Validation of the behavioural activity rating scale (BARS): a novel measure of activity in agitated patients

Safety and efficacy review of inhaled loxapine for treatment of agitation

Agitation is common in patients with acute schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and rapid and effective treatment of acute agitation is an important clinical goal. Loxapine is a first-generation antipsychotic medication available in the United States in oral form for more than three decades. In December 2012, an inhaled version of vaporized loxapine was approved by the U.S. FDA for the treatment of agitated adults in the context of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. In this review, we examine available literature to describe efficacy and safety of inhaled loxapine in healthy patients and in those with pulmonary compromise. Limitations of the current evidence base to predict efficacy in "real world" patients are described, and safeguards necessary for appropriate use in psychiatric acute care settings are discussed.

Intramuscular ziprasidone versus haloperidol for managing agitation in Chinese patients with schizophrenia

Intramuscular (IM) antipsychotics are preferred for efficient control of agitation symptoms. Previous studies have demonstrated that IM ziprasidone is efficacious and safe for treatment of agitation in schizophrenia. However, clinicians now recognize that racial differences may contribute to altered therapeutic response and tolerability. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of IM ziprasidone versus IM haloperidol for the management of agitation in Chinese subjects with schizophrenia. Subjects with acute schizophrenia were randomized to either ziprasidone (n = 189, 10 to 20 mg as required up to a maximum of 40 mg/d) or haloperidol (n = 187, 5 mg every 4 to 8 hours to a maximum of 20 mg/d) for 3 days. Psychiatric assessments and adverse events were assessed at baseline, 2, 4, 24, 48, and 72 hours. In the ziprasidone group, 2.1% of subjects discontinued versus 3.7% in the haloperidol group. The least squares mean change (SE) from baseline to 72 hours in Brief Psychiatry Rating Scale total score was -17.32 (0.7) for ziprasidone (n = 167) and -18.44 (0.7) for haloperidol (n = 152), with a 95% confidence interval treatment difference of -0.7 to 2.9. Fewer subjects experienced adverse events after ziprasidone (n = 54, 28.6%) than haloperidol (n = 116, 62.0%), with a notably higher incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms in the haloperidol group (n = 69, 36.9%) compared to the ziprasidone group (n = 4, 2.1%). For controlling agitation in schizophrenia in this Chinese study, ziprasidone had a favorable tolerability profile and comparable efficacy and safety compared to haloperidol.

Haloperidol for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation (rapid tranquillisation)

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol, used alone is recommended to help calm situations of aggression with people with psychosis. This drug is widely accessible and may be the only antipsychotic medication available in areas where resources are limited.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether haloperidol alone, administered orally, intramuscularly or intravenously, is effective treatment for psychosis-induced agitation or aggression.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (1st June 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled  trials (RCTs) involving people exhibiting agitation or aggression (or both) thought to be due to psychosis, allocated rapid use of haloperidol alone (by any route), compared with any other treatment. Outcomes included tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes, repeated need for rapid tranquillisation within 24 hours, specific behaviours (threat or injury to others/self), adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently selected and assessed studies for methodological quality and extracted data. 'Summary of findings' tables were produced for each comparison grading the evidence and calculating, where possible and appropriate, a range of absolute effects.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 studies comparing haloperidol with 18 other treatments. Few studies were undertaken in circumstances that reflect real world practice, and, with notable exceptions, most were small and carried considerable risk of bias.Compared with placebo, more people in the haloperidol group were asleep at two hours (2 RCTs, n = 220, risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.95). Dystonia was common (2 RCTs, n = 207, RR 7.49, CI 0.93 to 60.21). Compared with aripiprazole, people in the haloperidol group required fewer injections than those in the aripiprazole group (2 RCTs, n = 473, RR 0.78, CI 0.62 to 0.99). More people in the haloperidol group experienced dystonia (2 RCTs, n = 477, RR 6.63, CI 1.52 to 28.86).Despite three larger trials with ziprasidone (total n = 739), data remain patchy, largely because of poor design and reporting. Compared with zuclopenthixol acetate, more people who received haloperidol required more than three injections (1 RCT, n = 70, RR 2.54, CI 1.19 to 5.46).Three trials (n = 205) compared haloperidol with lorazepam. There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to the number of participants asleep at one hour (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 1.05, CI 0.76 to 1.44). However, by three hours, significantly more people were asleep in the lorazepam group compared with the haloperidol group (1 RCT, n = 66, RR 1.93, CI 1.14 to 3.27). There were no differences in numbers requiring more than one injection (1 RCT, n = 66, RR 1.14, CI 0.91 to 1.43).Haloperidol's adverse effects were not offset by addition of lorazepam (e.g. dystonia 1 RCT, n = 67, RR 8.25, CI 0.46 to 147.45; required antiparkinson medication RR 2.74, CI 0.81 to 9.25). Addition of promethazine was investigated in one larger and better graded trial (n = 316). More people in the haloperidol group were not tranquil or asleep by 20 minutes (RR 1.60, CI 1.18 to 2.16). Significantly more people in the haloperidol alone group experienced one or more adverse effects (RR 11.28, CI 1.47 to 86.35). Acute dystonia for those allocated haloperidol alone was too common for the trial to continue beyond the interim analysis (RR 19.48, CI 1.14 to 331.92).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

