Haloperidol, lorazepam, or both for psychotic agitation? A multicenter, prospective, double-blind, emergency department study

A comparison of the safety of olanzapine and haloperidol in combination with benzodiazepines in emergency department patients with acute agitation

BACKGROUND

Pharmacologic management of the agitated emergency department patient is controversial. The combination of olanzapine + benzodiazepines is not recommended by the manufacturer, but a recent report suggested harm only if the patient was intoxicated. Whether this is also true for haloperidol + benzodiazepines is not known.

OBJECTIVES

The measurement of vital signs and ethanol levels in patients who received haloperidol with or without benzodiazepines was compared to a previous analysis of patients who received olanzapine with or without benzodiazepines.

METHODS

This is a structured retrospective chart review of patients who received parenteral haloperidol or parental olanzapine either with or without benzodiazepines.

RESULTS

There were 96 patients (71 haloperidol, 25 olanzapine) who met inclusion criteria. No patient in the olanzapine + benzodiazepine group had hypotension, although one patient in the olanzapine-only group did (6.7%); 2 patients in the haloperidol + benzodiazepines group (5.1%) and 2 patients in the haloperidol-only group (6.3%) had hypotension. In alcohol-negative (ETOH-) patients, neither olanzapine alone nor olanzapine + benzodiazepines was associated with decreased oxygen saturations. In ETOH+ patients, olanzapine alone was not associated with decreased oxygen saturations, but olanzapine + benzodiazepines were associated with lower oxygen saturations than haloperidol + benzodiazepines.

CONCLUSIONS

In this sample, olanzapine alone or with a benzodiazepine was not associated with more hypotension than haloperidol. However, olanzapine + benzodiazepines were associated with lower oxygen saturations than haloperidol + benzodiazepines in ETOH+ but not ETOH- patients. In patients with known alcohol ingestion, haloperidol, haloperidol + benzodiazepines, or olanzapine alone may be better choices for treatment of agitation.

Evidence-based pharmacotherapy of schizophrenia

We describe the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia and have arranged the manuscript as a simple algorithm which starts from the choice of an antipsychotic drug for an acutely ill patient and concludes with the most important questions about maintenance treatment. In acutely ill patients the choice of drug is mainly based on pragmatic criteria. Among many strategies used for agitated patients, haloperidol plus promethazine is the best examined one. In case of persistent depression or negative symptoms treatment includes antidepressants, and some second-generation antipsychotic drugs (SGAs) have been found somewhat superior to first-generation antipsychotic drugs (FGAs) in these domains. If an antipsychotic is suspected to be ineffective, several factors need to be checked before action is taken. Few trials have addressed strategies such as switching the drug or increasing the dose in case of non-response. Clozapine remains the gold-standard for treatment-refractory patients, while none of the numerous augmentation strategies that have been examined by randomized controlled trials can be generally recommended. Maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs effectively reduces relapse rates. Small, not definitive, studies have shown that withdrawing antipsychotics from patients who have been stable for up to 6 yr leads to more relapses than continuing medication. In effect, continuous treatment is more effective than intermittent strategies. The identification of optimum doses for relapse prevention with FGAs has proven difficult, and there is little randomized data on SGAs. Although the randomized evidence on a superiority of depot compared to oral treatment is not ideal, this approach suggests obvious advantages in assuring compliance.

Rapid tranquilization for agitated patients in emergency psychiatric rooms: a randomized trial of olanzapine, ziprasidone, haloperidol plus promethazine, haloperidol plus midazolam and haloperidol alone

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of intramuscular olanzapine, ziprasidone, haloperidol plus promethazine, haloperidol plus midazolam and haloperidol alone as the first medication(s) used to treat patients with agitation and aggressive behavior. METHOD: One hundred fifty patients with agitation caused by psychotic or bipolar disorder were randomly assigned under double-blind conditions to receive olanzapine, ziprasidone, haloperidol plus midazolam, haloperidol plus promethazine or haloperidol alone. The Overt Agitation Severity Scale, Overt Aggression Scale and Ramsay Sedation Scale were applied within 12 hours after the first dosage. RESULTS: All medications produced a calming effect within one hour of administration, but only olanzapine and haloperidol reduced agitation by less than 10 points, and only olanzapine reduced aggression by less than four points in the first hour. After twelve hours, only patients treated with haloperidol plus midazolam had high levels of agitation and aggression and also more side effects. Ziprasidone, olanzapine and haloperidol alone had more stable results for agitation control, while ziprasidone, haloperidol plus promethazine and olanzapine had stable results for aggression control. CONCLUSION: Olanzapine, ziprasidone, haloperidol plus promethazine, haloperidol plus midazolam and haloperidol were effective in controlling agitation and aggression caused by mental illness over 12 hours. Although all the drugs had advantages and disadvantages, haloperidol plus midazolam was associated with the worst results in all the observed parameters.

Interventions for preventing and managing aggressive patients admitted to an acute hospital setting: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Violence in health care has been widely reported and health care workers, particularly nurses in acute care settings, are ill-equipped to manage patients who exhibit aggressive traits.

AIM

The aim of this systematic review was to establish best practice in the prevention and management of aggressive behaviours in patients admitted to acute hospital settings.

DATA SOURCES

An extensive search of the major databases was conducted from 1990 to 2007. The search included published and unpublished studies and papers in English.

