Delirium is associated with lower quality of life, increased healthcare costs, longer hospitalizations, and worse prognosis when detected in patients who are already confronted with a severe and invalidating disease, like the major neurocognitive disorder (MND). In order to identify the most evidence-based interventions that could be included in case management for patients with both delirium and MND, this narrative review explored three electronic databases (Pubmed, Cochrane, and Web of Science/Clarivate) for primary and secondary sources dedicated to this topic. All papers published in English between the inception of each database and September 2024 were screened for relevant data on pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies targeting delirium. The results supported the use of a multicomponent approach as the first line of treatment, mitigating the precipitating factors, and only as a second line, the use of pharmacological instruments. There is a lack of validated therapies targeting specifically the delirium superimposed on MND, most of the recommendations being extrapolated from studies with delirium in the general population or in elderly patients with different organic diseases. Further studies are required to investigate the specifics of delirium in patients with MND and potential strategies focused on neurobiological mechanisms instead of just clinical manifestations.
Clinical research is the cornerstone of the progress recorded in psychiatry in the last six decades, or of what is called the psychopharmacological revolution. Regardless of the stage of clinical research, there are sensitive ethical and legal aspects that may appear during this process, and such challenges have to be acknowledged in order to preserve its scientific value, integrity, and centered-on-the-patient-wellbeing core principles. Also, adequate strategies focused on preventing the risk of ethical misconduct and litigation have to be found to avoid a loss of trust in the results of clinical research, to protect vulnerable populations from abuse, and to ensure a legally stable environment for investigators. In order to explore these practical problems, a narrative review was performed through a search in PubMed and Google Scholar databases. The main ethical risks detected in clinical research were related to errors in the methodology of obtaining informed consent, monitoring the participant's safety during the clinical trial, and falsifying collected data. Several famous cases of ethical misconduct were found and analyzed, and methods to decrease the risk of the re-appearance of such problems have been listed. In conclusion, this review is an invitation to explore the complexity of the methodology of clinical research and its ethical and legal risks, as well as to find new ways to mitigate the possibility of such risks related to the research process.