If no other alternative exists, sole use of intramuscular haloperidol could be life-saving. Where additional drugs to offset the adverse effects are available, sole use of haloperidol for the extreme emergency, in situations of coercion, could be considered unethical. Addition of the sedating promethazine has support from better-grade evidence from within randomised trials. Use of an alternative antipsychotic drug is only partially supported by fragmented and poor-grade evidence. Evidence for use of newer generation antipsychotic alternatives is no stronger than that for older drugs. Adding a benzodiazepine to haloperidol does not have strong evidence of benefit and carries a risk of additional harm.After six decades of use for emergency rapid tranquillisation, this is still an area in need of good independent trials relevant to real world practice.

Medical evaluation and triage of the agitated patient: consensus statement of the american association for emergency psychiatry project Beta medical evaluation workgroup

Numerous medical and psychiatric conditions can cause agitation; some of these causes are life threatening. It is important to be able to differentiate between medical and nonmedical causes of agitation so that patients can receive appropriate and timely treatment. This article aims to educate all clinicians in nonmedical settings, such as mental health clinics, and medical settings on the differing levels of severity in agitation, basic triage, use of de-escalation, and factors, symptoms, and signs in determining whether a medical etiology is likely. Lastly, this article focuses on the medical workup of agitation when a medical etiology is suspected or when etiology is unclear.

Verbal De-escalation of the Agitated Patient: Consensus Statement of the American Association for Emergency Psychiatry Project BETA De-escalation Workgroup

Agitation is an acute behavioral emergency requiring immediate intervention. Traditional methods of treating agitated patients, ie, routine restraints and involuntary medication, have been replaced with a much greater emphasis on a noncoercive approach. Experienced practitioners have found that if such interventions are undertaken with genuine commitment, successful outcomes can occur far more often than previously thought possible. In the new paradigm, a 3-step approach is used. First, the patient is verbally engaged; then a collaborative relationship is established; and, finally, the patient is verbally de-escalated out of the agitated state. Verbal de-escalation is usually the key to engaging the patient and helping him become an active partner in his evaluation and treatment; although, we also recognize that in some cases nonverbal approaches, such as voluntary medication and environment planning, are also important. When working with an agitated patient, there are 4 main objectives: (1) ensure the safety of the patient, staff, and others in the area; (2) help the patient manage his emotions and distress and maintain or regain control of his behavior; (3) avoid the use of restraint when at all possible; and (4) avoid coercive interventions that escalate agitation. The authors detail the proper foundations for appropriate training for de-escalation and provide intervention guidelines, using the “10 domains of de-escalation.”

A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, fixed-dose, clinical trial of quetiapine at 600 versus 1200 mg/d for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder

Quetiapine is often prescribed at doses higher than those approved by regulatory authorities, with limited evidence from controlled trials. The objective of this study was to assess the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of high-dose quetiapine (1200 mg/d) compared with a standard dose of 600 mg/d among patients with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder hospitalized at 2 state-operated psychiatric facilities. In order to be eligible for randomization, subjects were required to prospectively fail to demonstrate an initial therapeutic response during a 4-week run-in phase with quetiapine at 600 mg/d (immediate release and dosed twice a day). Lack of an adequate initial response was defined a 15% or lower decrease in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score. Patients were then randomized to either continue quetiapine at 600 mg/d for an additional 8 weeks or to receive 1200 mg/d quetiapine instead. No significant differences were observed between the high dose (n = 29) and standard dose (n = 31) groups in change from baseline to endpoint on extrapyramidal symptoms, electrocardiographic changes, or most laboratory measures between groups. There was a significant difference between groups for triglycerides (P = 0.035), and post hoc tests revealed a decrease in triglycerides from baseline (mean [SD], 162.7 [59.3] mg/dL) to endpoint (mean [SD], 134.8 [62.7] mg/dL) for the 600 mg/d group (P = 0.019). The mean change in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score did not differ between groups. In conclusion, quetiapine at 1200 mg/d, although reasonably tolerated, did not confer any advantages over quetiapine at 600 mg/d among patients who had failed to demonstrate an adequate response to a prospective 4-week trial of 600 mg/d.