REVIEW METHODS

This review considered any quantitative research study design that evaluated the effectiveness of interventions in the prevention and management of patients who exhibit aggressive behaviours in an acute hospital setting. Each included study was quality assessed by two independent reviewers and data were extracted using the relevant tools developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute.

RESULTS

Ten studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The evidence identified from the studies includes: the benefit of education and training of acute care nurses in aggression management techniques; use of "as required" medications is effective in minimising harm to patients and staff; and that specific interventions such as physical restraint may play a role in managing aggressive behaviours from patients in the acute care setting.

CONCLUSIONS

This review makes several recommendations for the prevention and management of aggressive behaviours in acute hospital patients. However, due to the lack of high-quality studies conducted in the acute care setting there is huge scope for future research in this area.

Pharmacological management of the agitated pediatric patient

Children with behavioral or psychiatric complaints are often evaluated in pediatric emergency room settings, and may present as agitated or violent at any point during the evaluation process. Emergency department-based practitioners should be aware of risk factors associated with agitation and should be able to assess the agitated patient in a timely fashion. Management may require the use of pharmacological agents that can mitigate agitation safely and effectively, thus ensuring good outcomes for patients and emergency department staff.

Manejo de paciente agitado ou agressivo

OBJETIVO: Revisar as medidas preconizadas para o manejo de pacientes agitados ou agressivos. MÉTODO: Por meio de uma busca em bancos de dados (PubMed e Web of Science) foram identificados artigos empíricos e revisões sobre intervenções farmacológicas e não farmacológicas para o manejo de agitação e/ou violência. RESULTADOS: O manejo não farmacológico de agitação/agressão engloba a organização do espaço físico e a adequação de atitudes e comportamentos dos profissionais de saúde. O objetivo principal do manejo farmacológico é a tranquilização rápida, buscando a redução dos sintomas de agitação e agressividade, sem a indução de sedação profunda ou prolongada, mantendo-se o paciente tranquilo, mas completa ou parcialmente responsivo. A polifarmácia deve ser evitada e as doses das medicações devem ser o menor possível, ajustadas de acordo com a necessidade clínica. A administração intramuscular de medicação deve ser considerada como última alternativa e as opções de uso de antipsicóticos e benzodiazepínicos são descritas e comentadas. O manejo físico, por meio de contenção mecânica, pode ser necessário nas situações de violência em que exista risco para o paciente ou equipe, e deve obedecer a critérios rigorosos. CONCLUSÃO: Os procedimentos devem ser cuidadosamente executados, evitando complicações de ordem física e emocional para pacientes e equipe.

A retrospective analysis of intramuscular haloperidol and intramuscular olanzapine in the treatment of agitation in drug- and alcohol-using patients

OBJECTIVE

The treatment of agitation in drug- and alcohol-using emergency patients is understudied.

METHOD

We performed a retrospective chart review of 105 agitated emergency department patients who received either intramuscular (IM) haloperidol or IM olanzapine, comparing prescribing patterns, level of agitation, response to treatment and side effects in patients positive for drugs or alcohol [D/A(+)] and patients negative for drugs or alcohol [(D/A(-)].

RESULTS

The haloperidol-benzodiazepine combination was the most frequently prescribed treatment in both groups, although alcohol(+) status biased clinicians toward using haloperidol alone. Overall, D/A(+) and D/A(-) patients responded to the initial intervention at similar rates, although D/A(+) patients were rated as more agitated and had more posttreatment sedation than D/A(-) patients. In D/A(+) patients, haloperidol+benzodiazepine and IM olanzapine performed better than haloperidol alone. There were no serious adverse events with any treatment.

CONCLUSION

Findings support the generalization of efficacy data from more rarified agitated samples to populations with high rates of substance use and highlight the need for prospective, inclusive, randomized trials comparing the commonly used haloperidol-benzodiazepine combination with newer injectable antipsychotics.

The methamphetamine problem in the United States

Significant public health problems associated with methamphetamine (MA) production and use in the United States have emerged over the past 25 years; however, there has been considerable controversy about the size of the problem. Epidemiological indicators have provided a mixed picture. National surveys of the adult U.S. population and school-based populations have consistently been used to support the position that MA use is a relatively minor concern. However, many other data sources, including law-enforcement groups, welfare agencies, substance abuse treatment program admissions, criminal justice agencies, and state/county executives indicate that MA is a very significant public health problem for many communities throughout much of the country. In this article, we describe (a) the historical underpinnings of the MA problem, (b) epidemiological trends in MA use, (c) key subgroups at risk for MA problems, (d) the health and social factors associated with MA use, (e) interventions available for addressing the MA problem, and (f) lessons learned from past efforts addressing the MA problem.

Potential complications of combining intramuscular olanzapine with benzodiazepines in emergency department patients

BACKGROUND

Olanzapine (Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN) is starting to be used with more frequency in emergency departments (EDs) for agitated patients. The potential complications of the use of olanzapine in combination with a benzodiazepine have not been well characterized in ED patients with undifferentiated agitation.

OBJECTIVES

The measurement of vital signs, repeat medication dosage, and ethanol levels in patients who received parenteral (intramuscular [IM]) olanzapine either alone or concurrently with benzodiazepines.

