Intramuscular aripiprazole for the treatment of acute agitation in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder: a double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison with intramuscular haloperidol

Olanzapine versus aripiprazole for the treatment of agitation in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia

Rapid control of agitation is of critical importance in the treatment of acutely ill patients with schizophrenia. Both olanzapine and aripiprazole have been shown to be safe and effective in this setting, with each having somewhat different receptor binding affinity profiles. This 5-day, randomized, double-blind trial evaluated relative improvements in agitation in hospitalized patients who received orally dosed olanzapine (n = 306, 20 mg/d) or aripiprazole (n = 298, 15 mg/d, increasing to 30 mg/d as needed). Lorazepam was also given as needed (total dose, < or =4 mg/d) but not in place of a study drug dose increase. The primary efficacy measure was daily mean change from baseline in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component (PANSS-EC) score. Secondary measures of positive symptoms and safety were also assessed. Significant improvements from baseline in PANSS-EC and secondary efficacy measures were seen for both olanzapine and aripiprazole (P < 0.001),with no between-group differences. A greater proportion of aripiprazole-treated patients received lorazepam at each visit compared with olanzapine-treated patients, but this difference was significant only at visit 5 (41.2% vs 31.0%, P = 0.033). Fasting glucose and triglycerides increased more significantly in olanzapine-treated patients (P = 0.030 and P < 0.001, respectively). Prolactin increased in the olanzapine group and decreased in the aripiprazole group with a significant between-group difference (P < 0.001). During the first 5 days of randomized treatment, olanzapine and aripiprazole displayed similar efficacy profiles for treating agitation associated with schizophrenia. Aripiprazole-treated patients had smaller increases in glucose and lipids, but no difference was observed between treatments in the proportion of patients experiencing categorical shifts in these measures.

A meta-analysis of the risk of acute extrapyramidal symptoms with intramuscular antipsychotics for the treatment of agitation

OBJECTIVE

We examined the evidence for a decreased risk of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) with intramuscular second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) versus intramuscular haloperidol alone or in combination with an anticholinergic agent.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE (1950 to the present), and EMBASE and the Cochrane Database through January 16, 2008, for studies published in English of intramuscular SGAs and intramuscular haloperidol alone or in combination with an anticholinergic agent using the following drug names: ziprasidone, Geodon, olanzapine, Zyprexa, aripiprazole, Abilify, haloperidol, and Haldol. We then searched this pool of studies for trials with the terms intramuscular, IM, or injectable. Initially, we included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To obtain more data comparing SGAs to the combination of haloperidol and an anticholinergic, we conducted a second analysis including studies of any methodology.

STUDY SELECTION

Seven RCTs that compared intramuscular SGAs to intramuscular haloperidol alone were identified. However, we found only one RCT of haloperidol plus an anticholinergic. In the second analysis, we identified 18 studies, including 4 using haloperidol combined with promethazine (an antihistamine with anticholinergic properties).

DATA EXTRACTION

The primary outcome measure was acute dystonia; secondary outcome measures included akathisia, parkinsonism, or the need for additional anticholinergic medication. For RCTs, risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each outcome. When all studies were included in the second analysis, we calculated the risk of acute dystonia.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Among RCTs (N = 2032), SGAs were associated with a significantly lower risk of acute dystonia (RR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.10 to 0.39), akathisia (RR = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.14 to 0.44), and anticholinergic use (RR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.09 to 0.43) compared with haloperidol alone. When all trials were considered (N = 3425), rates of acute dystonia were higher for haloperidol alone (4.7%) than for SGAs (0.6%) or for haloperidol plus promethazine (0.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Intramuscular SGAs have a significantly lower risk of acute EPS compared to haloperidol alone. However, intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine has a risk of acute dystonia comparable to intramuscular SGAs. The decision to use SGAs should consider other factors in addition to the reduction of EPS, which can be prevented by the use of an anticholinergic agent.