Direct observation of behavior: a review of current measures for use with older adults with dementia

This review article reports on methods of direct observation of behaviors for use in long-term care settings, particularly with older adults who have dementia. This article provides information on the theoretical roots, administration methods, and psychometric properties of measures of direct observation of individual behavior. It is hoped that this review will help gerontological nurses make informed choices about the direct observation measures that suit their specific needs, highlight the role of direct observation in quality improvement for dementia care, and facilitate a balance between identifying a gold standard and allowing flexibility to assess project-specific behaviors.

Inhaled loxapine for acute agitation in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder

Agitation is a common presentation in medical and psychiatric emergency departments, as well as clinics. Agitation ranges in severity and as the agitation rises, the choices for treatment lessen. The agitated patient is typically less cooperative, necessitating use of medications that cannot be diverted – usually rapid-dissolving forms or intramuscular medications. There is currently a medication/device being studied that can be used with this patient population. The medication is older but the device is an entirely new concept. Staccato® loxapine offers rapid delivery of loxapine via an inhaled device. The aerosol is able to penetrate deep into the lung, allowing for quick delivery to systemic circulation. The studies have been favorable, showing intravenous-like pharmacokinetics and rapid onset effect. As the delivery method is noninvasive, it is a more patient-friendly alternative to intramuscular medication.

Conventional intramuscular sedatives versus ziprasidone for severe agitation in adolescents: case-control study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare intramuscular (IM) ziprasidone to conventional IM medications (haloperidol combined with lorazepam) for the treatment of severe agitation in adolescents (age 12-17).

METHODS

We retrospectively identified consecutive severe agitation episodes (defined as requiring physical restraint) in adolescents treated with either IM ziprasidone or conventional IM agents in a psychiatric emergency room. For ziprasidone, the dosage was 20 mg for 23 episodes and 10 mg for 5 episodes. For 24 episodes treated with combined haloperidol and lorazepam, the dosages were 4.8 +/- 0.3 SEM mg and 1.9 +/- 0.4 mg respectively. Outcomes were the duration of restraint and need for adjunctive "rescue" medications within 60 minutes. These outcomes were decided prior to reviewing any records.

RESULTS

No difference was found in restraint duration (ziprasidone, N = 28, 55 +/- 5 minutes; haloperidol with lorazepam N = 24, 65 +/- 7 minutes, P = NS). Use of "rescue" medications did not differ between the two groups. No changes in blood pressure were found, but pulse decreased 8.3 +/- 2.4 for haloperidol with lorazepam and 8.9 +/- 4.24 for ziprasidone (P = NS). No instances of excessive sedation or extra-pyramidal symptoms were documented.

CONCLUSION

In this study, IM ziprasidone appeared effective, well tolerated, and similar in clinical profile to combined conventional IM medications for treating severe agitation in adolescents. Given the reportedly favorable acute side effect profile of parenteral atypical agents, they may provide an alternative to conventional antipsychotics for treating acute agitation in both adult and adolescent populations. Future randomized, controlled studies are needed.

Antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia: likelihood to be helped or harmed, understanding proximal and distal benefits and risks

Benefit-risk decisions are the central part of the philosophy of evidence-based medicine. Although number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) can quantify differences between two antipsychotics in terms of benefits and risks for the treatment of schizophrenia, these benefits and risks can take on greatly differing degrees of importance or relevance depending on the subjective point of view of the patient and clinician, baseline risks, severity of the underlying illness, as well as the time horizon when these effects emerge. The metric of likelihood to be helped or harmed, the ratio NNH to NNT, can be helpful in quantifying the benefit:risk ratio, provided that the outcomes are carefully matched in terms of both importance to the clinician and the patient and whether they are proximal or distal. The examples provided are extensions to the initially published NNT and NNH analyses conducted by the first author.

Buccal midazolam for agitation on psychiatric intensive care wards

Midazolam is a benzodiazepine known to be effective as a treatment for status epilepticus and for rapid tranquillisation. Buccal midazolam has recently become available in the UK. We introduced it as a treatment option for rapid tranquillisation on our intensive care wards. Buccal midazolam was found to be effective and well tolerated. Target levels of sedation were achieved in nearly 70% of subjects within half an hour. Activity was evident within 15 minutes. Over-sedation occurred in only one patient at one time point. There were no cases of respiratory depression. Buccal midazolam deserves further investigation as a non-invasive treatment option in rapid tranquillisation.