METHODS

This is a structured retrospective chart review of all patients who met the criteria of having received IM olanzapine for agitation and having vital signs documented both before medication administration and within 4 h afterwards.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. Ten patients received olanzapine and benzodiazepine, and 15 patients received olanzapine alone. Regardless of whether or not they received benzodiazepines, patients who had ingested significant amounts of alcohol before arrival in the ED had decreased oxygen saturations after olanzapine administration. Oxygen saturations decreased more in patients who had ingested alcohol and then received olanzapine + benzodiazepines. Two patients (20%) who received olanzapine + benzodiazepines and who had ingested significant amounts of alcohol exhibited hypoxia, defined as lowest O(2) saturation ≤ 92%.

CONCLUSIONS

In this relatively small sample, olanzapine plus benzodiazepines seems to be safe in patients who have not ingested alcohol, but may produce potentially significant oxygen desaturations in patients who have. Future, prospective studies should explore the benefits vs. potential risks of adding a benzodiazepine to olanzapine for agitated patients in the ED.

Comparison of intramuscular olanzapine, orally disintegrating olanzapine tablets, oral risperidone solution, and intramuscular haloperidol in the management of acute agitation in an acute care psychiatric ward in Taiwan

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to compare efficacy and safety among intramuscular olanzapine, intramuscular haloperidol, orally disintegrating olanzapine tablets, and oral risperidone solution for agitated patients with psychosis during the first 24 hours of treatment in an acute care psychiatric ward.

METHODS

Forty-two inpatients from an acute care psychiatric ward of a medical center in central Taiwan were enrolled. They were randomly assigned to 1 of the 4 treatment groups (10-mg intramuscular olanzapine, 10-mg olanzapine oral disintegrating tablet, 3-mg oral risperidone solution, or 7.5-mg intramuscular haloperidol). Agitation was measured by using the excited component of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS-EC), the Agitation-Calmness Evaluation Scale, and the Clinical Global Impression--Severity Scale during the first 24 hours.

RESULTS

There were significant differences in the PANSS-EC total scores for the 4 intervention groups at 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90 minutes after the initiation of treatment. More significant differences were found early in the treatment. In the post hoc analysis, the patients who received intramuscular olanzapine or orally disintegrating olanzapine tablets showed significantly greater improvement in PANSS-EC scores than did patients who received intramuscular haloperidol at points 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90 minutes after injection.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that intramuscular olanzapine, orally disintegrating olanzapine tablets, and oral risperidone solution are as effective treatments as intramuscular haloperidol for patients with acute agitation. Intramuscular olanzapine and disintegrating olanzapine tablets are more effective than intramuscular haloperidol in the early phase of the intervention. There is no significant difference in effectiveness among intramuscular olanzapine, orally disintegrating olanzapine tablets, and oral risperidone solution.

The 2009 schizophrenia PORT psychopharmacological treatment recommendations and summary statements

In light of the large number of studies published since the 2004 update of Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team psychopharmacological treatment recommendations, we conducted an extensive literature review to determine whether the current psychopharmacological treatment recommendations required revision and whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant new treatment recommendations for prespecified outcomes of interest. We reviewed over 400 articles, which resulted in 16 treatment recommendations: the revision of 11 previous treatment recommendations and 5 new treatment recommendations. Three previous treatment recommendations were eliminated. There were 13 interventions and/or outcomes for which there was insufficient evidence for a treatment recommendation, and a statement was written to summarize the current level of evidence and identify important gaps in our knowledge that need to be addressed. In general, there was considerable consensus among the Psychopharmacology Evidence Review Group and the expert consultants. Two major areas of contention concerned whether there was sufficient evidence to recommend specific dosage ranges for the acute and maintenance treatment of first-episode and multi-episode schizophrenia and to endorse the practice of switching antipsychotics for the treatment of antipsychotic-related weight gain. Finally, there continue to be major gaps in our knowledge, including limited information on (1) the use of adjunctive pharmacological agents for the treatment of persistent positive symptoms or other symptom domains of psychopathology, including anxiety, cognitive impairments, depressive symptoms, and persistent negative symptoms and (2) the treatment of co-occurring substance or medical disorders that occur frequently in individuals with schizophrenia.

Limited evidence for the effectiveness of p.r.n. Medications among psychiatric inpatients

The use of medications on a p.r.n. basis on psychiatric inpatient wards is common and widespread but without clear evidence of effectiveness. While individual studies have explored the use of p.r.n. medications in patients receiving scheduled psychotropic medications, no systematic review of the effectiveness of this use of p.r.n. medications has been done. A MEDLINE search was performed of all articles published in English between 1966 and November 2008. Studies were included only if they involved psychiatric patients and if they quantitatively explored the effectiveness of p.r.n. medications. Ten retrospective studies were identified that met inclusion criteria. Among the studies involving adult inpatients, estimates of effectiveness, primarily in the management of agitation, were consistently moderately high, averaging approximately 75%. These studies mainly involved use of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines. Lower estimates of about 30% were obtained in studies involving non-adult inpatients who had few psychotic disorders and among whom there was only minimal use of p.r.n. benzodiazepines. The meaning of effectiveness was often unclear across these retrospective studies. It also appears that important outcome measures, such as duration of hospitalization, may not be affected. Administration of p.r.n. medication was also associated with a greater risk of adverse events. Future studies concerning use of p.r.n. medications in psychiatric patients should examine objective ratings of agitation, medication effects, and adverse events.

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.

