that sexuality itself is a subjective area. Psychological intimacy is a universal phe­nomenon, and its physical expression may evolve as couples accommodate to age-related bodily changes. Means of achieving physical closeness, other than intercourse (eg, intimate touching, hand holding, kiss­ing, or even acts of caretaking), may not be adequately captured in studies that look specifically at sexual activity.

Taking a sexual history in a geriatric patient
Because sexuality can be an uncomfort­able topic for geriatric patients to discuss, sexual problems in this population often go unrecognized. It has been suggested that psychiatrists are more likely to inquire about sexual activity in middle-aged patients than geriatric patients with the same psychiatric presentation—perhaps illustrating a bias against taking a sexual history from a geriatric patient.²⁸ However, because many older patients can experi­ence depression or anxiety disorders in relation to normal sexual changes or sex­ual dysfunction within the context of their intimate relationships, it is essential to bring these issues to light.

Although a sexual history may not be the focus of a first clinical encounter, consider making such an assessment at a relatively early stage of patient care. The importance of such dialogue is 2-fold:
   • It demonstrates to the patient that talking about sexuality in a respectful and empathic manner is appropriate and can encourage patients to communicate more effectively about sexuality with clinicians and with sexual partners.
   • It helps elicit medical information needed to make an accurate diagnosis and provide adequate management.

How to begin. As a starting point to taking a sexual history, an open-ended invitation for the geriatric patient to share informa­tion may be best, such as “What would you like to tell me about your sexual life?” See further suggestions (Table 1) and examples of more detailed questions to ask once a dialogue has been initiated (Table 2). Additional factors that may contribute to sexual dysfunction are presented in Table 3.^1,27,29,30

CASE CONTINUED
In Mr. C’s case, an assessment of his sexual history, including risk factors for sexual dysfunction, is completed. Results from laboratory investigations, including a total testosterone level, are within normal limits.

Mr. C asks about using medications with fewer sexual side effects (he has been taking 3 medications that can contribute to sexual dysfunction). A gradual cross-taper of esci­talopram, 20 mg/d, to mirtazapine, 45 mg/d, is implemented, along with tapering prega­balin to 50 mg/d.

Mr. C’s psychiatric and pain symptom improvement is maintained. He notices a boost in his sexual desire but has minimal improvement in erectile dysfunction. He is encouraged to speak with his primary care physician about an antihypertensive agent with less impact on sexual function, as well as therapeutic agents for erectile dysfunc­tion; these, he declines.

At a subsequent visit, Mr. C reports feeling less apprehension about sexual performance. He is now willing to consider further medica­tion options with his primary care physician, and agrees to a recommendation for couples psychotherapy.

As illustrated in Mr. C’s case, the recom­mended sexual assessment and manage­ment strategies to consider at a minimum in psychiatric practice are listed in Table 4.

STI risk in geriatric patients
The risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), often is overlooked in sexually active older adults. Although STIs are more common among younger adults, there is recent evidence of increased incidence in the geriatric population31 (with the high­est risk of incident HIV and some STIs in older men who have sex with men³²). These increased rates can be explained, at least in part, by:
   • older men being less likely to use a condom during sexual activity
   • promotion of viral entry in older women through a drier, thinner vaginal wall
   • increased longevity of HIV-positive persons.³¹

Routine STI screening is not warranted in all older adults, but education and prevention strategies in sexually active seniors who are at greater risk of STIs are recommended. Particularly, clinicians should seek opportunities to discuss risk factors and safe sex practices (eg, using condoms, limiting number of sexual part­ners, practicing good hygiene, engaging in preventive care), and provide behavioral counseling where appropriate.^31,33

Additional considerations in geriatric sexuality
Because psychiatric and systemic medical conditions can hinder sexual function, it is essential to identify and manage these conditions. Several neuropsychiatric dis­orders, including mood and neurocogni­tive disorders, can not only cause sexual dysfunction, but also can raise ethical dilemmas for clinicians, such as reduced decisional capacity in cognitively impaired patients to consent to sexual activity.^1,34

In some patients, psychological, envi­ronmental, and pharmacological treatment options may help. A phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor for erectile dysfunction can be prescribed by the primary care phy­sician, a psychiatrist, or another specialist, depending on the physician’s expertise and comfort level.

Sequencing of sexual dysfunction. Notably, there is a common paradox in mood disorders. Decreased sexual interest or performance may represent an aspect of anhedonia associated with depres­sion, whereas sexual dysfunction could also result from medication use (particularly that of serotonergic antidepressants, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-norepinephrine inhibitors), even as other depressive symptoms improve. Therefore, it is critical to analyze sequencing of sexual dysfunction—as part of the pre­senting mood symptoms or dysfunction induced by antidepressant treatment.

Geriatric sexuality in the digital age. Because older adults represent a rapidly growing segment of digital device users,³⁵ Internet use is likely to play a role in the future of sexuality and “digital intimacy,” in that older adults can engage in online sexual activities. The Internet also can be a tool to access medical education.

Related Resources
• Burghardt KJ, Gardner KN. Sildenafil for SSRI-induced sexual dysfunction. Current Psychiatry. 2013;12(4):29-32,A.
• Maciel M, Laganà L. Older women’s sexual desire prob­lems: biopsychosocial factors impacting them and barriers to their clinical assessment [published online January 5, 2014]. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:107217. doi: 10.1155/2014/107217.

Drug Brand Names
Bupropion • Wellbutrin, Zyban                   Mirtazapine • Remeron
Carbamazepine • Tegretol                         Oxcarbazepine • Trileptal
Clonidine • Catapres                                 Phenobarbital • Luminal
Donepezil • Aricept                                   Phenytoin • Dilantin
Escitalopram • Lexapro                             Pregabalin • Lyrica
Gabapentin • Neurontin                            Ramipril • Altace
Lamotrigine • Lamictal                              Rivastigmine • Exelon
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid                       Trazodone • Desyrel
Memantine • Namenda                             Valproic acid • Depakote

Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationships with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.

Recent studies suggest that most older adults main­tain sexual interest well into late life; many, however, experience sexual dysfunction. This article provides psychiatric practitioners with current information regard­ing sexuality and aging, as well as psychiatric and systemic medical comorbidities and sexual side effects of medi­cations. Practice guidelines for assessing and managing sexual dysfunction have been developed for use in many medical specialties, and such guidance would be welcome in psychiatric practice.

This article addresses the myth of “geriatric asexuality” and its potential impact on clinical practice, the effects of age-related physiological changes on sexual activity, the importance of sexuality in the lives of older adults, and sensitive questions clinicians can pose about geriatric sexu­ality. We also will discuss:  
   • the importance of including a sexual assessment in the comprehensive psychiatric evaluation  
   • recognizing sexual dysfunction  
   • providing appropriate management within a multi-disciplinary, collaborative approach.

Sexuality after 65
Regardless of age, sexual activity can provide a sense of com­fort and elicit a positive emotional and physical response.¹ Hillman² defined human sexuality as any combination of sex­ual behavior, emotional intimacy, and sense of sexual identity.

Sexuality in the aging population gen­erally is an understudied area, obscured by the myth of “geriatric asexuality” and subject to numerous psychosocial vari­ables.¹ Previous research, focused on a bio­logical perspective of sexuality, has largely overlooked psychological and social influ­ences.³ It has been assumed that, with age, physical and hormonal changes or chronic illness ordinarily reduce or eliminate sex­ual desire and sexual behavior.³ However, the majority of older adults (defined as age ≥65) report a moderate-to-high level of sexual interest well into late life.^1,3

Sexual function remains a subject often neglected in psychiatry. Sexual dysfunc­tions, as described in the DSM-5,⁴ do not include age-related changes in sexual func­tion. In addition to physiological changes, sexual difficulties can result from relation­ship strain, systemic medical or psychi­atric disorders, and sexual side effects of medications.

CASE REPORT
Mr. C, age 71 and married, is being treated for a major depressive episode that followed a course of shingles and persistent posther­petic neuralgia. Medications are: escitalo­pram, 20 mg/d; pregabalin, 150 mg/d; and ramipril, 5 mg/d. Mr. C is physically active and involved in social activities; he has no substance use history. He attends clinic visits with his wife.

Mr. C reports that despite significant improvement of his depressive and pain symptoms, he now experiences sexual dif­ficulties, which he seems hesitant to discuss in detail. According to his wife, Mr. C appears to lack sexual desire and has difficulty initi­ating and maintaining an erection. She asks Mr. C’s psychiatrist whether she should stop her estrogen treatment, intended to enhance her sexual function, given that the couple is no longer engaging in sexual intercourse.

Mr. C admits to missing physical inti­macy; however, he states, “If I have to make a choice between having sex with my wife and getting this depression out of my head, I’m going to pick getting rid of the depres­sion.” Mrs. C says she is becoming dissatisfied with their marriage and the limited time she and her husband now spend together. Mr. C’s psychiatrist suggests that Mr. C and his wife undergo couples counseling.

Physiological changes with aging
In both women and men, the reproductive system undergoes age-related physiologi­cal changes.

Women. In women, the phase of decline in ovarian function and resulting decline in sex steroid production (estradiol and pro­gesterone) is referred to as the climacteric, with menopause being determined retro­spectively by the cessation of a menstrual period for 1 year.⁵

Menopausal symptoms typically occur between age 40 and 58; the average age of menopause is 51.^6,7 Both estradiol and pro­gesterone levels decline with menopause, and anovulation and ovarian failure ensue. A more gradual decline of female testoster­one levels also occurs with aging, starting in the fourth decade of life.⁸

Clinical manifestations of menopause include vasomotor symptoms (ie, “hot flushes”), sleep disturbances, anxiety and depressive symptoms, decreased bone min­eral density, and increased risk of cardio­vascular disease.^6,7 Loss of estrogen as well as continued loss of testosterone can result in dyspareunia because of atrophy and decreased vulvar and vaginal lubrication, with sexual excitement achieved less quickly, and a decreased intensity of orgasm.⁷

Men. Research has shown that testosterone levels are highest in men in the second and third decades, with a subsequent gradual decline.⁹ Older men with a low testosterone level are described as experiencing “late-onset hypogonadism,” also known by the popularized term “andropause.”¹⁰ This is attributed to decreased activity at the tes­ticular and hypothalamic levels.¹⁰

Nonetheless, only a small fraction of older men with confirmed androgen defi­ciency are clinically symptomatic.^11,12 Low testosterone is associated with decreased libido; it can hinder morning erections, contribute to erectile dysfunction, and result in erections that require physical stimulation.¹³

Notably, erectile dysfunction involves several other etiologic factors: psychiatric (eg, relationship difficulties, depression), neurogenic (eg, spinal cord injury), endo­crine (eg, hyperprolactinemia), arteriogenic (eg, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus), and drug-induced (eg, antidepressants, antihypertensives).¹⁴ A low testosterone level also has been associated with potential cognitive changes, decreased bone mineral density, metabolic syndrome (eg, increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus), and cardio­vascular mortality.¹⁰

Effects on sexual activity. How much age-related physiological changes impact sexual practices in the geriatric popula­tion is uncertain. A study following 3,302 women through menopause over 6 years found some decline in sexual activity; how­ever, this decline was not associated with increased sexual pain, decreased desire, or lack of arousal.¹⁵ Men continue to find ways to remain sexually active despite physiolog­ical changes (eg, erectile difficulties), but the etiology of sexual dysfunction in later life remains multi-modal, involving physical, psychological, and relational factors.^16,17

Sexual practices in older adults
Researchers for the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project (NSHAP) have examined sexual activities, behaviors, and problems in >3,000 older community-dwelling men and women across the United States, using information collected from in-home interviews.18 This study found that sexual activity, defined as any mutually voluntary sexual contact with another person, declines with age; how­ever, even in the oldest age group (age 75 to 85), 39% of men and 17% of women reported being sexually active in the last 12 months. Among these persons, 54% reported sexual activity at least 2 times per month; 23% reported having sex at least once a week; and 32% reported engaging in oral sex. Partner availability predicted sexual activity.