Ziprasidone in the treatment of mania in bipolar disorder

Ziprasidone is an atypical antipsychotic with a unique receptor-binding profile. Currently, ziprasidone is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the acute treatment of psychosis in schizophrenia and mania in bipolar disorder. When compared to certain other atypical antipsychotics, ziprasidone appears to have a relatively benign side effect profile, especially as regards metabolic effects eg, weight gain, serum lipid elevations and glucose dysregulation. Taken together, these data suggest that ziprasidone may be a first line treatment for patients with bipolar mania. However, ziprasidone is a relatively new medication for which adverse events after long-term use and/or in vulnerable patient populations must be studied. Unstudied areas of particular importance include the efficacy and safety of ziprasidone in the treatment of bipolar depression and relapse prevention of mania as, well as in the subpopulations of pregnant women, the elderly and pediatric patients. The emergence of mania in patients taking ziprasidone is another topic for further study.

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.

An observational study of the effectiveness and safety of intramuscular olanzapine in the treatment of acute agitation in patients with bipolar mania or schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of intramuscular (IM) olanzapine in severely agitated patients.

METHODS

This was an open-label multicenter 1-week observational study of IM olanzapine treatment in severely agitated inpatients and psychiatric emergency services with bipolar mania (n = 22) or schizophrenia (n = 52). Mean change from baseline to 2 h post-first injection (LOCF) in agitation was assessed by PANSS-Excited Component (PANSS-EC) (score range: 5-35 points) mean change from baseline to 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 min post-first injection, and visit-wise mean changes from mixed-model repeated measures analysis of variance. Kaplan-Meier survival curve analyses estimated time to categorical response (rating of <or=3 points each PANSS-EC item).

RESULTS

Two hours post-injection of olanzapine (mean dose = 9.9 mg), patients exhibited mild calmness and agitation was significantly reduced by 19.2 +/- 1.0 points (p < 0.001) (mean baseline = 29.0). Over 90% of the patients received only one injection in the first 24 h and 50% had a categorical response within 30 min.

CONCLUSIONS

Severely agitated patients responded rapidly after a single injection of olanzapine with mild levels of sedation and without serious treatment-emergent adverse events.

The association of a decreased level of awareness and blood alcohol concentration with both agitation and sedation in intoxicated patients in the ED

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to compare the level of awareness as determined by serial bispectral index (BIS) electroencephalogram scores to a standardized Altered Mental Status (AMS) scale used to define a patient's clinical level of agitation or sedation, and the patient's concurrent breath/blood alcohol concentration (BAC).

METHODS

This was an institutional review board-approved, prospective observational study of a convenience sample of patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) with the chief complaint of ethanol (ETOH) intoxication between July 19, 2003, and March 27, 2004. The AMS scale is a 9-point scale: -4 is unresponsive, 0 is normal examination, and +4 is extremely agitated. After ETOH was detected by breath analyzer, enrolled patients had a BIS monitor probe applied to their forehead. Baseline BAC, BIS, and AMS scores were recorded independently of the patients' caregivers. Bispectral index and AMS scores were repeated every 20 minutes for 1 hour. The patient's diagnosis, disposition, (any) complications, and total time in department were recorded.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight patients were enrolled in the study. The median presenting AMS score was -1. The mean total time in department was 402.6 minutes (SD, 196.4; range, 246-906 minutes). The mean presenting BIS score was 77.6 (SD, 17.9; range, 26-98). The mean presenting BAC was 0.229 (SD, 0.07; range, 0.049-0.43). The mean BIS index varied from 59.6 +/- 16.9 for AMS scores of -4, to 96.3 +/- 2.7 for AMS scores of 0, to 90.5 +/- 4.9 for AMS scores of 4. The AMS scale correlated with the BIS scale (Spearman's rho = 0.67, P < or = .001), but did not correlate with BAC (Spearman's rho = -0.14, P = 0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in the AMS scale corresponded to changes in the BIS index score. A decreased level of awareness, as determined on the BIS index, was observed in patients who were either agitated or sedated by the AMS. We conclude that both agitated and sedated patients with ETOH intoxication show decreases in their level of awareness. Therefore, the AMS scale, which includes both agitation and sedation, is a valid measure of a patient's decreased level of awareness.

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.