Optimizing patient safety by preventing combined use of intramuscular olanzapine and parenteral benzodiazepines

PURPOSE

A formalized policy was developed to warn of the potential for adverse events associated with the use of intramuscular olanzapine in combination with injectable benzodiazepines.

SUMMARY

Administrators in the psychiatry department at Lutheran Hospital proposed that concomitantly active orders for both intramuscular olanzapine and parenteral benzodiazepines be prohibited as a matter of policy; this decision was supported by the institution's pharmacy and therapeutics and medical executive committees. The pharmacy department subsequently examined its processes as they related to the two medications, and changes were implemented in the areas of order processing and floor-stock provision. Before policy implementation, injectable olanzapine was stored as floor stock in several automated medication cabinets for use in urgent situations. Injectable lorazepam was also included in the stock inventory for most patient care areas. After policy implementation, intramuscular olanzapine was removed from the general floor stock on all hospital units. The drug is now only available after a pharmacist's review and approval of each individual order. Upon receipt of an order for intramuscular olanzapine, the pharmacist is required to conduct a prospective review of the individual patient's medication profile to determine if an active order for an injectable benzodiazepine exists. In the event that the prescriber cannot be reached in a timely fashion, the new order is held until a physician's clarification can be obtained.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of a policy that increased pharmacist surveillance and regulation of the use of intramuscular olanzapine reduced the potential for coadministration of the agent with parenteral benzodiazepines in a community hospital.

Use of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines in patients with psychiatric emergencies: results of an observational trial

BACKGROUND

Conventional antipsychotics augmented with benzodiazepines have been the standard acute treatment for psychiatric emergencies for more than 50 years. The inability of patients to give informed consent limits randomised, controlled studies. This observational study on immediate therapy for aggression and impulse control in acutely agitated patients (IMPULSE) evaluated the short-term effectiveness and tolerability of atypical and typical antipsychotic medications (AP) in a non-interventional setting.

METHODS

This was a comparative, non-randomised, prospective, open-label, observational study. Treatment over the first 5 days was classified according to whether any olanzapine, risperidone, or haloperidol was included or not. Documentations (PANSS-excited component, CGI-aggression, CGI-suicidality, tranquilisation score) were at baseline (day 1) and days 2-6 after start of AP.

RESULTS

During the short treatment-period, PANSS-EC and CGI-aggression scores improved in all cohorts. 68.7% of patients treated with olanzapine, 72.2% of patients treated with risperidone, and 83.3% of patients treated with haloperidol received concomitant benzodiazepines (haloperidol vs. non-haloperidol: p < 0.001). More patients treated with olanzapine (73.8%) were fully alert according to a tranquilisation score and active at day 2 than patients treated with risperidone (57.1%) or haloperidol (58.0%).

CONCLUSION

Current medication practices for immediate aggression control are effective with positive results present within a few days. In this study, concomitant benzodiazepine use was significantly more frequent in patients receiving haloperidol.

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.

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.

Development of the Video Assessment of Propensity to Use Emergency Restraints Scale (VAPERS): results of the VAPERS Study Group

BACKGROUND

Emergency physicians (EPs) may disagree on when or whether patients need restraints. There is no good objective measure of the likelihood of EPs to restrain patients.

OBJECTIVES

To 1) develop a scale to determine the likelihood that an EP would restrain a patient, 2) develop subscale scoring, and 3) determine a shortened version that correlates highly with the full scale.

METHODS

This was a prospective cross sectional study. The Video Assessment of Propensity to use Emergency Restraints Scale (VAPERS), consisting of 17 scenarios utilizing actors, was videotaped to produce a research video assessment tool. The VAPERS was designed by development experts to reflect the spectrum of patients who are considered for restraint in an emergency department. The VAPERS was piloted among a 22-member pilot panel of EPs (faculty and residents). The pilot panel was asked to determine the degree to which each video patient possessed the following patient characteristics: medical instability, trauma, belligerence, agitation, and altered mental status. Each "degree of characteristic" was measured on a separate 100-mm visual analog scale. Participants were then asked whether or not they would restrain each patient and whether the patient exhibited the potential to harm him- or herself or others. VAPERS subscales were developed for the likelihood to restrain patients with each of the patient characteristics. Spearman correlations were used for all comparisons. Linear regression was used to determine which patient characteristics were most related to likelihood to restrain and to develop a reduced scale to predict the overall likelihood to restrain.

RESULTS

The overall VAPERS score ranged from 0 to 100, with a median of 50 (interquartile range [IQR], 24-88). The visual analog scale results of how likely each video patient possessed specific characteristics were as follows: medical instability ranged from 0 to 100 (median, 32; IQR, 12-64), trauma ranged from 0 to 69 (median, 0; IQR, 0-31), belligerence ranged from 20 to 93 (median, 28; IQR, 14-63), agitation ranged from 3 to 84 (median, 52; IQR, 23-72), and altered mental status ranged from 1 to 93 (median, 29; IQR, 16-69). Linear regression indicated that two characteristic variables (danger to self and degree of agitation) in the video scenarios were highly correlated (0.87) with overall likelihood to restrain. Based on the results, the authors developed a shortened video assessment tool consisting of five of the original videos that were highly correlated (R = 0.94) with the full VAPERS scale on overall likelihood to restrain.