Respondents with self-reported poor physical health were more likely to experi­ence sexual problems (eg, difficulty with erection or lubrication, dyspareunia, and lack of pleasure). The most commonly reported reason for sexual inactivity in those with a spouse or other intimate partner was the male partner’s poor physical health.¹⁸

A longitudinal study, part of the Women’s Healthy Ageing Project, examined changes in sexual function at late menopause com­pared with early menopause. Although the researchers also found an age-related decrease in sexual activity, 50% of their late-menopause respondents (mean age, 70; range, 64 to 77) still reported sexual activity in the previous month, with 35% of this subgroup reporting sexual activity at least once a week; 83% reported sexual thoughts or fantasies.¹⁹ Availability of a partner, absence of a history of depression, moder­ate (compared with no) alcohol consump­tion, and better cognitive function were significantly associated with a higher level of sexual activity.¹⁹

In the Successful Aging Evaluation study, conducted in San Diego County, California, community-dwelling older partnered adults age 50 to 99 (mean age, 75) were surveyed about their sexual health after a cogni­tive screen by telephone²⁰; rating scales for depression, anxiety, and physical function also were included. Results included 41% of men and 35% of women reporting sexual activity at least once a week, and only 21% of men and 24% of women reporting no sex­ual activity in the previous year. Depressive symptoms were most highly correlated with lack of sexual activity.²⁰

Overall, these studies reveal that posi­tive physical and mental health, access to a healthy partner, and a positive attitude toward sex are correlated with sexual activ­ity in later life, whereas barriers to sexual activity include lack of a healthy sexual partner, depression, and chronic systemic medical illnesses, such as coronary artery disease or type 2 diabetes mellitus.^13,17,21-24 Sexual activity and satisfaction have been positively associated with perceived general well-being and self-esteem.^25,26 Conversely, sexual difficulties secondary to disease can be a source of distress for couples.²⁷

Possibly overlooked? It is important to note that sexuality itself is a subjective area. Psychological intimacy is a universal phe­nomenon, and its physical expression may evolve as couples accommodate to age-related bodily changes. Means of achieving physical closeness, other than intercourse (eg, intimate touching, hand holding, kiss­ing, or even acts of caretaking), may not be adequately captured in studies that look specifically at sexual activity.

Taking a sexual history in a geriatric patient
Because sexuality can be an uncomfort­able topic for geriatric patients to discuss, sexual problems in this population often go unrecognized. It has been suggested that psychiatrists are more likely to inquire about sexual activity in middle-aged patients than geriatric patients with the same psychiatric presentation—perhaps illustrating a bias against taking a sexual history from a geriatric patient.²⁸ However, because many older patients can experi­ence depression or anxiety disorders in relation to normal sexual changes or sex­ual dysfunction within the context of their intimate relationships, it is essential to bring these issues to light.

Although a sexual history may not be the focus of a first clinical encounter, consider making such an assessment at a relatively early stage of patient care. The importance of such dialogue is 2-fold:
   • It demonstrates to the patient that talking about sexuality in a respectful and empathic manner is appropriate and can encourage patients to communicate more effectively about sexuality with clinicians and with sexual partners.
   • It helps elicit medical information needed to make an accurate diagnosis and provide adequate management.

How to begin. As a starting point to taking a sexual history, an open-ended invitation for the geriatric patient to share informa­tion may be best, such as “What would you like to tell me about your sexual life?” See further suggestions (Table 1) and examples of more detailed questions to ask once a dialogue has been initiated (Table 2). Additional factors that may contribute to sexual dysfunction are presented in Table 3.^1,27,29,30

CASE CONTINUED
In Mr. C’s case, an assessment of his sexual history, including risk factors for sexual dysfunction, is completed. Results from laboratory investigations, including a total testosterone level, are within normal limits.

Mr. C asks about using medications with fewer sexual side effects (he has been taking 3 medications that can contribute to sexual dysfunction). A gradual cross-taper of esci­talopram, 20 mg/d, to mirtazapine, 45 mg/d, is implemented, along with tapering prega­balin to 50 mg/d.

Mr. C’s psychiatric and pain symptom improvement is maintained. He notices a boost in his sexual desire but has minimal improvement in erectile dysfunction. He is encouraged to speak with his primary care physician about an antihypertensive agent with less impact on sexual function, as well as therapeutic agents for erectile dysfunc­tion; these, he declines.

At a subsequent visit, Mr. C reports feeling less apprehension about sexual performance. He is now willing to consider further medica­tion options with his primary care physician, and agrees to a recommendation for couples psychotherapy.

As illustrated in Mr. C’s case, the recom­mended sexual assessment and manage­ment strategies to consider at a minimum in psychiatric practice are listed in Table 4.

STI risk in geriatric patients
The risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), often is overlooked in sexually active older adults. Although STIs are more common among younger adults, there is recent evidence of increased incidence in the geriatric population31 (with the high­est risk of incident HIV and some STIs in older men who have sex with men³²). These increased rates can be explained, at least in part, by:
   • older men being less likely to use a condom during sexual activity
   • promotion of viral entry in older women through a drier, thinner vaginal wall
   • increased longevity of HIV-positive persons.³¹

Routine STI screening is not warranted in all older adults, but education and prevention strategies in sexually active seniors who are at greater risk of STIs are recommended. Particularly, clinicians should seek opportunities to discuss risk factors and safe sex practices (eg, using condoms, limiting number of sexual part­ners, practicing good hygiene, engaging in preventive care), and provide behavioral counseling where appropriate.^31,33

Additional considerations in geriatric sexuality
Because psychiatric and systemic medical conditions can hinder sexual function, it is essential to identify and manage these conditions. Several neuropsychiatric dis­orders, including mood and neurocogni­tive disorders, can not only cause sexual dysfunction, but also can raise ethical dilemmas for clinicians, such as reduced decisional capacity in cognitively impaired patients to consent to sexual activity.^1,34

In some patients, psychological, envi­ronmental, and pharmacological treatment options may help. A phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor for erectile dysfunction can be prescribed by the primary care phy­sician, a psychiatrist, or another specialist, depending on the physician’s expertise and comfort level.

Sequencing of sexual dysfunction. Notably, there is a common paradox in mood disorders. Decreased sexual interest or performance may represent an aspect of anhedonia associated with depres­sion, whereas sexual dysfunction could also result from medication use (particularly that of serotonergic antidepressants, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-norepinephrine inhibitors), even as other depressive symptoms improve. Therefore, it is critical to analyze sequencing of sexual dysfunction—as part of the pre­senting mood symptoms or dysfunction induced by antidepressant treatment.

Geriatric sexuality in the digital age. Because older adults represent a rapidly growing segment of digital device users,³⁵ Internet use is likely to play a role in the future of sexuality and “digital intimacy,” in that older adults can engage in online sexual activities. The Internet also can be a tool to access medical education.

Related Resources
• Burghardt KJ, Gardner KN. Sildenafil for SSRI-induced sexual dysfunction. Current Psychiatry. 2013;12(4):29-32,A.
• Maciel M, Laganà L. Older women’s sexual desire prob­lems: biopsychosocial factors impacting them and barriers to their clinical assessment [published online January 5, 2014]. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:107217. doi: 10.1155/2014/107217.

Drug Brand Names
Bupropion • Wellbutrin, Zyban                   Mirtazapine • Remeron
Carbamazepine • Tegretol                         Oxcarbazepine • Trileptal
Clonidine • Catapres                                 Phenobarbital • Luminal
Donepezil • Aricept                                   Phenytoin • Dilantin
Escitalopram • Lexapro                             Pregabalin • Lyrica
Gabapentin • Neurontin                            Ramipril • Altace
Lamotrigine • Lamictal                              Rivastigmine • Exelon
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid                       Trazodone • Desyrel
Memantine • Namenda                             Valproic acid • Depakote

Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationships with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.

Recent studies suggest that most older adults main­tain sexual interest well into late life; many, however, experience sexual dysfunction. This article provides psychiatric practitioners with current information regard­ing sexuality and aging, as well as psychiatric and systemic medical comorbidities and sexual side effects of medi­cations. Practice guidelines for assessing and managing sexual dysfunction have been developed for use in many medical specialties, and such guidance would be welcome in psychiatric practice.

This article addresses the myth of “geriatric asexuality” and its potential impact on clinical practice, the effects of age-related physiological changes on sexual activity, the importance of sexuality in the lives of older adults, and sensitive questions clinicians can pose about geriatric sexu­ality. We also will discuss:  
   • the importance of including a sexual assessment in the comprehensive psychiatric evaluation  
   • recognizing sexual dysfunction  
   • providing appropriate management within a multi-disciplinary, collaborative approach.

Sexuality after 65
Regardless of age, sexual activity can provide a sense of com­fort and elicit a positive emotional and physical response.¹ Hillman² defined human sexuality as any combination of sex­ual behavior, emotional intimacy, and sense of sexual identity.

Sexuality in the aging population gen­erally is an understudied area, obscured by the myth of “geriatric asexuality” and subject to numerous psychosocial vari­ables.¹ Previous research, focused on a bio­logical perspective of sexuality, has largely overlooked psychological and social influ­ences.³ It has been assumed that, with age, physical and hormonal changes or chronic illness ordinarily reduce or eliminate sex­ual desire and sexual behavior.³ However, the majority of older adults (defined as age ≥65) report a moderate-to-high level of sexual interest well into late life.^1,3

Sexual function remains a subject often neglected in psychiatry. Sexual dysfunc­tions, as described in the DSM-5,⁴ do not include age-related changes in sexual func­tion. In addition to physiological changes, sexual difficulties can result from relation­ship strain, systemic medical or psychi­atric disorders, and sexual side effects of medications.

CASE REPORT
Mr. C, age 71 and married, is being treated for a major depressive episode that followed a course of shingles and persistent posther­petic neuralgia. Medications are: escitalo­pram, 20 mg/d; pregabalin, 150 mg/d; and ramipril, 5 mg/d. Mr. C is physically active and involved in social activities; he has no substance use history. He attends clinic visits with his wife.

Mr. C reports that despite significant improvement of his depressive and pain symptoms, he now experiences sexual dif­ficulties, which he seems hesitant to discuss in detail. According to his wife, Mr. C appears to lack sexual desire and has difficulty initi­ating and maintaining an erection. She asks Mr. C’s psychiatrist whether she should stop her estrogen treatment, intended to enhance her sexual function, given that the couple is no longer engaging in sexual intercourse.

Mr. C admits to missing physical inti­macy; however, he states, “If I have to make a choice between having sex with my wife and getting this depression out of my head, I’m going to pick getting rid of the depres­sion.” Mrs. C says she is becoming dissatisfied with their marriage and the limited time she and her husband now spend together. Mr. C’s psychiatrist suggests that Mr. C and his wife undergo couples counseling.

Physiological changes with aging
In both women and men, the reproductive system undergoes age-related physiologi­cal changes.