A pilot, open-label safety study of quetiapine for treatment of moderate psychotic agitation in the emergency setting

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this pilot study was primarily to explore the safety and, secondarily, the efficacy of the use of "prn" quetiapine for treatment of moderate agitation accompanied by psychosis in an emergency department setting.

METHODS

This was an open-label study in which 20 patients with psychotic agitation were treated in the emergency department with 100, 150, or 200 mg of quetiapine. Physicians who were unaffiliated with the study established the diagnoses and selected the doses to be used for each patient. A rater who was blinded to the dose performed the assessments. The primary safety measure was the onset of orthostatic hypotension. The primary efficacy measure was a 40% reduction in scores on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component (PANSS-EC) over 120 minutes. The secondary efficacy measure was a reduction of 2 points or more on the Behavioral Activity Rating Scale (BARS) at 120 minutes post-dose. All subjects provided written informed consent.

RESULTS

With regard to safety outcomes, 40% of subjects exhibited orthostasis by 120 minutes, although only 25% of these patients described clinically significant symptoms. In terms of efficacy, 50% of subjects experienced at least a 40% reduction in PANSS-EC scores at 2 hours, while 68.8% showed reductions of 2 points or more in scores on the BARS over the same time period.

CONCLUSION

Quetiapine demonstrated some efficacy as a sedative agent in the emergency setting, although no clear dose-response pattern emerged over the narrow dose range tested. Orthostasis was common and did not correlate with dosing. This small study did not support the use of quetiapine to treat acute agitation in potentially volume-depleted patients.

Intramuscular ziprasidone treatment of acute psychotic agitation in elderly patients with schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

Intramuscular (i.m.) ziprasidone treatment has been shown to be effective and well tolerated in reducing the symptoms of acute psychosis in adults. Few data are available as to safety in the elderly. The growing utilization of health services by elderly psychiatric patients warrants an evaluation in this population.

METHOD

Consecutive elderly patients (60 years of and older) admitted to a psychogeriatric ward in a large, university-affiliated tertiary psychiatric center were treated by i.m. ziprasidone for acute psychotic agitation. Patients received three days of flexible-dose i.m. ziprasidone. After an initial dose of 10-20 mg, a subsequent dose of 10-20 mg could be given after 12 hours if needed (maximum daily dose: 40 mg).

RESULTS

All treatment emergent side effects and adverse events along with the investigators' assessments of severity were systematically recorded as the primary outcome. The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and the Behavioral Activity Rating Scale (BARS) were the secondary outcomes. Twenty-one patients, six male and 15 female, mean age 71.4 +/- 1.3 years (range: 60-81 years) were enrolled. All had completed the three days i.m. ziprasidone treatment. There was one adverse event in a patient with untreated benign prostatic hypertrophy who developed urinary retention. Two side effects of mild severity that resolved spontaneously were observed: blurred vision and sedation. The BPRS decreased by 26.8 points after three days of treatment (p = 0.001). The BARS score, reflecting agitation, decreased significantly after each injection, reaching maximal decrease of 2.14 points at completion of study (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Intramuscular ziprasidone in this series of elderly patients suggests acceptable safety and efficacy in the management of acute psychotic agitation among elderly patients with schizophrenia.

Nurses' collaboration with physicians in managing medication improves patient outcome in acute psychiatric care

The aim of the present paper was to examine the impact of nurses' collaboration with physicians in medication management on patient outcome in acute psychiatric care. Data for 143 patients with schizophrenia were assessed based on information given by nurses and physicians in charge. Twenty-two patients were defined as a collaborative group when physicians changed medication after receiving reports that nurses perceived the necessity to change. A control group was formed from the 50 patients when nurses perceived the necessity to change medication but did not tell physicians, or nurses advised of the necessity to physicians but medication was not changed. Physicians retrospectively evaluated patients' social functioning and acceptance of medication at admission and discharge. Social functioning was measured by Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), and acceptance of medication by a single item using Japanese version of Schedule for Assessment of Insight (SAI-J). Changes in the scores from admission to discharge on GAF and acceptance of medication were defined as outcome measures. Nurses recognized the necessity to change medication for patients with frequent aggressive behavior and younger age. Compared with the control group, the collaborative group had less instruction for use of drugs, and more perceived necessity to decrease the current dose or the number of drugs because of stable symptoms. The collaborative group demonstrated significantly greater improvement in social functioning. The collaborative group improved acceptance of medication, although there were no significant differences between the two groups. Nurses' collaboration with physicians in medication management improved patient outcome in acute psychiatric care.