CONCLUSIONS

The VAPERS scale covers a wide range of important variables in emergency situations. It successfully measured likelihood to restrain in this pilot study for overall situations, and for subgroups, based on patient characteristics. A shortened five-video VAPERS also successfully measured the overall likelihood to restrain.

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.

Benzodiazepines for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response with ordinary antipsychotic drug treatment. In these cases, various add-on medications are used, among them benzodiazepines.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of benzodiazepines for the treatment of schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The reviewers searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (last search March 2005). This register is compiled by methodical searches of BIOSIS, CINAHL, Dissertation abstracts, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, PSYNDEX, PsycINFO, RUSSMED, Sociofile, supplemented with hand searching of relevant journals and numerous conference proceedings. We also contacted authors of relevant studies in order to obtain missing data from existing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing benzodiazepine to antipsychotics or to placebo (or no intervention), whether as sole treatment or as an adjunct to antipsychotic medication for the treatment of schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected abstracts, selected studies and re-inspected and quality assessed the full reports. We independently extracted relevant outcomes. Dichotomous data were analysed using relative risks (RR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). Continuous data were analysed using weighted mean differences. Where possible the number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to harm (NNH) statistics were calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes 31 studies with over 2000 participants. Most studies were small, of short duration - one to 13 weeks - and inconsistently and incompletely reported. Eight studies compared benzodiazepines as a sole agent with placebo. More participants receiving benzodiazepines showed a clinically significant response (n=222, 4 RCTs, RR 0.54 CI 0.3 to 1.0, NNT 3 CI 2 to 17). Only one small study found a significant group difference in favour of benzodiazepines regarding the improvement in overall BPRS mental state. Different rating scales were used to assess general mental state, and therefore many outcomes could not be pooled and no overall direction of effect emerged. Some adverse events observed in these studies suggested that benzodiazepines were more harmful than placebos but again the data were incompletely reported and without overall effect. Thirteen studies examined the effects of benzodiazepines in comparison to antipsychotics as a sole treatment. Trials that reported on clinical response found no advantage for any treatment group concerning improvement of the participants' global state, except of one small study that analysed the mean CGI severity score at one hour. This comparison is highly limited by the low numbers of studies reporting on global function and the short trial duration. Two studies showed a statistically significant superiority of antipsychotics in terms of relapse prevention at one year. Desired sedation occurred significantly more often among participants in the benzodiazepine group than among participants in the antipsychotic treatment group at 20 (n=301, 1 RCT, RR 1.32 CI 1.2 -1.5, NNT 5, CI 3 to 8) and 40 minutes(n= 301, 1 RCT, RR 1.13 CI 1.0 to 1.2, NNT 9 CI 6 to 33), but not at 30, 60 or 12 minutes. Other outcomes relating to the general or specific mental state revealed no significant differences between groups. As far as adverse events were reported there were no results in favour of any group. Sixteen studies examined whether the augmentation of antipsychotics with benzodiazepines is more effective than antipsychotics as a sole treatment. During the first hour of treatment the combination treatment group benefited from the additional benzodiazepine in terms of the participants global state. This benefit diminished over time and was not reproducible at 2 hours or longer. No superior efficacy of benzodiazepine augmentation could be found regarding the general mental state. Specific aspects of the mental state showed no group difference except for desired sedation at 30 and 60 minutes. Somnolence affected the combination treatment group significantly more than the control group (n=118, 2 RCTs, RR 3.30 CI 1.0 to 10.4, NNH 8 CI 5 to 50). We found use of antiparkinson medication to be less frequently used in the combination treatment group (n=282, RR 0.68 CI 0.5 to 1.0, NNT 9 CI 6 to 48). Adverse events were poorly reported and the results were based on very little data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Randomised trial-derived evidence is currently too poor to recommend benzodiazepines neither as a sole nor as an adjunctive agent in schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses. The only significant effects were seen in terms of short-term sedation, at best. The evidence available on augmentation of antipsychotics with benzodiazepines is inconclusive and justifies large, simple and well-designed future trials focusing on clinical response, mental state, aggressive behaviour and adverse events.

Clinical review: agitation and delirium in the critically ill--significance and management

Agitation is a psychomotor disturbance characterized by a marked increase in motor and psychological activity in a patient. It occurs very frequently in the intensive care setting. It may be isolated, or accompanied by other mental disorders, such as severe anxiety and delirium. Frequently, agitation is a sign of brain dysfunction and, as such, may have adverse consequences, for at least two reasons. First, agitation can interfere with the patient's care and second, there is evidence demonstrating that the prognosis of agitated (and delirious) patients is worse than that of non-agitated (non-delirious) patients. These conditions are often under-diagnosed in the intensive care unit (ICU). Consequently, a systematic evaluation of this problem in ICU patients should be conducted. Excellent tools are presently available for this purpose. Treatment, including prevention, must be undertaken without delay, and the ICU physician should follow logical, strict and systematic rules when applying therapy.

Optimizing use of opiates in the management of cancer pain

Cancer pain is often suboptimally managed. The underestimation and undertreatment continues to be a problem despite the availability of consensus-based guidelines. Most patients with cancer develop pain. The prevalence and severity of pain among cancer patients varies according to primary and metastatic sites and stage of disease. Opioid therapy is the cornerstone of management of severe chronic pain in the field of cancer patients and in general in palliative care medicine. Since this class of drugs is the cornerstone of the treatment, optimizing its use may be useful in clinical practice. For this purpose we focused on 4 distinct issues: 1) How to implement the use the opioids in cancer patients; 2) How to optimise the use of morphine in cancer patients; 3) The management of side effects and opioid switching; 4) What is the role of other potent opioids. A holistic approach including an appropriate use of opioids may improve pain control in most cancer patients, particularly for those with advanced disease.