Women. In women, the phase of decline in ovarian function and resulting decline in sex steroid production (estradiol and pro­gesterone) is referred to as the climacteric, with menopause being determined retro­spectively by the cessation of a menstrual period for 1 year.⁵

Menopausal symptoms typically occur between age 40 and 58; the average age of menopause is 51.^6,7 Both estradiol and pro­gesterone levels decline with menopause, and anovulation and ovarian failure ensue. A more gradual decline of female testoster­one levels also occurs with aging, starting in the fourth decade of life.⁸

Clinical manifestations of menopause include vasomotor symptoms (ie, “hot flushes”), sleep disturbances, anxiety and depressive symptoms, decreased bone min­eral density, and increased risk of cardio­vascular disease.^6,7 Loss of estrogen as well as continued loss of testosterone can result in dyspareunia because of atrophy and decreased vulvar and vaginal lubrication, with sexual excitement achieved less quickly, and a decreased intensity of orgasm.⁷

Men. Research has shown that testosterone levels are highest in men in the second and third decades, with a subsequent gradual decline.⁹ Older men with a low testosterone level are described as experiencing “late-onset hypogonadism,” also known by the popularized term “andropause.”¹⁰ This is attributed to decreased activity at the tes­ticular and hypothalamic levels.¹⁰

Nonetheless, only a small fraction of older men with confirmed androgen defi­ciency are clinically symptomatic.^11,12 Low testosterone is associated with decreased libido; it can hinder morning erections, contribute to erectile dysfunction, and result in erections that require physical stimulation.¹³

Notably, erectile dysfunction involves several other etiologic factors: psychiatric (eg, relationship difficulties, depression), neurogenic (eg, spinal cord injury), endo­crine (eg, hyperprolactinemia), arteriogenic (eg, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus), and drug-induced (eg, antidepressants, antihypertensives).¹⁴ A low testosterone level also has been associated with potential cognitive changes, decreased bone mineral density, metabolic syndrome (eg, increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus), and cardio­vascular mortality.¹⁰

Effects on sexual activity. How much age-related physiological changes impact sexual practices in the geriatric popula­tion is uncertain. A study following 3,302 women through menopause over 6 years found some decline in sexual activity; how­ever, this decline was not associated with increased sexual pain, decreased desire, or lack of arousal.¹⁵ Men continue to find ways to remain sexually active despite physiolog­ical changes (eg, erectile difficulties), but the etiology of sexual dysfunction in later life remains multi-modal, involving physical, psychological, and relational factors.^16,17

Sexual practices in older adults
Researchers for the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project (NSHAP) have examined sexual activities, behaviors, and problems in >3,000 older community-dwelling men and women across the United States, using information collected from in-home interviews.18 This study found that sexual activity, defined as any mutually voluntary sexual contact with another person, declines with age; how­ever, even in the oldest age group (age 75 to 85), 39% of men and 17% of women reported being sexually active in the last 12 months. Among these persons, 54% reported sexual activity at least 2 times per month; 23% reported having sex at least once a week; and 32% reported engaging in oral sex. Partner availability predicted sexual activity.

Respondents with self-reported poor physical health were more likely to experi­ence sexual problems (eg, difficulty with erection or lubrication, dyspareunia, and lack of pleasure). The most commonly reported reason for sexual inactivity in those with a spouse or other intimate partner was the male partner’s poor physical health.¹⁸

A longitudinal study, part of the Women’s Healthy Ageing Project, examined changes in sexual function at late menopause com­pared with early menopause. Although the researchers also found an age-related decrease in sexual activity, 50% of their late-menopause respondents (mean age, 70; range, 64 to 77) still reported sexual activity in the previous month, with 35% of this subgroup reporting sexual activity at least once a week; 83% reported sexual thoughts or fantasies.¹⁹ Availability of a partner, absence of a history of depression, moder­ate (compared with no) alcohol consump­tion, and better cognitive function were significantly associated with a higher level of sexual activity.¹⁹

In the Successful Aging Evaluation study, conducted in San Diego County, California, community-dwelling older partnered adults age 50 to 99 (mean age, 75) were surveyed about their sexual health after a cogni­tive screen by telephone²⁰; rating scales for depression, anxiety, and physical function also were included. Results included 41% of men and 35% of women reporting sexual activity at least once a week, and only 21% of men and 24% of women reporting no sex­ual activity in the previous year. Depressive symptoms were most highly correlated with lack of sexual activity.²⁰

Overall, these studies reveal that posi­tive physical and mental health, access to a healthy partner, and a positive attitude toward sex are correlated with sexual activ­ity in later life, whereas barriers to sexual activity include lack of a healthy sexual partner, depression, and chronic systemic medical illnesses, such as coronary artery disease or type 2 diabetes mellitus.^13,17,21-24 Sexual activity and satisfaction have been positively associated with perceived general well-being and self-esteem.^25,26 Conversely, sexual difficulties secondary to disease can be a source of distress for couples.²⁷

Possibly overlooked? It is important to note that sexuality itself is a subjective area. Psychological intimacy is a universal phe­nomenon, and its physical expression may evolve as couples accommodate to age-related bodily changes. Means of achieving physical closeness, other than intercourse (eg, intimate touching, hand holding, kiss­ing, or even acts of caretaking), may not be adequately captured in studies that look specifically at sexual activity.

Taking a sexual history in a geriatric patient
Because sexuality can be an uncomfort­able topic for geriatric patients to discuss, sexual problems in this population often go unrecognized. It has been suggested that psychiatrists are more likely to inquire about sexual activity in middle-aged patients than geriatric patients with the same psychiatric presentation—perhaps illustrating a bias against taking a sexual history from a geriatric patient.²⁸ However, because many older patients can experi­ence depression or anxiety disorders in relation to normal sexual changes or sex­ual dysfunction within the context of their intimate relationships, it is essential to bring these issues to light.

Although a sexual history may not be the focus of a first clinical encounter, consider making such an assessment at a relatively early stage of patient care. The importance of such dialogue is 2-fold:
   • It demonstrates to the patient that talking about sexuality in a respectful and empathic manner is appropriate and can encourage patients to communicate more effectively about sexuality with clinicians and with sexual partners.
   • It helps elicit medical information needed to make an accurate diagnosis and provide adequate management.

How to begin. As a starting point to taking a sexual history, an open-ended invitation for the geriatric patient to share informa­tion may be best, such as “What would you like to tell me about your sexual life?” See further suggestions (Table 1) and examples of more detailed questions to ask once a dialogue has been initiated (Table 2). Additional factors that may contribute to sexual dysfunction are presented in Table 3.^1,27,29,30

CASE CONTINUED
In Mr. C’s case, an assessment of his sexual history, including risk factors for sexual dysfunction, is completed. Results from laboratory investigations, including a total testosterone level, are within normal limits.

Mr. C asks about using medications with fewer sexual side effects (he has been taking 3 medications that can contribute to sexual dysfunction). A gradual cross-taper of esci­talopram, 20 mg/d, to mirtazapine, 45 mg/d, is implemented, along with tapering prega­balin to 50 mg/d.

Mr. C’s psychiatric and pain symptom improvement is maintained. He notices a boost in his sexual desire but has minimal improvement in erectile dysfunction. He is encouraged to speak with his primary care physician about an antihypertensive agent with less impact on sexual function, as well as therapeutic agents for erectile dysfunc­tion; these, he declines.

At a subsequent visit, Mr. C reports feeling less apprehension about sexual performance. He is now willing to consider further medica­tion options with his primary care physician, and agrees to a recommendation for couples psychotherapy.

As illustrated in Mr. C’s case, the recom­mended sexual assessment and manage­ment strategies to consider at a minimum in psychiatric practice are listed in Table 4.

STI risk in geriatric patients
The risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), often is overlooked in sexually active older adults. Although STIs are more common among younger adults, there is recent evidence of increased incidence in the geriatric population31 (with the high­est risk of incident HIV and some STIs in older men who have sex with men³²). These increased rates can be explained, at least in part, by:
   • older men being less likely to use a condom during sexual activity
   • promotion of viral entry in older women through a drier, thinner vaginal wall
   • increased longevity of HIV-positive persons.³¹

Routine STI screening is not warranted in all older adults, but education and prevention strategies in sexually active seniors who are at greater risk of STIs are recommended. Particularly, clinicians should seek opportunities to discuss risk factors and safe sex practices (eg, using condoms, limiting number of sexual part­ners, practicing good hygiene, engaging in preventive care), and provide behavioral counseling where appropriate.^31,33

Additional considerations in geriatric sexuality
Because psychiatric and systemic medical conditions can hinder sexual function, it is essential to identify and manage these conditions. Several neuropsychiatric dis­orders, including mood and neurocogni­tive disorders, can not only cause sexual dysfunction, but also can raise ethical dilemmas for clinicians, such as reduced decisional capacity in cognitively impaired patients to consent to sexual activity.^1,34

In some patients, psychological, envi­ronmental, and pharmacological treatment options may help. A phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor for erectile dysfunction can be prescribed by the primary care phy­sician, a psychiatrist, or another specialist, depending on the physician’s expertise and comfort level.

Sequencing of sexual dysfunction. Notably, there is a common paradox in mood disorders. Decreased sexual interest or performance may represent an aspect of anhedonia associated with depres­sion, whereas sexual dysfunction could also result from medication use (particularly that of serotonergic antidepressants, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-norepinephrine inhibitors), even as other depressive symptoms improve. Therefore, it is critical to analyze sequencing of sexual dysfunction—as part of the pre­senting mood symptoms or dysfunction induced by antidepressant treatment.

Geriatric sexuality in the digital age. Because older adults represent a rapidly growing segment of digital device users,³⁵ Internet use is likely to play a role in the future of sexuality and “digital intimacy,” in that older adults can engage in online sexual activities. The Internet also can be a tool to access medical education.

Related Resources
• Burghardt KJ, Gardner KN. Sildenafil for SSRI-induced sexual dysfunction. Current Psychiatry. 2013;12(4):29-32,A.
• Maciel M, Laganà L. Older women’s sexual desire prob­lems: biopsychosocial factors impacting them and barriers to their clinical assessment [published online January 5, 2014]. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:107217. doi: 10.1155/2014/107217.

Drug Brand Names
Bupropion • Wellbutrin, Zyban                   Mirtazapine • Remeron
Carbamazepine • Tegretol                         Oxcarbazepine • Trileptal
Clonidine • Catapres                                 Phenobarbital • Luminal
Donepezil • Aricept                                   Phenytoin • Dilantin
Escitalopram • Lexapro                             Pregabalin • Lyrica
Gabapentin • Neurontin                            Ramipril • Altace
Lamotrigine • Lamictal                              Rivastigmine • Exelon
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid                       Trazodone • Desyrel
Memantine • Namenda                             Valproic acid • Depakote

Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationships with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.

Delirium has been described as a poten­tial complication of concurrent lithium and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for depression, in association with a range of serum lithium levels. Although debate persists about the safety of continuing pre­viously established lithium therapy during a course of ECT for mood symptoms, with­holding lithium for 24 hours before adminis­tering ECT and measuring the serum lithium level before ECT were found to decrease the risk of post-ECT neurocognitive effects.¹

We have found that the conven­tional practice of holding lithium for 24 hours before ECT might need to be re-evaluated in geriatric patients, as the fol­lowing case demonstrates. Only 24 hours of holding lithium therapy might result in a lithium level sufficient to contribute to delir­ium after ECT. 

CASE REPORT
An older woman with recurrent unipolar psychotic depression
Mrs. A, age 81, was admitted to the hospital with a 1-week history of depressed mood, anhedonia, insomnia, anergia, anorexia, and nihilistic somatic delusions that her organs were “rotting and shutting down.” Treatment included nortriptyline, 40 mg/d; lithium, 150 mg/d; and haloperidol, 0.5 mg/d. Her serum lithium level was 0.3 mEq/L (reference range, 0.6 to 1.2 mEq/L); the serum nortrip­tyline level was 68 ng/mL (reference range, 50 to 150 ng/mL). CT of the head and an electrocardiogram were unremarkable.

A twice-weekly course of ECT was initiated.

The day before Treatment 1 of ECT, the serum lithium level (drawn 12 hours after the last dose) was 0.4 mEq/L. Lithium was withheld 24 hours before ECT; nortriptyline and haloperidol were continued at prescribed dosages.

Right unilateral stimulation was used at 50%/mC energy (Thymatron DG, with metho­hexital anesthesia, and succinylcholine for mus­cle relaxation). Seizure duration, measured by EEG, was 57 seconds.

Mrs. A developed postictal delirium after the first 2 ECT sessions. The serum lithium level was unchanged. Subsequently, lithium treat­ment was discontinued and ECT was continued; once lithium was stopped, delirium resolved. ECT sessions 3 and 4 were uneventful, with no post-treatment delirium. Seizure duration for Treatment 4 was 58 seconds. She started breath­ing easily after all ECT sessions.

After Treatment 4, Mrs. A experienced full remission of depressive and psychotic symp­toms. Repeat CT of head, after Treatment 4, was unchanged from baseline.