Aripiprazole versus typical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Aripiprazole is a relatively new antipsychotic drug, said to be the prototype of a new third generation of antipsychotics; the so-called dopamine-serotonin system stabilisers. In this review we examine how the efficacy and tolerability of aripiprazole differs from that of typical antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of aripiprazole compared with other typical antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (November 2007) which is based on regular searches of BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. We inspected references of all identified studies for further trials. We contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies, drug approval agencies and authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials comparing aripiprazole with typical antipsychotics in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis, based on a random effects model. We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) again based on a random effects model. We have contacted representatives of Bristol Myers Squibb pharmaceuticals (UK) for additional data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine randomised trials involving 3122 people comparing aripiprazole with typical antipsychotic drugs. None of the studies reported on relapse - our primary outcome of interest. Attrition from studies was high and data reporting poor. Participants given aripiprazole were comparable to those receiving typical drugs in improving global state and mental state. Aripiprazole provided a significant advantage over typical antipsychotics in terms of fewer occurrences of extra-pyramidal symptom (n=968, 3 RCT, RR 0.46 CI 0.3 to 0.9, NNT 13 CI 17 to 10), and particularly akathisia (n=897, 3 RCT, RR 0.39 CI 0.3 to 0.6, NNT 11 CI 14 to 9). Fewer participants given aripiprazole developed hyperprolactinaemia (n=300, 1 RCT, RR 0.07 CI 0.03 to 0.2, NNT 2 CI 3 to 1). Aripiprazole presented a lesser risk of sinus tachycardia (n=289, 1 RCT, RR 0.09 CI 0.01 to 0.8, NNT 22 CI 63 to 13) and blurred vision (n=308, 1 RCT, RR 0.19 CI 0.1 to 0.7, NNT 14 CI 25 to 10); but enhanced risk of occurrence of dizziness (n=957, 3 RCT, RR 1.88 CI 1.1 to 3.2, NNH 20 CI 33 to 14) and nausea (n=957, 3 RCT, RR 3.03 CI 1.5 to 6.1, NNH 17 CI 25 to 13). Attrition rates were high in both groups, although significantly more participants in the aripiprazole group completed the study in the long term (n=1294, 1 RCT, RR 0.81 CI 0.8 to 0.9 NNT 8 CI 5 to 14).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Aripiprazole differs little from typical antipsychotic drugs with respect to efficacy, however it presents significant advantages in terms of tolerability. Clearly reported pragmatic short, medium and long term randomised controlled trials are required to replicate and validate these findings and determine the position of aripiprazole in everyday clinical practice.

Pharmacological control of acute agitation: focus on intramuscular preparations

Acute agitation in the psychiatric emergency setting is a common presentation, which can endanger the patient, caregivers and professional staff. Rapid and effective treatment, followed by ongoing evaluation and maintenance treatment where appropriate, is key to circumvent negative outcomes. Nonpharmacological measures are the first step in treating the acutely agitated patient, and include verbal intervention and physical restraint. Pharmacological treatment is often required to ensure the safety of the patient, caregivers and the treatment team. The need for drug delivery in uncooperative patients favours the use of intramuscular preparations for the acutely agitated patient. Intramuscular treatment options include benzodiazepines, conventional antipsychotics and atypical antipsychotics. Each of these medications offers a unique pharmacological profile that must be considered when treating acutely agitated patients, who may be unwilling or unable to accurately communicate their co-morbid conditions and concomitant medications.

Failure of recognition of drug-induced parkinsonism in the elderly

Our objective was to evaluate the ability of neurologists to recognize and diagnose drug-induced Parkinsonism (DIP) in the elderly. DIP is a diagnostic challenge because it can be indistinguishable from Parkinson's disease, especially in the elderly. It is frequently under-recognized by psychiatrists and primary care physicians. Atypical antipsychotics (AA) are advertised for their low propensity to cause DIP. This may add to problems with recognition. We performed a retrospective record review of consecutive new parkinsonian patients seen over 2 years in a movement disorders clinic to examine the frequency, causative agents, and diagnostic accuracy of DIP by physicians, particularly neurologists. Of 354 Parkinsonian patients evaluated, 24 (6.8%) had DIP, 46% of these were due to AA and 29% were caused by metoclopramide. Of the 24 patients with DIP, only one was previously diagnosed accurately according to records. Nineteen patients (79%) were previously evaluated by a neurologist, and none of them was diagnosed with DIP. The primary reason for failure to recognize DIP relates to under-recognition of AA as possible cause. A majority remained on the inciting agents while dopaminergic drugs were prescribed. DIP was reversible when the inciting drug was stopped. DIP is a common form of parkinsonism and is under-recognized, even by neurologists. AA and metoclopramide do not appear to be well-known to cause DIP. Cessation of the offending agent results in improvement of symptoms and would eliminate the need for dopaminergic agents, which are known to commonly cause side effects in the elderly.