The use of intramuscular benzodiazepines and antipsychotic agents in the treatment of acute agitation or violence in the emergency department

The management of an agitated, abusive or violent patient is a common and challenging problem in Emergency Medicine. Priorities include measures to ensure the safety of the patient and the emergency staff, including provision of physical restraint of the patient and evaluation for correctable medical causes of such behavior. Medications used in the treatment of such patients include benzodiazepines and antipsychotic agents. The newer atypical antipsychotic agents seem to provide a safe and effective treatment for such patients. The atypical antipsychotic agents may have fewer short-term side effects than older typical antipsychotic agents, such as haloperidol and droperidol. Currently available atypical antipsychotic medications for the treatment of acute agitation include ziprasidone and olanzapine, which can be administered in an intramuscular formulation, and risperidone, which is available in a rapidly dissolvable tablet and liquid formulation.

Management of methamphetamine abuse and dependence

Preliminary implications for evidence-based treatments and future practice may be drawn from new research findings that inspire a fresh view of methamphetamine dependence and associated medical consequences. Current user populations include increasingly impacted subgroups (ie, youths, women, men who have sex with men, and rural residents); complex consequences of methamphetamine abuse among these subgroups require additional efforts involving contextual understanding of characteristics and needs to develop effective treatments. The neurobiological data on cellular activity of methamphetamine taken with findings from neuroimaging studies indicate potential targets for pharmacologic interventions. In early trials, several candidate medications--bupropion, modafinil, and, to a lesser extent, baclofen--have shown promise in treating aspects of methamphetamine dependence, including aiding memory function necessary to more effectively participate in and benefit from behavioral therapies. Clinicians and researchers must interact to efficiently address the problems of methamphetamine dependence, a major drug problem in the United States and the world.

Managing the aggressive and violent patient in the psychiatric emergency

Throughout history most societies have assumed a link between mental disorders and violence. Although the majority of users of mental health services are not violent, it is clear that a small yet significant minority are violent in inpatient settings and in the community. The assessment of a violent patient may be very difficult due to the lack of a full medical and psychiatric history and the non-cooperativeness of the patient. Thus a full assessment is important for the early decisions that the clinician has to take in a very quick and effective way. The primary task and the short term outcome in a behavioral emergency is to act as soon as possible to stop the violence from escalating and to find the quickest way to keep the patient's agitation and violence under control with the maximum of safety for everybody and using the less severe effective intervention. The pharmacological treatment of acute, persisting and repetitive aggression is a serious problem for other patients and staff members. Currently, there is no medication approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of aggression. Based on rather limited evidence, a wide variety of medications for the pharmacological treatment of acute aggression has been recommended: typical and atypical antipsychotics and benzodiazepines.

Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Intravenous Midazolam and Droperidol for Sedation of the Acutely Agitated Patient in the Emergency Department

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We compare intravenous midazolam and droperidol for the onset of sedation of acutely agitated patients in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

This was a double-blind, randomized, clinical trial set in the ED of a university teaching hospital. Subjects were adults, acutely agitated because of mental illness, intoxication, or both, who received midazolam or droperidol, 5 mg intravenously, every 5 minutes until sedated. We analyzed time to sedation using survival analysis, median times to sedation, and proportions sedated at 5 and 10 minutes.

RESULTS

Seventy-four patients received midazolam; 79 patients, droperidol. Survival analysis showed no difference in time to sedation (hazard ratio 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61 to 1.23), P=.42. Median time to sedation was 6.5 minutes for midazolam (median dose 5 mg) and 8 minutes for droperidol (median dose 10 mg), P=.075 (effect size 1.5 minutes; 95% CI 0 to 4 minutes). At 5 minutes, 33 of 74 (44.6%) patients from the midazolam group were adequately sedated compared with 13 of 79 (16.5%) patients from the droperidol group, a difference of 28.1% (95% CI 12.9% to 43.4%; P<.001). By 10 minutes, 41 of 74 (55.4%) from the midazolam group were sedated compared to 42 of 79 (53.2%) from droperidol, a difference of 2.2% (95% CI -14.9% to 19.3%; P=.91). Eleven adverse events occurred in the midazolam group and 10 in the droperidol group. Three patients required active airway management (3 patients with assisted ventilation and 1 patient intubated); all received midazolam.

CONCLUSION

There is no difference in onset of adequate sedation of agitated patients using midazolam or droperidol. Patients sedated with midazolam may have an increased need for active airway management.

World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for biological treatment of schizophrenia, Part 1: acute treatment of schizophrenia

These guide lines for the biological treatment of schizophrenia were developed by an international Task Force of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBO). The goal during the development of these guidelines was to review systematically all available evidence pertaining to the treatment of schizophrenia, and to reach a consensus on a series of practice recommendations that are clinically and scientifically meaningful based on the available evidence. These guidelines are intended for use by all physicians seeing and treating people with schizophrenia. The data used for developing these guidelines have been extracted primarily from various national treatment guidelines and panels for schizophrenia, as well as from meta-analyses, reviews and randomised clinical trials on the efficacy of pharmacological and other biological treatment interventions identified by a search of the MEDLINE database and Cochrane Library. The identified literature was evaluated with respect to the strength of evidence for its efficacy and then categorised into four levels of evidence (A-D). This first part of the guidelines covers disease definition, classification, epidemiology and course of schizophrenia, as well as the management of the acute phase treatment. These guidelines are primarily concerned with the biological treatment (including antipsychotic medication, other pharmacological treatment options, electroconvulsive therapy, adjunctive and novel therapeutic strategies) of adults suffering from schizophrenia.