What is the role of lithium?
Mrs. A did not exhibit typical signs of lithium intoxication (diarrhea, vomiting, tremor). Notably, lithium has an intrinsic anticholinergic activity²; concurrent nor­triptyline, a secondary amine tricyclic anti­depressant with fewer anticholinergic side effects than other tricyclics,² could pre­cipitate delirium in a vulnerable patient secondary to excessive cumulative anti­cholinergic exposure.

No prolonged time-to-respiration or time-to-awakening occurred during treat­ments in which concurrent lithium and ECT were used; seizure duration with and without concurrent lithium was rela­tively similar.

There are potential complications of con­current use of lithium and ECT:
    • prolongation of the duration of muscle paralysis and apnea induced by commonly used neuromuscular-blocking agents (eg, succinylcholine)
    • post-ECT cognitive disturbance.^1,3,4

There is debate about the safety of con­tinuing lithium during, or in close proximity to, ECT. In a case series of 12 patients who underwent combined lithium therapy and ECT, the authors concluded that this combi­nation can be safe, regardless of age, as long as appropriate clinical monitoring is pro­vided.⁴ In Mrs. A’s case, once post-ECT delir­ium was noted, lithium was discontinued for subsequent ECT sessions.

Because further ECT was uneventful with­out lithium, and no other clear acute cause of delirium could be identified, we concluded that lithium likely played a role in Mrs. A’s delirium. Notably, nortriptyline had been continued, suggesting that the degree of anticholinergic blockade provided by nortriptyline was insufficient to provoke delirium post-ECT in the absence of potentia­tion of this effect, as it had been when lithium also was used initially.

Guidelines for dosing and serum lithium concentrations in geriatric patients are not well-established; the current traditional range of 0.6 to 1.2 mEq/L, is too high for geriatric patients and can result in epi­sodes of lithium toxicity, including delirium.⁵ Although our patient’s lithium level was below the reference range for all patients, a level of 0.3 mEq/L can be considered at the low end of the reference range for geriatric patients.5 Inasmuch as the lithium-assisted post-ECT delirium could represent a clinical sign of lithium toxicity, perhaps even a sub­therapeutic level in a certain patient could be paradoxically “toxic.”

Although the serum lithium level in our patient remained below the toxic level for the general population (>1.5 mEq/L), delirium in a geriatric patient could result from:  
   • age-related changes in the pharmacokinetics of lithium, a water-soluble drug; these changes reduce renal clearance of the drug and extend plasma elimination half-life of a single dose to 36 hours, with the result that lithium remains in the body longer and necessitating a lower dosage (ie, a dosage that yields a serum level of approximately 0.5 mEq/L)  
    • the CNS tissue concentration of lith­ium, which can be high even though the serum level is not toxic  
    • an age-related increase in blood-brain barrier permeability, making the barrier more porous for drugs  
    • changes in blood-brain barrier perme­ability by post-ECT biochemical induction, with subsequent increased drug availability in the CNS.^5,6 

What we recommend
Possible interactions between lithium and ECT that lead to ECT-associated delirium need further elucidation, but discontinu­ing lithium during the course of ECT in a geriatric patient warrants your consider­ation. Following a safe interval after the last ECT session, lithium likely can be safely re-introduced 1) if there is clinical need and 2) as long as clinical surveillance for cognitive side effects is provided— especially if ECT will need to be reconsidered in the future.

Two additional considerations:
   • Actively reassess lithium dosing in all geriatric psychiatric patients, especially those with renal insufficiency and other systemic metabolic considerations.
   • Actively examine the use of all other anticholinergic agents in the course of evaluating a patient’s candidacy for ECT.


Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationships with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.

Delirium has been described as a poten­tial complication of concurrent lithium and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for depression, in association with a range of serum lithium levels. Although debate persists about the safety of continuing pre­viously established lithium therapy during a course of ECT for mood symptoms, with­holding lithium for 24 hours before adminis­tering ECT and measuring the serum lithium level before ECT were found to decrease the risk of post-ECT neurocognitive effects.¹

We have found that the conven­tional practice of holding lithium for 24 hours before ECT might need to be re-evaluated in geriatric patients, as the fol­lowing case demonstrates. Only 24 hours of holding lithium therapy might result in a lithium level sufficient to contribute to delir­ium after ECT. 

CASE REPORT
An older woman with recurrent unipolar psychotic depression
Mrs. A, age 81, was admitted to the hospital with a 1-week history of depressed mood, anhedonia, insomnia, anergia, anorexia, and nihilistic somatic delusions that her organs were “rotting and shutting down.” Treatment included nortriptyline, 40 mg/d; lithium, 150 mg/d; and haloperidol, 0.5 mg/d. Her serum lithium level was 0.3 mEq/L (reference range, 0.6 to 1.2 mEq/L); the serum nortrip­tyline level was 68 ng/mL (reference range, 50 to 150 ng/mL). CT of the head and an electrocardiogram were unremarkable.

A twice-weekly course of ECT was initiated.

The day before Treatment 1 of ECT, the serum lithium level (drawn 12 hours after the last dose) was 0.4 mEq/L. Lithium was withheld 24 hours before ECT; nortriptyline and haloperidol were continued at prescribed dosages.

Right unilateral stimulation was used at 50%/mC energy (Thymatron DG, with metho­hexital anesthesia, and succinylcholine for mus­cle relaxation). Seizure duration, measured by EEG, was 57 seconds.

Mrs. A developed postictal delirium after the first 2 ECT sessions. The serum lithium level was unchanged. Subsequently, lithium treat­ment was discontinued and ECT was continued; once lithium was stopped, delirium resolved. ECT sessions 3 and 4 were uneventful, with no post-treatment delirium. Seizure duration for Treatment 4 was 58 seconds. She started breath­ing easily after all ECT sessions.

After Treatment 4, Mrs. A experienced full remission of depressive and psychotic symp­toms. Repeat CT of head, after Treatment 4, was unchanged from baseline.

What is the role of lithium?
Mrs. A did not exhibit typical signs of lithium intoxication (diarrhea, vomiting, tremor). Notably, lithium has an intrinsic anticholinergic activity²; concurrent nor­triptyline, a secondary amine tricyclic anti­depressant with fewer anticholinergic side effects than other tricyclics,² could pre­cipitate delirium in a vulnerable patient secondary to excessive cumulative anti­cholinergic exposure.

No prolonged time-to-respiration or time-to-awakening occurred during treat­ments in which concurrent lithium and ECT were used; seizure duration with and without concurrent lithium was rela­tively similar.

There are potential complications of con­current use of lithium and ECT:
    • prolongation of the duration of muscle paralysis and apnea induced by commonly used neuromuscular-blocking agents (eg, succinylcholine)
    • post-ECT cognitive disturbance.^1,3,4

There is debate about the safety of con­tinuing lithium during, or in close proximity to, ECT. In a case series of 12 patients who underwent combined lithium therapy and ECT, the authors concluded that this combi­nation can be safe, regardless of age, as long as appropriate clinical monitoring is pro­vided.⁴ In Mrs. A’s case, once post-ECT delir­ium was noted, lithium was discontinued for subsequent ECT sessions.

Because further ECT was uneventful with­out lithium, and no other clear acute cause of delirium could be identified, we concluded that lithium likely played a role in Mrs. A’s delirium. Notably, nortriptyline had been continued, suggesting that the degree of anticholinergic blockade provided by nortriptyline was insufficient to provoke delirium post-ECT in the absence of potentia­tion of this effect, as it had been when lithium also was used initially.

Guidelines for dosing and serum lithium concentrations in geriatric patients are not well-established; the current traditional range of 0.6 to 1.2 mEq/L, is too high for geriatric patients and can result in epi­sodes of lithium toxicity, including delirium.⁵ Although our patient’s lithium level was below the reference range for all patients, a level of 0.3 mEq/L can be considered at the low end of the reference range for geriatric patients.5 Inasmuch as the lithium-assisted post-ECT delirium could represent a clinical sign of lithium toxicity, perhaps even a sub­therapeutic level in a certain patient could be paradoxically “toxic.”

Although the serum lithium level in our patient remained below the toxic level for the general population (>1.5 mEq/L), delirium in a geriatric patient could result from:  
   • age-related changes in the pharmacokinetics of lithium, a water-soluble drug; these changes reduce renal clearance of the drug and extend plasma elimination half-life of a single dose to 36 hours, with the result that lithium remains in the body longer and necessitating a lower dosage (ie, a dosage that yields a serum level of approximately 0.5 mEq/L)  
    • the CNS tissue concentration of lith­ium, which can be high even though the serum level is not toxic  
    • an age-related increase in blood-brain barrier permeability, making the barrier more porous for drugs  
    • changes in blood-brain barrier perme­ability by post-ECT biochemical induction, with subsequent increased drug availability in the CNS.^5,6 

What we recommend
Possible interactions between lithium and ECT that lead to ECT-associated delirium need further elucidation, but discontinu­ing lithium during the course of ECT in a geriatric patient warrants your consider­ation. Following a safe interval after the last ECT session, lithium likely can be safely re-introduced 1) if there is clinical need and 2) as long as clinical surveillance for cognitive side effects is provided— especially if ECT will need to be reconsidered in the future.

Two additional considerations:
   • Actively reassess lithium dosing in all geriatric psychiatric patients, especially those with renal insufficiency and other systemic metabolic considerations.
   • Actively examine the use of all other anticholinergic agents in the course of evaluating a patient’s candidacy for ECT.


Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationships with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.

Delirium has been described as a poten­tial complication of concurrent lithium and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for depression, in association with a range of serum lithium levels. Although debate persists about the safety of continuing pre­viously established lithium therapy during a course of ECT for mood symptoms, with­holding lithium for 24 hours before adminis­tering ECT and measuring the serum lithium level before ECT were found to decrease the risk of post-ECT neurocognitive effects.¹

We have found that the conven­tional practice of holding lithium for 24 hours before ECT might need to be re-evaluated in geriatric patients, as the fol­lowing case demonstrates. Only 24 hours of holding lithium therapy might result in a lithium level sufficient to contribute to delir­ium after ECT. 

CASE REPORT
An older woman with recurrent unipolar psychotic depression
Mrs. A, age 81, was admitted to the hospital with a 1-week history of depressed mood, anhedonia, insomnia, anergia, anorexia, and nihilistic somatic delusions that her organs were “rotting and shutting down.” Treatment included nortriptyline, 40 mg/d; lithium, 150 mg/d; and haloperidol, 0.5 mg/d. Her serum lithium level was 0.3 mEq/L (reference range, 0.6 to 1.2 mEq/L); the serum nortrip­tyline level was 68 ng/mL (reference range, 50 to 150 ng/mL). CT of the head and an electrocardiogram were unremarkable.

A twice-weekly course of ECT was initiated.

The day before Treatment 1 of ECT, the serum lithium level (drawn 12 hours after the last dose) was 0.4 mEq/L. Lithium was withheld 24 hours before ECT; nortriptyline and haloperidol were continued at prescribed dosages.

Right unilateral stimulation was used at 50%/mC energy (Thymatron DG, with metho­hexital anesthesia, and succinylcholine for mus­cle relaxation). Seizure duration, measured by EEG, was 57 seconds.

Mrs. A developed postictal delirium after the first 2 ECT sessions. The serum lithium level was unchanged. Subsequently, lithium treat­ment was discontinued and ECT was continued; once lithium was stopped, delirium resolved. ECT sessions 3 and 4 were uneventful, with no post-treatment delirium. Seizure duration for Treatment 4 was 58 seconds. She started breath­ing easily after all ECT sessions.

After Treatment 4, Mrs. A experienced full remission of depressive and psychotic symp­toms. Repeat CT of head, after Treatment 4, was unchanged from baseline.

What is the role of lithium?
Mrs. A did not exhibit typical signs of lithium intoxication (diarrhea, vomiting, tremor). Notably, lithium has an intrinsic anticholinergic activity²; concurrent nor­triptyline, a secondary amine tricyclic anti­depressant with fewer anticholinergic side effects than other tricyclics,² could pre­cipitate delirium in a vulnerable patient secondary to excessive cumulative anti­cholinergic exposure.

No prolonged time-to-respiration or time-to-awakening occurred during treat­ments in which concurrent lithium and ECT were used; seizure duration with and without concurrent lithium was rela­tively similar.