Aripiprazole versus typicals for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Aripiprazole is a relatively new antipsychotic drug, said to be the prototype of a new third generation of antipsychotics; the so-called dopamine-serotonin system stabilisers. In this review we examine how the efficacy and tolerability of aripiprazole differs from that of typical antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of aripiprazole compared with other typical antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (May 2007) which is based on regular searches of BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials comparing aripiprazole with typical antipsychotics in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis, based on a random effects model. We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) again based on a random effects model. We have contacted representatives of Bristol Myers Squibb pharmaceuticals (UK) for additional and missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine randomised trials involving 3122 people comparing aripiprazole with typical antipsychotic drugs. None of the studies reported on relapse - our primary outcome of interest. Attrition from studies was high and data reporting poor. Participants given aripiprazole were comparable to those receiving typical drugs in improving global state and mental state. Aripiprazole provided a significant advantage over typical antipsychotics in terms of fewer occurrences of extra-pyramidal symptom (n=968, 3 RCT, RR 0.46 CI 0.3 to 0.9, NNT 13 CI 17 to 10), and particularly akathisia (n=897, 3 RCT, RR 0.39 CI 0.3 to 0.6, NNT 11 CI 14 to 9). Fewer participants given aripiprazole developed hyperprolactinaemia (n=300, 1 RCT, RR 0.07 CI 0.03 to 0.2, NNT 2 CI 3 to 1) and raised fasting blood glucose (n=360, 1 RCT, RR 0.65 CI 0.5 to 0.9, NNT 8 CI 14 to 6). Aripiprazole presented a lesser risk of sinus tachycardia (n=289, 1 RCT, RR 0.09 CI 0.01 to 0.8, NNT 22 CI 63 to 13) and blurred vision (n=308, 1 RCT, RR 0.19 CI 0.1 to 0.7, NNT 14 CI 25 to 10); but enhanced risk of occurrence of dizziness (n=957, 3 RCTs, RR 1.88 CI 1.1 to 3.2, NNH 20 CI 33 to 14) and nausea (n=957, 3 RCTs, RR 3.03 CI 1.5 to 6.1, NNH 17 CI 25 to 13). Attrition rates were high in both groups, although significantly more participants in the aripiprazole group completed the study in the long term (n=1294, 1 RCT, RR 0.81 CI 0.8 to 0.9 NNT 8 CI 5 to 14).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Aripiprazole is not much different from typical antipsychotic drugs with respect to efficacy. However it presents significant advantages in terms of tolerability due to its favourable adverse effects profile. This might enhance its effectiveness in encouraging compliance. Clearly reported pragmatic short, medium and long term randomised controlled trials are required to replicate and validate these findings and determine the position of aripiprazole in everyday clinical practice.

Agitation associated with aripiprazole initiation

Aripiprazole is a novel antipsychotic with a mechanism of action different from those of traditional first- and second-generation antipsychotics. We describe three patients with long histories of treatment for schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder in whom conversion to aripiprazole was being attempted. After they started aripiprazole, their psychosis, agitation, anxiety, or aggression worsened. Although the cause of the increased agitation was unclear, it may have been related to long-term use of dopamine-blocking antipsychotics and resultant upregulation of postsynaptic dopamine receptors. The mechanism of partial dopamine agonism observed with aripiprazole may increase dopaminergic activity and worsen positive dopamine-associated symptoms, such as paranoia, agitation, and aggression. The treatment of schizophrenia is often a clinical challenge, particularly when patients have a long history of noncompliance and poor response. Clinicians face difficult decisions in finding an effective and well-tolerated regimen. These cases magnify some of the challenges and provide insight into the clinical implications of converting to therapies with different pharmacodynamic effects.