[Management of agitated, violent or psychotic patients in the emergency department: an overdue protocol for an increasing problem]

Patients with extreme agitation, delirium, violent behavior or acute psychosis are frequently evaluated in the emergency departments of general hospitals. However, the traditional infrequency of this type of situation in pediatric emergency services can lead to a certain lack of foresight and efficiency in the initial management of these patients. Because of the current known increase of psychosocial disorders in pediatric emergencies, new pharmacological treatments for juvenile psychotic processes, and particularly the lack of compliance with these treatments, as well as the earlier consumption of ever more varied illicit drugs among young people, the frequency and diversity of this kind of disorder is on the increase. The treatment of agitation, aggression and violence begins with successful management of the acute episode, followed by strategies designed to reduce the intensity and frequency of subsequent episodes. The key to safety is early intervention to prevent progression from agitation to aggression and violence. Consequently, urgent measures designed to inhibit agitation should be adopted without delay by the staff initially dealing with the patient, usually in the emergency unit. Patients with psychomotor agitation disorder (PMAD) may require emergency physical and/or chemical restraints for their own safety and that of the healthcare provider in order to prevent harmful clinical sequelae and to expedite medical evaluation to determine the cause. However, the risks of restraint measures must be weighed against the benefits in each case. This review aims to present the emergency measures to be taken in children with PMAD. The distinct etiological situations and criteria for the choice of drugs for chemical restraint in each situation, as well as the complications associated with certain drugs, are discussed. It is advisable, therefore, that health professionals become familiar with the distinct pharmacological options.

The spectrum of informed consent in emergency psychiatric research

STUDY OBJECTIVE

I evaluate the variation in requirements for informed consent in studies evaluating chemical tranquilization of agitated patients.

METHODS

A computer-assisted literature search of the National Library of Medicine was performed. Additional use of the references listed in the articles identified with the search yielded 144 citations. Studies performed outside the United States were excluded, as were studies performed before the current US Food and Drug Administration regulations came into effect. Research not yet published but presented at national meetings was included, as was one study currently under way but otherwise meeting the inclusion criteria. Authors were contacted for further clarification in cases in which information was ambiguous or unavailable in print.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were identified, and the approach to informed consent varied widely. The primary method of enrollment was informed consent in 7 studies. Three studies used a waiver of informed consent, but in these cases the federal regulations underlying these waivers varied. One study implied that neither consent nor a waiver of consent was needed. In one case, the primary method for consent was not specified.

CONCLUSION

There is poor agreement about the application of current regulations about informed consent in emergency psychiatric research. Regulations are understood in such a variety of ways that they are effectively irrelevant. There needs to be much greater clarity about the use of waivers of informed consent in emergency research in general and emergency psychiatry in particular.

First-episode schizophrenia: a focus on pharmacological treatment and safety considerations

Schizophrenia is a debilitating disorder, which is usually chronic, and is one of the most devastating medical illnesses. Early and appropriate treatment with antipsychotics is an important strategy for patients with first-episode schizophrenia. However, there are many possible safety issues for patients with schizophrenia that should be considered and properly addressed. Depressive symptoms and suicidal behaviour commonly occur in first-episode schizophrenic patients, and every effort should be made to treat and minimise these symptoms. There are also important issues and considerations in young and first-episode patients that should also be considered in the emergency treatment setting and for minimising medication nonadherence in this population. Most importantly, adverse effects should be considered, minimised and addressed. While first- and second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) both appear to offer similar efficacy for amelioration of positive symptoms in first-episode patients, SGAs may offer better tolerability, specifically regarding extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) and tardive dyskinesia risk, and some prolactin-sparing benefits. However, these medications do cause a host of adverse effects, including weight gain, metabolic disturbances, corrected QT interval prolongation and prolactin-related adverse effects, which are important considerations relating to both the short- and long-term safety of patients with schizophrenia being treated with SGAs. Clozapine and olanzapine are most likely to cause weight gain and metabolic effects, while risperidone is more likely to cause EPS and prolactin elevations. Most antipsychotics should be used in low doses to minimise adverse effects and each medication should be optimised in a highly individualised way to maximise adherence and treatment outcomes and minimise tolerability and safety concerns. At some point in their lives, these patients will most probably experience periods of depression, suicidal behaviours, adverse effects and nonadherence, and every effort should be made to minimise or prevent these from occurring. Thus, safety concerns in this group of young patients, in the beginning of their first psychotic episode, are a major issue as they are starting a journey of antipsychotic treatment that is likely to last for the remainder of their lives.