There are potential complications of con­current use of lithium and ECT:
    • prolongation of the duration of muscle paralysis and apnea induced by commonly used neuromuscular-blocking agents (eg, succinylcholine)
    • post-ECT cognitive disturbance.^1,3,4

There is debate about the safety of con­tinuing lithium during, or in close proximity to, ECT. In a case series of 12 patients who underwent combined lithium therapy and ECT, the authors concluded that this combi­nation can be safe, regardless of age, as long as appropriate clinical monitoring is pro­vided.⁴ In Mrs. A’s case, once post-ECT delir­ium was noted, lithium was discontinued for subsequent ECT sessions.

Because further ECT was uneventful with­out lithium, and no other clear acute cause of delirium could be identified, we concluded that lithium likely played a role in Mrs. A’s delirium. Notably, nortriptyline had been continued, suggesting that the degree of anticholinergic blockade provided by nortriptyline was insufficient to provoke delirium post-ECT in the absence of potentia­tion of this effect, as it had been when lithium also was used initially.

Guidelines for dosing and serum lithium concentrations in geriatric patients are not well-established; the current traditional range of 0.6 to 1.2 mEq/L, is too high for geriatric patients and can result in epi­sodes of lithium toxicity, including delirium.⁵ Although our patient’s lithium level was below the reference range for all patients, a level of 0.3 mEq/L can be considered at the low end of the reference range for geriatric patients.5 Inasmuch as the lithium-assisted post-ECT delirium could represent a clinical sign of lithium toxicity, perhaps even a sub­therapeutic level in a certain patient could be paradoxically “toxic.”

Although the serum lithium level in our patient remained below the toxic level for the general population (>1.5 mEq/L), delirium in a geriatric patient could result from:  
   • age-related changes in the pharmacokinetics of lithium, a water-soluble drug; these changes reduce renal clearance of the drug and extend plasma elimination half-life of a single dose to 36 hours, with the result that lithium remains in the body longer and necessitating a lower dosage (ie, a dosage that yields a serum level of approximately 0.5 mEq/L)  
    • the CNS tissue concentration of lith­ium, which can be high even though the serum level is not toxic  
    • an age-related increase in blood-brain barrier permeability, making the barrier more porous for drugs  
    • changes in blood-brain barrier perme­ability by post-ECT biochemical induction, with subsequent increased drug availability in the CNS.^5,6 

What we recommend
Possible interactions between lithium and ECT that lead to ECT-associated delirium need further elucidation, but discontinu­ing lithium during the course of ECT in a geriatric patient warrants your consider­ation. Following a safe interval after the last ECT session, lithium likely can be safely re-introduced 1) if there is clinical need and 2) as long as clinical surveillance for cognitive side effects is provided— especially if ECT will need to be reconsidered in the future.

Two additional considerations:
   • Actively reassess lithium dosing in all geriatric psychiatric patients, especially those with renal insufficiency and other systemic metabolic considerations.
   • Actively examine the use of all other anticholinergic agents in the course of evaluating a patient’s candidacy for ECT.


Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationships with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.

Although delirium has many descriptive terms (Table 1), a common unifying term is “acute global cognitive dysfunction,” now recognized as delirium; a consensus supported by DSM-5¹ and ICD-10² (Table 2). According to DSM-5, the essential feature is a disturbance of attention or awareness that is accompanied by a change in baseline cognition that cannot be explained by another preexisting, established, or evolving neurocognitive disorder (the newly named DSM-5 entity for dementia syndromes).¹ Because delirium affects the cortex diffusely, psychiatric symp­toms can include cognitive, mood, anxiety, or psychotic symp­toms. Because many systemic illnesses can induce delirium, the differential diagnosis spans all organ systems.

Three subtypes
Delirium can be classified, based on symptoms,^3,4 into 3 sub­types: hyperactive-hyperalert, hypoactive-hypoalert, and mixed delirium. Hyperactive patients present with rest­lessness and agitation. Hypoactive patients are lethargic, confused, slow to respond to questions, and often appear depressed. The differential prognostic significance of these subtypes has been examined in the literature, with conflicting results. Rabinowitz⁵ reported that hypoactive delirium has the worst prognosis, while Marcantonio et al⁶ indicated that the hyperactive subtype is associated with the highest mortality rate. Mixed delirium, with periods of both hyperactivity and hypoactivity, is the most common type of delirium.⁷

A prodromal phase, characterized by anxiety, frequent requests for nursing and medical assistance, decreased attention, rest­lessness, vivid dreams, disorientation imme­diately after awakening, and hallucinations, can occur before an episode of full-spectrum delirium; this prodromal state often is iden­tified retrospectively —after the patient is in an episode of delirium.^8,9

Evidence-based guidelines aim to improve recognition and clinical management.^10-13 Disruptive behavior is the main reason for psychiatric referral in delirium.^14,15 Delayed psychiatric consultation because of non-recognition of delirium is related to variables such as older age; history of a pre-existing, comorbid neurocognitive disorder; and the clinical appearance of hypoactive delirium.¹⁴

The case of Mr. D (Box),¹⁶ illus­trates how the emergence of antipsychotic-associated neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) can complicate antipsychotic treat­ment of delirium in a geriatric medical patient, although delirium also is a common presentation in NMS.¹⁷ Delirium developed after an increase in carbidopa/levodopa, which has central dopaminergic effects that can precipitate delirium, particularly in a geriatric patient with preexisting comorbid neurocognitive disorder. Further complicat­ing Mr. D’s delirium presentation was the development of NMS, which had a multifac­torial causation, such as the use of dopamine antagonists (ie, quetiapine, metoclopramide), and an abrupt decrease of a dopaminergic agent (ie, carbidopa/levodopa), all inducing a central dopamine relative hypoactivity.

Epidemiology
Delirium is more common in older patients,¹⁵ and is seen in 30% to 40% of hospitalized geri­atric patients.¹⁸ Delirium in older patients, compared with other adults, is associated with more severe cognitive impairment.¹⁹ It is com­mon among geriatric surgical patients (15% to 62%)²⁰ with a peak 2 to 5 days postoperatively for hip fracture,²¹ and often is seen in ICU patients (70% to 87%).²⁰ However, Spronk et al²² found that delirium is significantly under-recognized in the ICU. Nearly 90% of terminally ill patients become delirious before death.²³ Terminal delirium often is unrecognized and can interfere with assessment of other clinical problems.²⁴ A preexisting history of comor­bid neurocognitive disorder was evident in as many as two-thirds of delirium cases.²⁵

Pathophysiology and risk factors
The pathophysiology of delirium has been characterized as an imbalance of CNS metab­olism, including decreased blood flow in vari­ous regions of the brain that may normalize once delirium resolves.²⁶ Studies describe the simultaneous decrease of cholinergic transmission and dopaminergic excess.^27,28 Predisposing and precipitating factors for delirium that are of particular importance in geriatric patients include:
   • advanced age
   • CNS disease
   • infection
   • cognitive impairment
   • male sex
   • poor nutrition
   • dehydration and other metabolic abnormalities
   • cardiovascular events
   • substance use
   • medication
   • sensory deprivation (eg, impaired vision or hearing)
   • sleep deprivation
   • low level of physical activity.^27,29,30

Table 3 lists the most common delirium-provocative medications.²⁷

Evaluation and psychometric scales
The EEG can be useful in evaluating delir­ium, especially in clinically ambiguous cases. EEG findings may indicate generalized slowing or dropout of the posterior domi­nant rhythm, and generalized slow theta and delta waves, findings that are more common in delirium than in other neurocognitive dis­orders and other psychiatric illnesses. The EEG must be interpreted in the context of the delirium diagnostic workup, because abnor­malities seen in other neurocognitive disor­ders can overlap with those of delirium.³¹

The EEG referral should specify the clini­cal suspicion of delirium to help interpret the results. Delirium cases in which the patient’s previous cognitive status is unknown may benefit from EEG evaluation, such as:
   • in possible status epilepticus
   • when delirium improvement has reached a plateau at a lower level of cognitive function than before onset of delirium
   • when the patient is unable or unwilling to complete a psychiatric interview.²⁷

Assessment instruments are available to diagnose and monitor delirium (Table 4). Typically, delirium assessment includes examining levels of arousal, psychomotor activity, cognition (ie, orienta­tion, attention, and memory), and percep­tual disturbances.

Psychometrically, a review of Table 4 suggests that validity appeared stable with adequate specificity (64% to 99%) but more variable sensitivity (36% to 100%). These reliability parameters also will be affected by the classification sys­tem (ie, DSM vs ICD) and the cut-off score employed.³² Most measures (eg, Confusion Assessment Method [CAM], CAM-ICU) provide an adequate sample of behavioral (ie, level of alertness), motor (ie, psychomo­tor activity), and cognitive (ie, orientation, attention, memory, and receptive language) function, with the exception of the Global Attentiveness Rating, which is a 2-minute open conversation protocol between physi­cian and patient.

Some measures are stand-alone instru­ments, such as the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale, whereas the CAM requires administration of separate cogni­tive screens, including the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Digit Span.³³ Instruments to detect delirium in critically ill patients are a more recent development. Wong et al³⁴ reported that the most widely studied tool was the CAM. Obtaining collat­eral information from family, caregivers, and hospital staff is essential, particularly given the fluctuating nature of delirium.

Management
Prevention. Identify patients at high risk of delirium so that preventive strategies can be employed. Multi-component, nonphar­macotherapeutic interventions are used in clinical settings but few randomized trials have been conducted. The contributing effectiveness of individual components is not well-studied, but most include staff education to increase awareness of delir­ium. Of 3 multi-component intervention randomized trials, 2 reported a signifi­cantly lower incidence of delirium in the intervention group.^35-37 Implementation of a multi-component protocol in medical/ surgical units was associated with a sig­nificant reduction in use of restraints.³⁸

As in Mr. D’s case, complex drug regimens, particularly for CNS illness, can increase the risk of delirium. Considering the medication profile for patients with complex systemic illness—in particular, minimizing the use anticholinergics and dopamine agonists— may be crucial in preventing delirium.

Prophylactic administration of antipsychotics may reduce the risk of devel­oping postoperative delirium.³⁹ Studies of the use of these agents were characterized by small sample sizes and selected groups of patient populations. Of the 4 random­ized studies evaluating prophylactic anti­psychotics (vs placebo), 3 found a lower incidence of delirium in the intervention groups.^39-41

A study of haloperidol in post-GI sur­gery patients showed a reduced occurrence of delirium,⁴⁰ whereas its prophylactic use in patients undergoing hip surgery⁴² did not reduce the incidence of delirium com­pared with placebo, but did decrease sever­ity when delirium occurred.⁴²

Risperidone³⁹ in post-cardiac sur­gery and olanzapine⁴¹ perioperatively in patients undergoing total knee or hip replacement have been shown to decrease delirium severity and duration. Targeted prophylaxis with risperidone⁴³ in post-cardiac surgery patients who showed disturbed cognition but did not meet cri­teria for delirium reduced the number of patients requiring medication, compared with placebo.⁴³

Dexmedetomidine, an α-2 adrenergic receptor agonist, compared with propofol or midazolam in post-cardiac valve surgery patients, resulted in a decreased incidence of delirium but no difference in delirium duration, hospital length of stay, or use of other medications.⁴⁴ However, other studies have shown that dexmedetomidine reduces ICU length of stay and duration of mechani­cal ventilation.⁴⁵

Treatment. Management of hospitalized medically ill geriatric patients with delirium is challenging and requires a comprehensive approach. The first step in delirium man­agement is prompt identification and man­agement of systemic medical disturbances associated with the delirium episode. First-line, nonpharmacotherapeutic strategies for patients with delirium include:
   • reorientation
   • behavioral interventions (eg, use of clear instructions and frequent eye con­tact with patients)
   • environmental interventions (eg, mini­mal noise, adequate lighting, and lim­ited room and staff changes)
   • avoidance of physical restraints.⁴⁶

Consider employing family members or hospital staff sitters to stay with the patient and to reassure, reorient, and watch for agitation and other unsafe behaviors (eg, attempted elopement). Psychoeducation for the patient and family on the phenomenol­ogy of delirium can be helpful.