Managing the acutely agitated and psychotic patient

Agitation can present as an emergency in the course of numerous psychiatric conditions including intoxication, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and delirium. This article reviews relevant literature regarding the definition, etiology, measurement, and management of episodic agitation and pays particular attention to intramuscular treatments. The impact of changes in methodology between the era of first- and second-generation antipsychotics, the implications of those changes for external validity of studies of second-generation studies, and the recent evolution of expert consensus are discussed.

A retrospective chart review of intramuscular ziprasidone for agitation in children and adolescents on psychiatric units: prospective studies are needed

OBJECTIVE

Our primary objective was to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of intramuscular ziprasidone for impulsivity and agitation in psychiatrically hospitalized children and adolescents. Our secondary objective was to examine demographic and clinical factors associated with treatment response.

METHOD

We conducted a retrospective chart review of children and adolescents admitted to Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) psychiatric units between January 1, 2002, and July 11, 2005, who received intramuscular ziprasidone. Medical records were reviewed to determine demographic and clinical information as well as tolerability and effectiveness of ziprasidone. The Behavioral Activity Rating Scale (BARS) was used retrospectively to assess clinical response. Regression analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of demographic factors (age, gender, and ethnicity) and primary psychiatric diagnoses on treatment response. Electrocardiogram (ECG) data was inadequate.

RESULTS

Fifty nine children and adolescents received a total of 77 injections of intramuscular ziprasidone for acute agitation. The mean +/- SD BARS score decreased from 6.5 +/- 0.7 to 3.1 +/- 1.3. The most common side effect was drowsiness or falling asleep (n = 46, 60%). Three (4%) could not be roused after the injection.

CONCLUSIONS

Intramuscular ziprasidone may be helpful for agitation but often caused oversedation. Safety data, including ECGs, is needed in controlled prospective studies.

Efficacy and safety of oral aripiprazole compared with haloperidol in patients transitioning from acute treatment with intramuscular formulations

OBJECTIVE

To report efficacy and safety of transitioning patients receiving intramuscular (IM) formulations of aripiprazole or haloperidol to their respective oral formulations.

METHODS

448 agitated patients with schizophrenia (73%) or schizoaffective disorder (27%) were randomized to receive aripiprazole IM 9.75 mg, haloperidol IM 6.5 mg, or placebo IM within 24 hours. Patients treated with aripiprazole IM or haloperidol IM who completed this 24-hour IM phase were transitioned to the respective blinded oral formulations for 4 days (aripiprazole 10-15 mg/day, n = 153; haloperidol 7.5-10 mg/day, n = 151). Patients treated with placebo IM were transitioned to oral aripiprazole (analysis not included). The primary efficacy measure was mean change in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component (PEC) score from baseline of oral phase (last value from 24-hour IM phase) to endpoint (study day 5, last observation carried forward).

RESULTS

During the oral phase, aripiprazole 15 mg and haloperidol 10 mg were both effective in maintaining responses achieved on all efficacy measures during the 24-hour IM phase. Mean improvements in PEC scores from study day 1 to 5 were -1.37 for aripiprazole and -1.40 for haloperidol (p = NS for aripiprazole versus haloperidol). Oral aripiprazole was well tolerated. Extrapyramidal symptom-related adverse events were lower for aripiprazole (1.3%) than haloperidol (8.0%). Nausea and vomiting occurred more frequently in patients receiving aripiprazole (3.9% and 2.6%, respectively) than in those receiving haloperidol (0.7% and 1.3%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder treated with aripiprazole IM or haloperidol IM demonstrated similar effective and safe transition to their respective oral formulations. Initial benefits of reduced agitation and improved clinical status during the IM phase of the study were maintained throughout the oral phase of the study with good tolerability.

Intramuscular aripiprazole in the control of agitation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate response to intramuscular (IM) aripiprazole injections using secondary analyses from clinical trials.