Serial Bispectral index scores in patients undergoing observation for sedative overdose in the emergency department

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Many patients who overdose on sedatives experience a declining mental status and eventually require endotracheal intubation. The goal of this study was to determine if serial bedside Bispectral index (BIS) scores monitoring can be used to detect the eventual need for intubation in overdosed patients who are undergoing observation in the ED.

METHODS

This was a prospective, observational study of a convenience sample of patients who presented to the Hennepin County Medical Center ED between June and November 2002. Patients being treated and observed for a suspected sedative ingestion were eligible. Upon presentation, a Bispectral electroencephalographic probe was applied to the patient's forehead, and a BIS score was recorded at 0 and 20 minutes. The Altered Mental Status scale was used to describe the patient's clinical status. Data were collected by trained research assistants. Data are described with descriptive statistics. The mean changes in BIS score between patients who did and did not require intubation are compared with t tests, and the outcome of patients with stable vs declining BIS scores were compared with chi(2) tests.

RESULTS

Seventy-six patients were enrolled. The mean initial BIS score was 83.9 (95% CI, 79.7-88.1; range, 9-99). The mean change in BIS scores during the 20-minute observation period for the patients who required intubation was -13.5 (95% CI, -30.2 to 3.2) and was +6.7 (95% CI, 3.3-10.1) for those who were not intubated. Sixteen patients had an initial BIS score below 70. Of these patients, 6 were intubated. All intubations occurred during the 20 minutes, and this group had a mean initial BIS of 47.2 (95% CI, 35.6-58.8). The 10 patients with an initial BIS below 70 who were not intubated had a mean increase in BIS score of 23.3 (95% CI, 11.7-33.9) during the 20 minutes. Of the 60 patients whose first BIS score was above 70, 5 were eventually intubated during their ED treatment. The mean change in BIS was -36.4 (95% CI, -18.7 to -54.1) for the intubated patients vs +7.9 (95% CI, 4.4-11.3) for nonintubated patients during the first 20 minutes.

CONCLUSION

The overdosed patients who required intubation during their ED treatment experienced a mean decrease in BIS during the first 20 minutes, compared with those who did not. Bispectral index scores monitoring may prove useful for earlier ED treatment and decision making regarding sedative overdose patients.

Orally versus intramuscularly administered antipsychotic drugs in psychiatric emergencies

High utilization of emergency services by patients at increased risk for agitation and aggression makes the determination of effective therapy a major concern of psychiatric care. Agitated and aggressive behavior needs to be treated rapidly and effectively to minimize the risk to both patients and staff. Traditionally, short-acting intramuscular (IM) formulations of conventional antipsychotic drugs have been preferred in the emergency setting due to their rapid onset of action and the ability to administer them to uncooperative patients. IM injections, however, may not always be the preferred option. Recently, orally administered second generation (atypical) antipsychotics have been shown to be at least as effective in managing acute agitation as conventional antipsychotic drugs, with a superior tolerability profile. The current review evaluates pharmacokinetic parameters, formulation options, and clinical efficacy data for the treatment of acute agitation or aggressive behavior with antipsychotic medications. A synthesis of data from individual clinical trials, meta-analyses, review articles, and expert consensus recommendations is used to develop a working clinical algorithm for the acute management of aggression and agitation.

Emergency management of agitation in schizophrenia

Schizophrenia is a common psychiatric condition, affecting approximately 1% of the population. Acute emergent presentations often include hallucinations, delusions, thought, and speech disorders. Agitation is common among emergency patients with schizophrenia. Decisional capacity should be assessed in all patients. Reversible causes of agitation should be ruled out, including infection, metabolic disorders, endocrine disorders, trauma, pain, noncompliance, toxicological disorders, and structural brain abnormalities. Agitation may be managed acutely using a combination of pharmacological agents and nonpharmacological interventions. Effective pharmacological agents include several classes of antipsychotic agents and benzodiazepines. Potential life-threatening complications of pharmacological therapy should be anticipated, which may include neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS), prolonged QT syndrome, and respiratory depression. Nonpharmacological interventions may include a quiet environment, physical restraints, and behavioral interventions. Disposition decisions should be made based on the etiology of agitation, effective management, decisional capacity, and presence of suicidal or homicidal intentions. Many patients who have required nonpharmacological or pharmacological management of agitation require inpatient psychiatric treatment, either voluntarily or involuntarily. Psychiatric consultation should be sought for patients with schizophrenia and uncertain disposition determinations, or those requiring other complex management decisions.