The use of drug treatment strategies should be integrated into a comprehensive approach that includes the routine use of nondrug measures.⁴⁶ Using medications for treating hypoactive delirium, formerly con­troversial, now has wider acceptance.^47,48 A few high-quality randomized trials have been performed.^25,49,50

Pharmacotherapy, especially in frail patients, should be initiated at the lowest start­ing dosage and titrated cautiously to clinical effect and for the shortest period of time nec­essary. Antipsychotics are preferred agents for treating all subtypes of delirium; haloperidol is widely used.^46,51,52 However, antipsychotics, including haloperidol, can be associated with adverse neurologic effects such as extrapyra­midal symptoms (EPS) and NMS.

Although reported less frequently than with haloperidol, other agents have been implicated in development of EPS and NMS, including atypical antipsychotics and anti­emetic dopamine antagonists, particularly in parkinsonism-prone patients.⁵³ Strategies that can minimize such risks in geriatric inpatients with delirium include oral, rather than par­enteral, use of antipsychotics—preferential use of atypical over typical antipsychotics— and lowest effective dosages.⁵⁴

In controlled trials, atypical antipsychot­ics for delirium showed efficacy compared with haloperidol.^52,55 However, there is no research that demonstrates any advantage of one atypical over another.²⁵

In Mr. D’s case, the most important inter­vention for managing delirium caused by NMS is to discontinue all dopamine antag­onists and treat agitation with judicious doses of a benzodiazepine, with supportive care.¹⁷ In cases of sudden discontinuation or a dosage decrease of dopamine agonists, these medications should be resumed or optimized to minimize the risk of NMS-associated rhabdomyolysis and subse­quent renal failure.¹⁷ Antipsychotics carry an increased risk of stroke and mortality in older patients with established or evolving neurocognitive disorders^56,57 and can cause prolongation of the QTc interval.⁵⁷

Other medications that could be used for delirium include cholinesterase inhibitors^58,59 (although larger trials and a systematic review did not support this use⁶⁰), and 5-HT receptor antagonists,⁶¹ such as trazodone. Benzodiazepines, such as lorazepam, are first-line treatment for delirium associated with seizures or withdrawal from alcohol, sedatives, hypnotics, and anxiolytics and for delirium caused by NMS. Be cautious about using benzodiazepines in geriatric patients because of a risk of respiratory depression, falls, sedation, and amnesia.

Geriatric patients with alcoholism and those with malnutrition are prone to thia­mine and vitamin B₁₂ deficiencies, which can induce delirium. Laboratory assessment and consideration of supplementation is recom­mended. Despite high occurrence of delirium in hospitalized older adults with preexisting comorbid neurocognitive disorders, there is no standard care for delirium comorbid with another neurocognitive disorder.⁶² Clinical practice guidelines for older patients receiv­ing palliative care have been developed⁶³; the goal is to minimize suffering and discomfort in patients in palliative care.⁶⁴

Post-delirium prophylaxis. Medications for delirium usually can be tapered and discontinued once the episode has resolved and the patient is stable; it is common to discontinue medications when the patient has been symptom-free for 1 week.⁶⁵ Some patients (eg, with end-stage liver disease, disseminated cancer) are prone to recur­rent or to prolonged or chronic delirium. A period of post-recovery treatment with antipsychotics—even indefinite treatment in some cases—should be considered.

Post-delirium debriefing and aftercare. The psychological complications of delirium are distressing for the patient and his (her) caregivers. Psychiatric complications asso­ciated with delirium, including acute stress disorder—which might predict posttraumatic stress disorder—have been explored; early recognition and treatment may improve long-term outcomes.⁶⁶ After recovery from acute delirium, cognitive assessment (eg, MMSE⁶⁷ or Montreal Cognitive Assessment⁶⁸) is recommended to validate current cognitive status because patients may have persistent decrement in cognitive func­tion compared with pre-delirium condition, even after recovery from the acute episode.

Post-delirium debriefing may help patients who have recovered from a delirium episode. Patients may fear that their brief period of hallucinations might represent the onset of a chronic-relapsing psychotic dis­order. Allow patients to communicate their distress about the delirium episode and give them the opportunity to talk through the experience. Brief them on the possibility that delirium will recur and advise them to seek emergency medical care in case of recur­rence. Advise patients to monitor and main­tain a normal sleep-wake cycle.

Family members can watch for syndro­mal recurrence of delirium. They should be encouraged to discuss their reaction to hav­ing seen their relative in a delirious state.

Health care systems with integrated electronic medical records should list “delirium, resolved” on the patient’s illness profile or problem list and alert the patient’s primary care provider to the delirium his­tory to avoid future exposure to delirium-provocative medications, and to prompt the provider to assume an active role in post-delirium care, including delirium recur­rence surveillance, medication adjustment, risk factor management, and post-recovery cognitive assessment.

Bottom Line
Evaluation of delirium in geriatric patients includes clinical vigilance and screening, differentiating delirium from other neurocognitive disorders, and identifying and treating underlying causes. Perioperative use of antipsychotics may reduce the incidence of delirium, although hospital length of stay generally has not been reduced with prophylaxis. Management interventions include staff education, systematic screening, use of multicomponent interventions, and pharmacologic interventions.

Related Resources
• Downing LJ, Caprio TV, Lyness JM. Geriatric psychiatry review: differential diagnosis and treatment of the 3 D’s - delirium, dementia, and depression. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2013;15(6):365.
• Brooks PB. Postoperative delirium in elderly patients. Am J Nurs. 2012;112(9):38-49.

Drug Brand Names
Carbidopa/levodopa • Sinemet                       Midazolam •  Versed
Dexmedetomidine • Precedex                        Olanzapine •  Zyprexa
Haloperidol • Haldol                                      Propofol  •  Diprivan
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid                            Quetiapine  •  Seroquel
Lorazepam • Ativan                                      Risperidone  •  Risperdal
Metoclopramide •  Reglan                              Trazodone  •  Desyrel

Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationships with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.

Although delirium has many descriptive terms (Table 1), a common unifying term is “acute global cognitive dysfunction,” now recognized as delirium; a consensus supported by DSM-5¹ and ICD-10² (Table 2). According to DSM-5, the essential feature is a disturbance of attention or awareness that is accompanied by a change in baseline cognition that cannot be explained by another preexisting, established, or evolving neurocognitive disorder (the newly named DSM-5 entity for dementia syndromes).¹ Because delirium affects the cortex diffusely, psychiatric symp­toms can include cognitive, mood, anxiety, or psychotic symp­toms. Because many systemic illnesses can induce delirium, the differential diagnosis spans all organ systems.

Three subtypes
Delirium can be classified, based on symptoms,^3,4 into 3 sub­types: hyperactive-hyperalert, hypoactive-hypoalert, and mixed delirium. Hyperactive patients present with rest­lessness and agitation. Hypoactive patients are lethargic, confused, slow to respond to questions, and often appear depressed. The differential prognostic significance of these subtypes has been examined in the literature, with conflicting results. Rabinowitz⁵ reported that hypoactive delirium has the worst prognosis, while Marcantonio et al⁶ indicated that the hyperactive subtype is associated with the highest mortality rate. Mixed delirium, with periods of both hyperactivity and hypoactivity, is the most common type of delirium.⁷

A prodromal phase, characterized by anxiety, frequent requests for nursing and medical assistance, decreased attention, rest­lessness, vivid dreams, disorientation imme­diately after awakening, and hallucinations, can occur before an episode of full-spectrum delirium; this prodromal state often is iden­tified retrospectively —after the patient is in an episode of delirium.^8,9

Evidence-based guidelines aim to improve recognition and clinical management.^10-13 Disruptive behavior is the main reason for psychiatric referral in delirium.^14,15 Delayed psychiatric consultation because of non-recognition of delirium is related to variables such as older age; history of a pre-existing, comorbid neurocognitive disorder; and the clinical appearance of hypoactive delirium.¹⁴

The case of Mr. D (Box),¹⁶ illus­trates how the emergence of antipsychotic-associated neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) can complicate antipsychotic treat­ment of delirium in a geriatric medical patient, although delirium also is a common presentation in NMS.¹⁷ Delirium developed after an increase in carbidopa/levodopa, which has central dopaminergic effects that can precipitate delirium, particularly in a geriatric patient with preexisting comorbid neurocognitive disorder. Further complicat­ing Mr. D’s delirium presentation was the development of NMS, which had a multifac­torial causation, such as the use of dopamine antagonists (ie, quetiapine, metoclopramide), and an abrupt decrease of a dopaminergic agent (ie, carbidopa/levodopa), all inducing a central dopamine relative hypoactivity.

Epidemiology
Delirium is more common in older patients,¹⁵ and is seen in 30% to 40% of hospitalized geri­atric patients.¹⁸ Delirium in older patients, compared with other adults, is associated with more severe cognitive impairment.¹⁹ It is com­mon among geriatric surgical patients (15% to 62%)²⁰ with a peak 2 to 5 days postoperatively for hip fracture,²¹ and often is seen in ICU patients (70% to 87%).²⁰ However, Spronk et al²² found that delirium is significantly under-recognized in the ICU. Nearly 90% of terminally ill patients become delirious before death.²³ Terminal delirium often is unrecognized and can interfere with assessment of other clinical problems.²⁴ A preexisting history of comor­bid neurocognitive disorder was evident in as many as two-thirds of delirium cases.²⁵

Pathophysiology and risk factors
The pathophysiology of delirium has been characterized as an imbalance of CNS metab­olism, including decreased blood flow in vari­ous regions of the brain that may normalize once delirium resolves.²⁶ Studies describe the simultaneous decrease of cholinergic transmission and dopaminergic excess.^27,28 Predisposing and precipitating factors for delirium that are of particular importance in geriatric patients include:
   • advanced age
   • CNS disease
   • infection
   • cognitive impairment
   • male sex
   • poor nutrition
   • dehydration and other metabolic abnormalities
   • cardiovascular events
   • substance use
   • medication
   • sensory deprivation (eg, impaired vision or hearing)
   • sleep deprivation
   • low level of physical activity.^27,29,30

Table 3 lists the most common delirium-provocative medications.²⁷

Evaluation and psychometric scales
The EEG can be useful in evaluating delir­ium, especially in clinically ambiguous cases. EEG findings may indicate generalized slowing or dropout of the posterior domi­nant rhythm, and generalized slow theta and delta waves, findings that are more common in delirium than in other neurocognitive dis­orders and other psychiatric illnesses. The EEG must be interpreted in the context of the delirium diagnostic workup, because abnor­malities seen in other neurocognitive disor­ders can overlap with those of delirium.³¹

The EEG referral should specify the clini­cal suspicion of delirium to help interpret the results. Delirium cases in which the patient’s previous cognitive status is unknown may benefit from EEG evaluation, such as:
   • in possible status epilepticus
   • when delirium improvement has reached a plateau at a lower level of cognitive function than before onset of delirium
   • when the patient is unable or unwilling to complete a psychiatric interview.²⁷

Assessment instruments are available to diagnose and monitor delirium (Table 4). Typically, delirium assessment includes examining levels of arousal, psychomotor activity, cognition (ie, orienta­tion, attention, and memory), and percep­tual disturbances.

Psychometrically, a review of Table 4 suggests that validity appeared stable with adequate specificity (64% to 99%) but more variable sensitivity (36% to 100%). These reliability parameters also will be affected by the classification sys­tem (ie, DSM vs ICD) and the cut-off score employed.³² Most measures (eg, Confusion Assessment Method [CAM], CAM-ICU) provide an adequate sample of behavioral (ie, level of alertness), motor (ie, psychomo­tor activity), and cognitive (ie, orientation, attention, memory, and receptive language) function, with the exception of the Global Attentiveness Rating, which is a 2-minute open conversation protocol between physi­cian and patient.