METHODS

Data from one trial in patients with bipolar I disorder and two trials in patients with schizophrenia were assembled and used for three secondary analyses. Analysis 1 looked at data from "nonsedated" patients (i.e., patients with scores < 8 [deep sleep] or 9 [unarousable] on the Agitation-Calmness Evaluation Scale [ACES]). In analysis 2, patients were subdivided into "higher" and "lower" agitation groups according to a median split on the baseline score for the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) Excited Component (PEC) (median = 18). Analysis 3 looked at the patients who received a second injection within the 24-hour study period. In each analysis, the mean change from baseline in PEC scores was re-evaluated.

RESULTS

Analysis 1 found that nonsedated patients with bipolar I disorder and schizophrenia showed significant decreases in PEC scores following treatment with aripiprazole IM (p < 0.005). Analysis 2 found that aripiprazole IM significantly reduced agitation compared with placebo in patients with bipolar I disorder who had lower baseline agitation (p < 0.01), while patients with bipolar I disorder who had higher baseline agitation showed similarly large PEC decreases with aripiprazole (-9.9) and placebo (-7.9). Patients with schizophrenia showed significant reductions in PEC scores compared with placebo regardless of baseline level of agitation (p < 0.01). Analysis 3 found that a second injection of aripiprazole IM significantly reduced agitation in patients with bipolar I disorder or schizophrenia (p < 0.05); repeated injections were safe and well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Improvements with aripiprazole IM appeared to be specific to core agitation symptoms, as opposed to nonspecific sedation, and to be independent of baseline level of agitation. Furthermore, patients benefited from a repeated aripiprazole injection when clinically warranted. These results address important clinical issues regarding use of aripiprazole IM in treating agitation.

Ultra-performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry for the determination of atypical antipsychotics and some metabolites in in vitro samples

The ultra-performance liquid chromatography-electrospray tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-ESI-MS/MS) method has been developed to perform the determination of quetiapine, perospirone, aripiprazole and quetiapine sulfoxide in in vitro samples in less than 3 min. The UPLC separation was carried out using an Acquity UPLC BEH C18 column (100 mm x 2.1mm i.d., 1.7 microm particle size) that provided high efficiency and resolution in combination with high linear velocities. The UPLC system was coupled to a Waters Micromass Quattro Premier XE tandem quadrupole mass spectrometer. This system permits high-speed data acquisition without peak intensity degradation, and produces sharp and narrow chromatographic peaks (w(h) about 2.5s) of compounds. The determination was performed in multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode. The quantification parameters of the developed method were established, obtaining instrumental LODs lower than 0.005 microg/l and a repeatability at a low concentration level lower than 10% CV (n=10). Finally, the method was successfully applied to the analysis of atypical antipsychotics and some metabolites in in vitro samples.

Induction by antipsychotics of "win-shift" in the drug discrimination paradigm

In a two-lever, food-rewarded drug discrimination paradigm, behavior seems to be governed by a win-stay/lose-shift rule; rats continue to press the lever that yields food, and, when not rewarded, they shift responding to the alternative lever. Here, we report on the effects that antipsychotics and further neuropharmacological agents exert in those conditions. At higher doses, antipsychotics disrupt most or all behavioral parameters in this paradigm. However, at lower doses, rats may select the appropriate lever with normal latency and accuracy, obtain a first food pellet (i.e., "win"), and then, remarkably, shift responding to the alternative lever ("win-shift"). This suggests that antipsychotics can block the effects of reward selectively, i.e., at doses where the initial, secondarily reinforced behavior including the initiation of lever pressing, remains intact. Indeed, saline-treated rats that are given no reward (i.e., "lose") after having selected a lever, also press the alternative lever ("lose-shift"). The induction of selective win-shift is specific to antipsychotics, but it varies greatly among them. Perhaps relating to its alleged "incisive" action on delirium and hallucinations, and, surprisingly, in view of its extrapyramidal actions, acutely administered haloperidol (0.04-0.08 mg/kg) demonstrates win-shift to an exceptional extent, shared only with the newly proposed agent (3-cyclopent-1-enyl-benzyl)-[2-(2,2-dimethyl-2,3-dihydro-benzofuran-7-yloxy)-ethyl]-amine fumarate (F 15063; 0.31-0.63 mg/kg); the more sedative antipsychotic chlorpromazine demonstrated little selectivity. The paradigm offers a novel tool to characterize antipsychotics with regard to presumably pathogenic motivational processes; mixed D(2)-antagonist/5-hydroxytryptamine(1A)-agonist agents such as F 15063 may conceivably share the powerful antipsychotic action of haloperidol while avoiding the sensitization that develops to extrapyramidal effects of haloperidol and consequent negative symptoms.