Best clinical practice with ziprasidone IM: update after 2 years of experience

Acute agitation is a common psychiatric emergency often treated with intramuscular (i.m.) medication when rapid control is necessary or the patient refuses to take an oral agent. Conventional i.m. antipsychotics are associated with side effects, particularly movement disorders, that may alarm patients and render them unreceptive to taking these medications again. Ziprasidone (Geodon) is the first second-generation, or atypical, antipsychotic to become available in an i.m. formulation. Ziprasidone IM was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2002 for the treatment of agitation in patients with schizophrenia. In October 2004, a roundtable panel of physicians with extensive experience in the management of acutely agitated patients met to review the first 2 years of experience with this agent. This monograph, a product of that meeting, discusses clinical experience to date with ziprasidone IM and offers recommendations on its use in various settings. In clinical trials, patients treated with ziprasidone IM demonstrated significant and rapid (within 15-30 minutes) reduction in agitation and improvement in psychotic symptoms, agitation, and hostility to an extent greater than or equal to that attained with haloperidol i.m. Tolerability of ziprasidone IM was superior to that of haloperidol IM, with a lower burden of movement disorders. Clinical trials have also shown that ziprasidone IM can be administered with benzodiazepines without adverse consequences. Transition from i.m. to oral ziprasidone has been well tolerated, with maintenance of symptom control. The most common adverse events associated with ziprasidone IM were insomnia, headache, and dizziness in fixed-dose trials and insomnia and hypertension in flexible-dose trials. No consistent pattern of escalating incidence of adverse events with escalating ziprasidone doses has been observed. Changes in QTc interval associated with ziprasidone at peak serum concentrations are modest and comparable to those seen with haloperidol IM. Results of randomized clinical trials of ziprasidone IM have been corroborated in studies in real-world treatment settings involving patients with extreme agitation or a recent history of alcohol or substance abuse. In these circumstances, clinically significant improvement was seen within 30 minutes of ziprasidone IM administration, without regard to the suspected underlying etiology of agitation. Agents with a good safety/tolerability profile, such as ziprasidone IM, may be more cost effective long term than older agents, due to reduced incidence of acute adverse effects (eg, acute dystonia) that often require extended periods of observation. Additional trials of ziprasidone IM in agitated patients in a variety of clinical setting are warranted to generate comparative risk/benefit data with conventional agents and other second-generation antipsychotics.

Expert Canadian consensus suggestions on the rational, clinical use of ziprasidone in the treatment of schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders

Many atypical antipsychotic medications are becoming available for clinical use. Ziprasidone is a recent addition to this group and is expected to become available for clinical use in Canada in 2005. Ziprasidone has some significant differences compared with other atypicals currently available in Canada. Clinicians need to understand the benefits and risks associated with each of the antipsychotic medications available for the treatment of schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders to ensure their most appropriate utilization. At the suggestion of Professor Stan Kutcher (chair) and as part of an ongoing commitment to provide independent education pertaining to the utility of new psychotropic compounds to health professionals, a panel of Canadian experts in the treatment of schizophrenia spectrum disorders was convened to provide consensus suggestions for the appropriate clinical use of ziprasidone. The consultations regarding the development of these recommendations were organized by Brainworks International (BWI) with arms-length funding from Pfizer Canada. This paper describes the experts' consensus views on the efficacy and safety of ziprasidone, their suggestions on which patients may be suitable for ziprasidone treatment, and how to initiate treatment (including how to switch from other antipsychotic medications), manage side effects, and monitor patients in long-term therapy. These suggestions are those of the authors only and are not endorsed by or necessarily reflect the opinions of BWI or Pfizer Canada.

Ziprasidone and haloperidol in the treatment of acute exacerbation of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder: comparison of intramuscular and oral formulations in a 6-week, randomized, blinded-assessment study

RATIONALE

Conventional intramuscular (IM) antipsychotics used in managing acute exacerbation of schizophrenia are associated with side effects such as acute dystonia.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of sequential IM/oral ziprasidone with haloperidol in acute exacerbation of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

METHODS

In a 6-week, multicenter, parallel-group, flexibly dosed study, patients were randomized to ziprasidone (IM up to 3 days, then oral 40-80 mg, b.i.d.) or haloperidol (IM up to 3 days, then oral 5-20 mg/day). Assessments were rater-blinded.