Some measures are stand-alone instru­ments, such as the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale, whereas the CAM requires administration of separate cogni­tive screens, including the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Digit Span.³³ Instruments to detect delirium in critically ill patients are a more recent development. Wong et al³⁴ reported that the most widely studied tool was the CAM. Obtaining collat­eral information from family, caregivers, and hospital staff is essential, particularly given the fluctuating nature of delirium.

Management
Prevention. Identify patients at high risk of delirium so that preventive strategies can be employed. Multi-component, nonphar­macotherapeutic interventions are used in clinical settings but few randomized trials have been conducted. The contributing effectiveness of individual components is not well-studied, but most include staff education to increase awareness of delir­ium. Of 3 multi-component intervention randomized trials, 2 reported a signifi­cantly lower incidence of delirium in the intervention group.^35-37 Implementation of a multi-component protocol in medical/ surgical units was associated with a sig­nificant reduction in use of restraints.³⁸

As in Mr. D’s case, complex drug regimens, particularly for CNS illness, can increase the risk of delirium. Considering the medication profile for patients with complex systemic illness—in particular, minimizing the use anticholinergics and dopamine agonists— may be crucial in preventing delirium.

Prophylactic administration of antipsychotics may reduce the risk of devel­oping postoperative delirium.³⁹ Studies of the use of these agents were characterized by small sample sizes and selected groups of patient populations. Of the 4 random­ized studies evaluating prophylactic anti­psychotics (vs placebo), 3 found a lower incidence of delirium in the intervention groups.^39-41

A study of haloperidol in post-GI sur­gery patients showed a reduced occurrence of delirium,⁴⁰ whereas its prophylactic use in patients undergoing hip surgery⁴² did not reduce the incidence of delirium com­pared with placebo, but did decrease sever­ity when delirium occurred.⁴²

Risperidone³⁹ in post-cardiac sur­gery and olanzapine⁴¹ perioperatively in patients undergoing total knee or hip replacement have been shown to decrease delirium severity and duration. Targeted prophylaxis with risperidone⁴³ in post-cardiac surgery patients who showed disturbed cognition but did not meet cri­teria for delirium reduced the number of patients requiring medication, compared with placebo.⁴³

Dexmedetomidine, an α-2 adrenergic receptor agonist, compared with propofol or midazolam in post-cardiac valve surgery patients, resulted in a decreased incidence of delirium but no difference in delirium duration, hospital length of stay, or use of other medications.⁴⁴ However, other studies have shown that dexmedetomidine reduces ICU length of stay and duration of mechani­cal ventilation.⁴⁵

Treatment. Management of hospitalized medically ill geriatric patients with delirium is challenging and requires a comprehensive approach. The first step in delirium man­agement is prompt identification and man­agement of systemic medical disturbances associated with the delirium episode. First-line, nonpharmacotherapeutic strategies for patients with delirium include:
   • reorientation
   • behavioral interventions (eg, use of clear instructions and frequent eye con­tact with patients)
   • environmental interventions (eg, mini­mal noise, adequate lighting, and lim­ited room and staff changes)
   • avoidance of physical restraints.⁴⁶

Consider employing family members or hospital staff sitters to stay with the patient and to reassure, reorient, and watch for agitation and other unsafe behaviors (eg, attempted elopement). Psychoeducation for the patient and family on the phenomenol­ogy of delirium can be helpful.

The use of drug treatment strategies should be integrated into a comprehensive approach that includes the routine use of nondrug measures.⁴⁶ Using medications for treating hypoactive delirium, formerly con­troversial, now has wider acceptance.^47,48 A few high-quality randomized trials have been performed.^25,49,50

Pharmacotherapy, especially in frail patients, should be initiated at the lowest start­ing dosage and titrated cautiously to clinical effect and for the shortest period of time nec­essary. Antipsychotics are preferred agents for treating all subtypes of delirium; haloperidol is widely used.^46,51,52 However, antipsychotics, including haloperidol, can be associated with adverse neurologic effects such as extrapyra­midal symptoms (EPS) and NMS.

Although reported less frequently than with haloperidol, other agents have been implicated in development of EPS and NMS, including atypical antipsychotics and anti­emetic dopamine antagonists, particularly in parkinsonism-prone patients.⁵³ Strategies that can minimize such risks in geriatric inpatients with delirium include oral, rather than par­enteral, use of antipsychotics—preferential use of atypical over typical antipsychotics— and lowest effective dosages.⁵⁴

In controlled trials, atypical antipsychot­ics for delirium showed efficacy compared with haloperidol.^52,55 However, there is no research that demonstrates any advantage of one atypical over another.²⁵

In Mr. D’s case, the most important inter­vention for managing delirium caused by NMS is to discontinue all dopamine antag­onists and treat agitation with judicious doses of a benzodiazepine, with supportive care.¹⁷ In cases of sudden discontinuation or a dosage decrease of dopamine agonists, these medications should be resumed or optimized to minimize the risk of NMS-associated rhabdomyolysis and subse­quent renal failure.¹⁷ Antipsychotics carry an increased risk of stroke and mortality in older patients with established or evolving neurocognitive disorders^56,57 and can cause prolongation of the QTc interval.⁵⁷

Other medications that could be used for delirium include cholinesterase inhibitors^58,59 (although larger trials and a systematic review did not support this use⁶⁰), and 5-HT receptor antagonists,⁶¹ such as trazodone. Benzodiazepines, such as lorazepam, are first-line treatment for delirium associated with seizures or withdrawal from alcohol, sedatives, hypnotics, and anxiolytics and for delirium caused by NMS. Be cautious about using benzodiazepines in geriatric patients because of a risk of respiratory depression, falls, sedation, and amnesia.

Geriatric patients with alcoholism and those with malnutrition are prone to thia­mine and vitamin B₁₂ deficiencies, which can induce delirium. Laboratory assessment and consideration of supplementation is recom­mended. Despite high occurrence of delirium in hospitalized older adults with preexisting comorbid neurocognitive disorders, there is no standard care for delirium comorbid with another neurocognitive disorder.⁶² Clinical practice guidelines for older patients receiv­ing palliative care have been developed⁶³; the goal is to minimize suffering and discomfort in patients in palliative care.⁶⁴

Post-delirium prophylaxis. Medications for delirium usually can be tapered and discontinued once the episode has resolved and the patient is stable; it is common to discontinue medications when the patient has been symptom-free for 1 week.⁶⁵ Some patients (eg, with end-stage liver disease, disseminated cancer) are prone to recur­rent or to prolonged or chronic delirium. A period of post-recovery treatment with antipsychotics—even indefinite treatment in some cases—should be considered.

Post-delirium debriefing and aftercare. The psychological complications of delirium are distressing for the patient and his (her) caregivers. Psychiatric complications asso­ciated with delirium, including acute stress disorder—which might predict posttraumatic stress disorder—have been explored; early recognition and treatment may improve long-term outcomes.⁶⁶ After recovery from acute delirium, cognitive assessment (eg, MMSE⁶⁷ or Montreal Cognitive Assessment⁶⁸) is recommended to validate current cognitive status because patients may have persistent decrement in cognitive func­tion compared with pre-delirium condition, even after recovery from the acute episode.

Post-delirium debriefing may help patients who have recovered from a delirium episode. Patients may fear that their brief period of hallucinations might represent the onset of a chronic-relapsing psychotic dis­order. Allow patients to communicate their distress about the delirium episode and give them the opportunity to talk through the experience. Brief them on the possibility that delirium will recur and advise them to seek emergency medical care in case of recur­rence. Advise patients to monitor and main­tain a normal sleep-wake cycle.

Family members can watch for syndro­mal recurrence of delirium. They should be encouraged to discuss their reaction to hav­ing seen their relative in a delirious state.

Health care systems with integrated electronic medical records should list “delirium, resolved” on the patient’s illness profile or problem list and alert the patient’s primary care provider to the delirium his­tory to avoid future exposure to delirium-provocative medications, and to prompt the provider to assume an active role in post-delirium care, including delirium recur­rence surveillance, medication adjustment, risk factor management, and post-recovery cognitive assessment.

Bottom Line
Evaluation of delirium in geriatric patients includes clinical vigilance and screening, differentiating delirium from other neurocognitive disorders, and identifying and treating underlying causes. Perioperative use of antipsychotics may reduce the incidence of delirium, although hospital length of stay generally has not been reduced with prophylaxis. Management interventions include staff education, systematic screening, use of multicomponent interventions, and pharmacologic interventions.

Related Resources
• Downing LJ, Caprio TV, Lyness JM. Geriatric psychiatry review: differential diagnosis and treatment of the 3 D’s - delirium, dementia, and depression. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2013;15(6):365.
• Brooks PB. Postoperative delirium in elderly patients. Am J Nurs. 2012;112(9):38-49.

Drug Brand Names
Carbidopa/levodopa • Sinemet                       Midazolam •  Versed
Dexmedetomidine • Precedex                        Olanzapine •  Zyprexa
Haloperidol • Haldol                                      Propofol  •  Diprivan
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid                            Quetiapine  •  Seroquel
Lorazepam • Ativan                                      Risperidone  •  Risperdal
Metoclopramide •  Reglan                              Trazodone  •  Desyrel

Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationships with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.

Although delirium has many descriptive terms (Table 1), a common unifying term is “acute global cognitive dysfunction,” now recognized as delirium; a consensus supported by DSM-5¹ and ICD-10² (Table 2). According to DSM-5, the essential feature is a disturbance of attention or awareness that is accompanied by a change in baseline cognition that cannot be explained by another preexisting, established, or evolving neurocognitive disorder (the newly named DSM-5 entity for dementia syndromes).¹ Because delirium affects the cortex diffusely, psychiatric symp­toms can include cognitive, mood, anxiety, or psychotic symp­toms. Because many systemic illnesses can induce delirium, the differential diagnosis spans all organ systems.

Three subtypes
Delirium can be classified, based on symptoms,^3,4 into 3 sub­types: hyperactive-hyperalert, hypoactive-hypoalert, and mixed delirium. Hyperactive patients present with rest­lessness and agitation. Hypoactive patients are lethargic, confused, slow to respond to questions, and often appear depressed. The differential prognostic significance of these subtypes has been examined in the literature, with conflicting results. Rabinowitz⁵ reported that hypoactive delirium has the worst prognosis, while Marcantonio et al⁶ indicated that the hyperactive subtype is associated with the highest mortality rate. Mixed delirium, with periods of both hyperactivity and hypoactivity, is the most common type of delirium.⁷

A prodromal phase, characterized by anxiety, frequent requests for nursing and medical assistance, decreased attention, rest­lessness, vivid dreams, disorientation imme­diately after awakening, and hallucinations, can occur before an episode of full-spectrum delirium; this prodromal state often is iden­tified retrospectively —after the patient is in an episode of delirium.^8,9

Evidence-based guidelines aim to improve recognition and clinical management.^10-13 Disruptive behavior is the main reason for psychiatric referral in delirium.^14,15 Delayed psychiatric consultation because of non-recognition of delirium is related to variables such as older age; history of a pre-existing, comorbid neurocognitive disorder; and the clinical appearance of hypoactive delirium.¹⁴

The case of Mr. D (Box),¹⁶ illus­trates how the emergence of antipsychotic-associated neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) can complicate antipsychotic treat­ment of delirium in a geriatric medical patient, although delirium also is a common presentation in NMS.¹⁷ Delirium developed after an increase in carbidopa/levodopa, which has central dopaminergic effects that can precipitate delirium, particularly in a geriatric patient with preexisting comorbid neurocognitive disorder. Further complicat­ing Mr. D’s delirium presentation was the development of NMS, which had a multifac­torial causation, such as the use of dopamine antagonists (ie, quetiapine, metoclopramide), and an abrupt decrease of a dopaminergic agent (ie, carbidopa/levodopa), all inducing a central dopamine relative hypoactivity.