Management of acute agitation in patients with bipolar disorder: efficacy and safety of intramuscular aripiprazole

To investigate the efficacy and safety of intramuscular (IM) aripiprazole for the treatment of agitation in patients with bipolar I disorder, manic or mixed episodes. In total, 301 patients experiencing acute agitation were randomized to IM aripiprazole 9.75 mg per injection (n = 78), IM aripiprazole 15 mg per injection (n = 78), IM lorazepam 2 mg per injection (n = 70), or IM placebo (n = 75) in this double-blind multicenter study. Patients could receive up to 3 injections over 24 hours. Primary efficacy measure was mean change in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale Excited Component score from baseline at 2 hours after first injection. Mean improvements in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale Excited Component score at 2 hours were significantly greater with IM aripiprazole (9.75 mg, -8.7; 15 mg, -8.7) and IM lorazepam (-9.6) versus IM placebo (-5.8; P <or= 0.001). For all other efficacy measures, all 3 active treatments showed significantly greater improvements over IM placebo at 2 hours (P < 0.05), with similar improvements across the active treatments. Significant differences over IM placebo were seen by 45 to 60 minutes for several efficacy parameters. Both IM aripiprazole doses were well tolerated; the safety profile was similar to oral aripiprazole. Oversedation (Agitation-Calmness Evaluation Scale score of 8 or 9) during 2 hours after first injection was less frequent with IM aripiprazole 9.75 mg (6.7%) and IM placebo (6.8%) versus IM aripiprazole 15 mg (17.3%) and IM lorazepam (19.1%). IM aripiprazole 9.75 and 15 mg are effective and well tolerated for acute agitation in bipolar disorder, although the low incidence of oversedation suggests a risk-benefit profile for IM aripiprazole 9.75 mg.

Medication adherence and the use of long-acting antipsychotics in bipolar disorder

BACKGROUND

Adherence to treatment is a major determinant of outcome in bipolar disorder. Poor insight, attitudes towards treatment, and poor understanding of medications and the illness can all lead to reduced adherence. Nonadherence and partial adherence both also appear to play a significant role in relapse. Thirty to forty percent of patients with bipolar disorder who attempt to be adherent to treatment are actually only partially adherent. Clinicians frequently address the problem of poor adherence by adding an antipsychotic medication to the mood stabilizer regimen. The availability of a long-acting atypical antipsychotic raises the possibility of using this agent to prevent bipolar relapse.

METHODS

The literature on the use of depot antipsychotics in bipolar illness is reviewed, based on a search of PubMed and Ovid Medline.

RESULTS

No randomized, controlled trials of depot antipsychotics in bipolar illness have been performed. However, several case series and naturalistic trials that have used first generation agents suggest that depot antipsychotics are effective in reducing relapse in bipolar illness.

CONCLUSIONS

Depot antipsychotics, including long-acting first and second generation agents, can be important adjuncts in the long-term management of bipolar illness. Controlled trials with these agents in bipolar disorder are warranted.

Intramuscular aripiprazole or haloperidol and transition to oral therapy in patients with agitation associated with schizophrenia: sub-analysis of a double-blind study

OBJECTIVE

A sub-population analysis of 325 patients with agitation (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale Excited Component [PEC] score > or = 15 and < or = 32; score of > or = 4 on > or = 2 items) associated with schizophrenia in a randomized, double-blind study investigating the efficacy and tolerability of intramuscular (IM) aripiprazole 9.75 mg, IM haloperidol 6.5 mg, or IM placebo and the transition to oral therapy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Over 24 h, patients could receive up to three IM injections; the second and third administered > or = 2 and > or = 4 h, respectively, after the first, if deemed clinically necessary. Following IM treatment, oral aripiprazole or haloperidol was administered for 4 days. The primary efficacy measure was the mean change in PEC score from baseline at 2 h.