RESULTS

At the end of IM treatment, patients receiving ziprasidone (n=427) showed significantly improved Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale Total (BPRS total) scores compared with those receiving haloperidol (n=138) [least-squares (LS) mean change -6.14 for ziprasidone versus -4.13 for haloperidol, P<0.0018]. At endpoint, there were no significant between-group differences in BPRS total scores. There was a significantly greater improvement in BPRS negative subscale scores in ziprasidone-treated patients, both at the end of IM treatment (LS mean change -1.15 for ziprasidone and -0.28 for haloperidol, P<0.0001) and at study endpoint (LS mean change -2.94 for ziprasidone and -2.24 for haloperidol, P<0.0001). Haloperidol-treated patients exhibited significantly greater increases in Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale at end of IM treatment and at endpoint (P<0.0001). They also had significantly higher ratings on the Barnes Akathisia Scale (P<0.0001) and the Movement Disorder Burden Score (P<0.005), as well as higher incidences of movement disorder-related adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Sequential IM and oral ziprasidone offers important efficacy and tolerability advantages over haloperidol in acute schizophrenia.

Rapid-acting IM ziprasidone in a psychiatric emergency service: a naturalistic study

Atypical antipsychotics have gained acceptance as first-line treatment for psychotic disorders. Rapid-acting intramuscular (IM) atypicals may supplant benzodiazepine and/or neuroleptic alternatives. IM atypical ziprasidone studies excluded severe psychiatric agitation (PSYCH), or that due to the abuse of alcohol (ETOH) or other substances (SUBS). We report Behavioral Activity Rating Scale agitation scores (range, 1-7) and duration of physical restraints in a naturalistic study in a psychiatric emergency service using IM ziprasidone 20 mg and various doses for conventional antipsychotics. Baseline scores were high for PSYCH, ETOH and SUBS patients (mean, 6.5, 6.9 and 6.6, respectively). Agitation decreased rapidly from baseline with ziprasidone [mean, 5.6, 5.3 and 5.8, respectively, at 15 min (P<.05 for all), and 4.2, 4.1 and 4.1, respectively, at 30 min (P<.01 for all)]. At 2 h, scores were 2.6, 2.1 and 2.3 (P<.01 for all versus baseline). For 9 patients receiving conventional IM antipsychotics, scores were 6.6 (baseline), 5.7 (15 min), 4.2 (30 min) and 2.9 (2 h) (P<.02 versus ziprasidone). Compared with restraint durations from 80 patients receiving conventional IM agents 1 month prior to this study, restraint duration decreased from 91+/-4 to 54+/-3 min with ziprasidone (n=77; P<.01) and varied with conventional IM agents (mean, 60+/-12 min; n=4; P=NS). None of the 19 ziprasidone patients who received electrocardiograms showed prolonged QTc; one had a dystonic reaction. IM ziprasidone appears effective for severe agitation, including agitation associated with alcohol or substance intoxication, and may reduce time in restraints.

Management of acute psychosis: from emergency to stabilization

In treating and managing acute psychosis in patients with schizophrenia, early intervention may be valuable. The need to quickly control severe symptoms, however, must be balanced with a treatment algorithm that is both safe and effective. The present management of acute psychotic agitation varies among clinicians. Key treatment goals have been to calm the agitated, assaultive, violent, or disruptive patient, minimize the danger to self and others, and achieve a smooth transition from intramuscular to oral maintenance. For many years, intramuscular treatment with benzodiazepines and/or conventional antipsychotics, such as haloperidol, has been the mainstay of treatment for acute psychosis. Unfortunately, the poor tolerability of conventional antipsychotics compromises their usefulness for both short- and long-term treatment. Although new antipsychotics have a more favorable side-effect profile, the transition from an intramuscular formulation has been problematic. Fortunately, the development of intramuscular formulations of olanzapine and ziprasidone offer new treatment options for patients experiencing acute psychotic episodes. This article will review the use of intramuscular agents, standard antipsychotics, and new antipsychotics in the emergency room setting. The strengths and limitations of each will be discussed.

Ziprasidone Mesylate for Injection

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive five to six well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late Phase III trials. The monographs are targeted to your Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee. Subscribers also receive monthly one-page summary monographs on the agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation (DUE) is also provided each month. The monographs are published in printed form and on diskettes that allow customization. Subscribers to the The Formulary Monograph Service also receive access to a pharmacy bulletin board, The Formulary Information Exchange (The F.I.X.). All topics pertinent to clinical and hospital pharmacy are discussed on The F.I.X.

Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. If you would like information about The Formulary Monograph Service or The F.I.X., call The Formulary at 800–322–4349. The November 2002 monograph topics are adefovir dipivoxil, ximelagatran, agalsidase alfa and agalsidase beta, pemetrexed, and emtricitabine. The DUE is on adefovir dipivoxil.