Epidemiology
Delirium is more common in older patients,¹⁵ and is seen in 30% to 40% of hospitalized geri­atric patients.¹⁸ Delirium in older patients, compared with other adults, is associated with more severe cognitive impairment.¹⁹ It is com­mon among geriatric surgical patients (15% to 62%)²⁰ with a peak 2 to 5 days postoperatively for hip fracture,²¹ and often is seen in ICU patients (70% to 87%).²⁰ However, Spronk et al²² found that delirium is significantly under-recognized in the ICU. Nearly 90% of terminally ill patients become delirious before death.²³ Terminal delirium often is unrecognized and can interfere with assessment of other clinical problems.²⁴ A preexisting history of comor­bid neurocognitive disorder was evident in as many as two-thirds of delirium cases.²⁵

Pathophysiology and risk factors
The pathophysiology of delirium has been characterized as an imbalance of CNS metab­olism, including decreased blood flow in vari­ous regions of the brain that may normalize once delirium resolves.²⁶ Studies describe the simultaneous decrease of cholinergic transmission and dopaminergic excess.^27,28 Predisposing and precipitating factors for delirium that are of particular importance in geriatric patients include:
   • advanced age
   • CNS disease
   • infection
   • cognitive impairment
   • male sex
   • poor nutrition
   • dehydration and other metabolic abnormalities
   • cardiovascular events
   • substance use
   • medication
   • sensory deprivation (eg, impaired vision or hearing)
   • sleep deprivation
   • low level of physical activity.^27,29,30

Table 3 lists the most common delirium-provocative medications.²⁷

Evaluation and psychometric scales
The EEG can be useful in evaluating delir­ium, especially in clinically ambiguous cases. EEG findings may indicate generalized slowing or dropout of the posterior domi­nant rhythm, and generalized slow theta and delta waves, findings that are more common in delirium than in other neurocognitive dis­orders and other psychiatric illnesses. The EEG must be interpreted in the context of the delirium diagnostic workup, because abnor­malities seen in other neurocognitive disor­ders can overlap with those of delirium.³¹

The EEG referral should specify the clini­cal suspicion of delirium to help interpret the results. Delirium cases in which the patient’s previous cognitive status is unknown may benefit from EEG evaluation, such as:
   • in possible status epilepticus
   • when delirium improvement has reached a plateau at a lower level of cognitive function than before onset of delirium
   • when the patient is unable or unwilling to complete a psychiatric interview.²⁷

Assessment instruments are available to diagnose and monitor delirium (Table 4). Typically, delirium assessment includes examining levels of arousal, psychomotor activity, cognition (ie, orienta­tion, attention, and memory), and percep­tual disturbances.

Psychometrically, a review of Table 4 suggests that validity appeared stable with adequate specificity (64% to 99%) but more variable sensitivity (36% to 100%). These reliability parameters also will be affected by the classification sys­tem (ie, DSM vs ICD) and the cut-off score employed.³² Most measures (eg, Confusion Assessment Method [CAM], CAM-ICU) provide an adequate sample of behavioral (ie, level of alertness), motor (ie, psychomo­tor activity), and cognitive (ie, orientation, attention, memory, and receptive language) function, with the exception of the Global Attentiveness Rating, which is a 2-minute open conversation protocol between physi­cian and patient.

Some measures are stand-alone instru­ments, such as the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale, whereas the CAM requires administration of separate cogni­tive screens, including the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Digit Span.³³ Instruments to detect delirium in critically ill patients are a more recent development. Wong et al³⁴ reported that the most widely studied tool was the CAM. Obtaining collat­eral information from family, caregivers, and hospital staff is essential, particularly given the fluctuating nature of delirium.

Management
Prevention. Identify patients at high risk of delirium so that preventive strategies can be employed. Multi-component, nonphar­macotherapeutic interventions are used in clinical settings but few randomized trials have been conducted. The contributing effectiveness of individual components is not well-studied, but most include staff education to increase awareness of delir­ium. Of 3 multi-component intervention randomized trials, 2 reported a signifi­cantly lower incidence of delirium in the intervention group.^35-37 Implementation of a multi-component protocol in medical/ surgical units was associated with a sig­nificant reduction in use of restraints.³⁸

As in Mr. D’s case, complex drug regimens, particularly for CNS illness, can increase the risk of delirium. Considering the medication profile for patients with complex systemic illness—in particular, minimizing the use anticholinergics and dopamine agonists— may be crucial in preventing delirium.

Prophylactic administration of antipsychotics may reduce the risk of devel­oping postoperative delirium.³⁹ Studies of the use of these agents were characterized by small sample sizes and selected groups of patient populations. Of the 4 random­ized studies evaluating prophylactic anti­psychotics (vs placebo), 3 found a lower incidence of delirium in the intervention groups.^39-41

A study of haloperidol in post-GI sur­gery patients showed a reduced occurrence of delirium,⁴⁰ whereas its prophylactic use in patients undergoing hip surgery⁴² did not reduce the incidence of delirium com­pared with placebo, but did decrease sever­ity when delirium occurred.⁴²

Risperidone³⁹ in post-cardiac sur­gery and olanzapine⁴¹ perioperatively in patients undergoing total knee or hip replacement have been shown to decrease delirium severity and duration. Targeted prophylaxis with risperidone⁴³ in post-cardiac surgery patients who showed disturbed cognition but did not meet cri­teria for delirium reduced the number of patients requiring medication, compared with placebo.⁴³

Dexmedetomidine, an α-2 adrenergic receptor agonist, compared with propofol or midazolam in post-cardiac valve surgery patients, resulted in a decreased incidence of delirium but no difference in delirium duration, hospital length of stay, or use of other medications.⁴⁴ However, other studies have shown that dexmedetomidine reduces ICU length of stay and duration of mechani­cal ventilation.⁴⁵

Treatment. Management of hospitalized medically ill geriatric patients with delirium is challenging and requires a comprehensive approach. The first step in delirium man­agement is prompt identification and man­agement of systemic medical disturbances associated with the delirium episode. First-line, nonpharmacotherapeutic strategies for patients with delirium include:
   • reorientation
   • behavioral interventions (eg, use of clear instructions and frequent eye con­tact with patients)
   • environmental interventions (eg, mini­mal noise, adequate lighting, and lim­ited room and staff changes)
   • avoidance of physical restraints.⁴⁶

Consider employing family members or hospital staff sitters to stay with the patient and to reassure, reorient, and watch for agitation and other unsafe behaviors (eg, attempted elopement). Psychoeducation for the patient and family on the phenomenol­ogy of delirium can be helpful.

The use of drug treatment strategies should be integrated into a comprehensive approach that includes the routine use of nondrug measures.⁴⁶ Using medications for treating hypoactive delirium, formerly con­troversial, now has wider acceptance.^47,48 A few high-quality randomized trials have been performed.^25,49,50

Pharmacotherapy, especially in frail patients, should be initiated at the lowest start­ing dosage and titrated cautiously to clinical effect and for the shortest period of time nec­essary. Antipsychotics are preferred agents for treating all subtypes of delirium; haloperidol is widely used.^46,51,52 However, antipsychotics, including haloperidol, can be associated with adverse neurologic effects such as extrapyra­midal symptoms (EPS) and NMS.

Although reported less frequently than with haloperidol, other agents have been implicated in development of EPS and NMS, including atypical antipsychotics and anti­emetic dopamine antagonists, particularly in parkinsonism-prone patients.⁵³ Strategies that can minimize such risks in geriatric inpatients with delirium include oral, rather than par­enteral, use of antipsychotics—preferential use of atypical over typical antipsychotics— and lowest effective dosages.⁵⁴

In controlled trials, atypical antipsychot­ics for delirium showed efficacy compared with haloperidol.^52,55 However, there is no research that demonstrates any advantage of one atypical over another.²⁵

In Mr. D’s case, the most important inter­vention for managing delirium caused by NMS is to discontinue all dopamine antag­onists and treat agitation with judicious doses of a benzodiazepine, with supportive care.¹⁷ In cases of sudden discontinuation or a dosage decrease of dopamine agonists, these medications should be resumed or optimized to minimize the risk of NMS-associated rhabdomyolysis and subse­quent renal failure.¹⁷ Antipsychotics carry an increased risk of stroke and mortality in older patients with established or evolving neurocognitive disorders^56,57 and can cause prolongation of the QTc interval.⁵⁷

Other medications that could be used for delirium include cholinesterase inhibitors^58,59 (although larger trials and a systematic review did not support this use⁶⁰), and 5-HT receptor antagonists,⁶¹ such as trazodone. Benzodiazepines, such as lorazepam, are first-line treatment for delirium associated with seizures or withdrawal from alcohol, sedatives, hypnotics, and anxiolytics and for delirium caused by NMS. Be cautious about using benzodiazepines in geriatric patients because of a risk of respiratory depression, falls, sedation, and amnesia.

Geriatric patients with alcoholism and those with malnutrition are prone to thia­mine and vitamin B₁₂ deficiencies, which can induce delirium. Laboratory assessment and consideration of supplementation is recom­mended. Despite high occurrence of delirium in hospitalized older adults with preexisting comorbid neurocognitive disorders, there is no standard care for delirium comorbid with another neurocognitive disorder.⁶² Clinical practice guidelines for older patients receiv­ing palliative care have been developed⁶³; the goal is to minimize suffering and discomfort in patients in palliative care.⁶⁴

Post-delirium prophylaxis. Medications for delirium usually can be tapered and discontinued once the episode has resolved and the patient is stable; it is common to discontinue medications when the patient has been symptom-free for 1 week.⁶⁵ Some patients (eg, with end-stage liver disease, disseminated cancer) are prone to recur­rent or to prolonged or chronic delirium. A period of post-recovery treatment with antipsychotics—even indefinite treatment in some cases—should be considered.

Post-delirium debriefing and aftercare. The psychological complications of delirium are distressing for the patient and his (her) caregivers. Psychiatric complications asso­ciated with delirium, including acute stress disorder—which might predict posttraumatic stress disorder—have been explored; early recognition and treatment may improve long-term outcomes.⁶⁶ After recovery from acute delirium, cognitive assessment (eg, MMSE⁶⁷ or Montreal Cognitive Assessment⁶⁸) is recommended to validate current cognitive status because patients may have persistent decrement in cognitive func­tion compared with pre-delirium condition, even after recovery from the acute episode.

Post-delirium debriefing may help patients who have recovered from a delirium episode. Patients may fear that their brief period of hallucinations might represent the onset of a chronic-relapsing psychotic dis­order. Allow patients to communicate their distress about the delirium episode and give them the opportunity to talk through the experience. Brief them on the possibility that delirium will recur and advise them to seek emergency medical care in case of recur­rence. Advise patients to monitor and main­tain a normal sleep-wake cycle.

Family members can watch for syndro­mal recurrence of delirium. They should be encouraged to discuss their reaction to hav­ing seen their relative in a delirious state.

Health care systems with integrated electronic medical records should list “delirium, resolved” on the patient’s illness profile or problem list and alert the patient’s primary care provider to the delirium his­tory to avoid future exposure to delirium-provocative medications, and to prompt the provider to assume an active role in post-delirium care, including delirium recur­rence surveillance, medication adjustment, risk factor management, and post-recovery cognitive assessment.

Bottom Line
Evaluation of delirium in geriatric patients includes clinical vigilance and screening, differentiating delirium from other neurocognitive disorders, and identifying and treating underlying causes. Perioperative use of antipsychotics may reduce the incidence of delirium, although hospital length of stay generally has not been reduced with prophylaxis. Management interventions include staff education, systematic screening, use of multicomponent interventions, and pharmacologic interventions.

Related Resources
• Downing LJ, Caprio TV, Lyness JM. Geriatric psychiatry review: differential diagnosis and treatment of the 3 D’s - delirium, dementia, and depression. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2013;15(6):365.
• Brooks PB. Postoperative delirium in elderly patients. Am J Nurs. 2012;112(9):38-49.

Drug Brand Names
Carbidopa/levodopa • Sinemet                       Midazolam •  Versed
Dexmedetomidine • Precedex                        Olanzapine •  Zyprexa
Haloperidol • Haldol                                      Propofol  •  Diprivan
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid                            Quetiapine  •  Seroquel
Lorazepam • Ativan                                      Risperidone  •  Risperdal
Metoclopramide •  Reglan                              Trazodone  •  Desyrel

Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationships with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products.