RESULTS

At 2 h, mean improvements in PEC scores with IM aripiprazole (-8.0) were significantly greater versus IM placebo (-5.7; p < or = 0.01), and similar versus IM haloperidol (-8.3). Secondary efficacy measures also significantly improved with active IM treatment versus IM placebo. Continuation with oral treatment provided continued efficacy with both active treatments. The safety profiles of IM and oral aripiprazole were similar. The incidence of extrapyramidal symptom-related adverse events was 0% with IM aripiprazole, 1.6% with IM placebo and 16.5% with IM haloperidol.

CONCLUSION

Intramuscular aripiprazole is effective in patients with acute agitation associated with schizophrenia, comparable to IM haloperidol, and enables convenient transfer to oral aripiprazole therapy.

Haloperidol versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol was developed in the late 1950s for use in the field of anaesthesia. Research subsequently demonstrated effects on hallucinations, delusions, aggressiveness, impulsiveness and states of excitement and led to the introduction of haloperidol as an antipsychotic.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effects of haloperidol for the management of schizophrenia and other similar serious mental illnesses compared to placebo.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We initially electronically searched the databases of Biological Abstracts (1985-1998), CINAHL (1982-1998), The Cochrane Library (1998, Issue 4), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (December 1998), EMBASE (1980-1998), MEDLINE (1966-1998), PsycLIT (1974-1998), and SCISEARCH. We also checked references of all identified studies for further trial citations and contacted the authors of trials and pharmaceutical companies for further information and archive material. For the 2005 update we searched The Cochrane Library (2005, Issue 6).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all relevant randomised controlled trials comparing the use of haloperidol (any oral dose) with placebo for those with schizophrenia or other similar serious, non-affective psychotic illnesses (however diagnosed). Our main outcomes of interest were death, loss to follow up, clinical and social response, relapse and severity of adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We evaluated data independently and analysed on an intention-to-treat basis, assuming that people who left the study early, or were lost to follow-up, had no improvement. Where possible and appropriate, we analysed dichotomous data using Relative Risk (RR) and calculated their 95% confidence intervals (CI). If appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to harm (NNH) was estimated. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences. We excluded continuous data if loss to follow up was greater than 50% and inspected data for heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-one trials randomising 1519 people are now included in this review. One new trial, Kane 2002 (n=414) has been added but it did not affect the overall results. More people allocated haloperidol improved in the first six weeks of treatment than those given placebo (3RCTs n=159, RR failing to produce a marked improvement 0.44 CI 0.3 to 0.6, NNT 3 CI 2 to 5). A further eight trials also found a difference favouring haloperidol across the 6-24 week period (8 RCTs n=308 RR no marked global improvement 0.68 CI 0.6 to 0.8 NNT 3 CI 2.5 to 5) but this may be an over estimate of effect as small negative studies were not identified. About half of those entering studies failed to complete the short trials, although, at 0-6 weeks, 11 studies found a difference that marginally favoured haloperidol (11 RCTs n=898, RR 0.8 CI 0.7 to 0.9, NNT 59 CI 38 to 200). Adverse effect data does, nevertheless, support clinical impression, that haloperidol is a potent cause of movement disorders, at least in the short term. Haloperidol promotes acute dystonia (3 RCTs n=93, RR 4.7 CI 1.7 to 44, NNH 5 CI 3 to 9), akathisia (4 RCTs n=333, RR 2.6 CI 1.4 to 4.8, NNH 7 CI 3 to 25) and parkinsonism (4 RCTs n=163, RR 11.7 CI 2.9 to 47, NNH 3 CI 2 to 5).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Haloperidol is a potent antipsychotic drug but has a high propensity to cause adverse effects. Where there is no treatment option, use of haloperidol to counter the damaging and potentially dangerous consequences of untreated schizophrenia is justified. However, where a choice of drug is available, people with schizophrenia and clinicians may wish to prescribe an alternative antipsychotic with less likelihood of adverse effects such as parkinsonism, akathisia and acute dystonias. Haloperidol should not be a control drug of choice for randomised trials of new antipsychotics.