The expert consensus guideline series. Treatment of behavioral emergencies 2005

OBJECTIVES

Due to inherent dangers and barriers to research in emergency settings, few data are available to guide clinicians about how best to manage behavioral emergencies. Key constructs such as agitation are poorly defined. This lack of empirical data led us to undertake a survey of expert opinion, results of which were published in the 2001 Expert Consensus Guidelines on the Treatment of Behavioral Emergencies. Several second-generation (atypical) antipsychotics (SGAs) are now available in new formulations for treating behavioral emergencies (e.g., intramuscular [i.m.] olanzapine and ziprasidone; rapidly dissolving tablets of olanzapine and risperidone). Critical questions face the field. The SGAs are significantly different from the FGAs and from each other and have not been studied in unselected patients as were the FGAs. Can the SGAs can be thought of as a class, do all antipsychotics have similar anti-agitation effects in different conditions, and, if equally effective, what limits might their safety profiles impose? Should antipsychotics be used more specifically to treat psychotic conditions, while benzodiazepines (BNZs) alone are used nonspecifically? Few data are available concerning combinations of SGAs and BNZs, and findings concerning the traditional combination of haloperidol plus a BNZ may not be relevant to combinations with SGAs. The culture is also evolving with more emphasis on patient involvement in treatment decisions. An international consensus has been developing that calming rather than sedation is the appropriate endpoint of behavioral emergency interventions. We undertook a new survey of expert opinion to update recommendations from the earlier survey.

METHOD

A written survey of 61 questions (1,020 options) was mailed to 50 experts in the field, 48 (96%) of whom completed it. The survey sought to define level of agitation at which emergency interventions are appropriate, scope of assessment depending on urgency and patients' ability to cooperate, guiding principles for selecting interventions, and appropriate physical and medication strategies at different levels of diagnostic confidence for a variety of provisional diagnoses and complicating conditions. A modified version of the RAND Corporation's 9-point scale for rating appropriateness of medical decisions was used to score most options. Consensus was defined as a non-random distribution of scores by chi-square "goodness-of-fit" test. We assigned a categorical rank (first line/preferred, second line/alternate, third line/usually inappropriate) to each option based on the 95% confidence interval around the mean. Ratings were used to develop guidelines for preferred strategies in key clinical situations. This study received financial support from multiple sponsors, with the panel kept blind to sponsorship to reduce possible bias. Medication ratings were based on responses of only those respondents with direct experience with each drug. In reporting practice patterns, the panel was asked to respond based on actual data rather than estimates.

RESULTS

The expert panel reached consensus on 78% of the options rated on the 9-point scale. The responses suggest that physicians can make provisional diagnoses with some confidence and that pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions are selected differentially based on diagnosis and other salient demographic and medical features. BNZs are recommended when no data are available, when there is no specific treatment (e.g., personality disorder), or when they may have specific benefits (e.g., intoxication). No single SGA emerges as a nonspecific replacement for haloperidol; instead, different SGAs are preferred in various circumstances consistent with current evidence. To the degree that haloperidol is recommended, it is almost always in combination with a BNZ; haloperidol alone is preferred only in the medically compromised. In contrast, the SGAs are more often recommended for use alone, and the panel would avoid combining BNZs with some SGAs. Oral risperidone alone or combined with a BNZ receives strong support in a variety of situations. Oral olanzapine was rated very similarly to risperidone, with slightly higher ratings than risperidone in situations where it has been studied (e.g., schizophrenia, mania) and slightly lower ratings where it has not been studied or safety may be a concern; there was less support for combining oral olanzapine with a BNZ. For oral treatment of agitation related to schizophrenia or mania, olanzapine alone, risperidone alone or combined with a BNZ, and haloperidol plus a BNZ are first line, with strong support also for combining divalproex with the antipsychotic for presumed mania. Oral ziprasidone and quetiapine generally received similar second-line ratings in most situations. If a parenteral agent is needed, i.m. olanzapine alone received somewhat more support than i.m. ziprasidone alone; however, there was more support for i.m. ziprasidone alone or combined with a BNZ than for i.m. olanzapine plus a BNZ, probably reflecting safety concerns. For example, for a provisional diagnosis of schizophrenia, first-line parenteral options are i.m. olanzapine or ziprasidone alone or i.m. haloperidol or ziprasidone combined with a BNZ. Neither of the new parenteral formulations received as much support as traditional agents (i.m. BNZs, i.m. haloperidol) when no data are available or the diagnosis involves medical comorbidity or intoxication. When initial intervention with risperidone, ziprasidone, or haloperidol is unsuccessful, the panel recommended adding a BZD to the antipsychotic. However, when initial treatment with olanzapine or quetiapine is unsuccessful, increasing the dosage is recommended. Perphenazine was consistently rated second line and droperidol and chlorpromazine received third-line ratings throughout.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limits of expert opinion and with the expectation that future research data will take precedence, these guidelines suggest that the SGAs are now preferred for agitation in the setting of primary psychiatric illnesses but that BNZs are preferred in other situations.

Benzodiazepines alone or in combination with antipsychotic drugs for acute psychosis

BACKGROUND

Acute psychotic illness, especially when associated with agitated or violent behaviour, can require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. In several countries, clinicians often use benzodiazepines (either alone or in combination with antipsychotics) for this outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effects of benzodiazepines, alone or in combination with antipsychotics, when compared to placebo or antipsychotics, to control disturbed behaviour and reduce psychotic symptoms.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (October 2002 and April 2005), inspected reference lists of included and excluded studies and contacted authors of relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing benzodiazepines, alone or in combination with antipsychotics, with placebo or sole use of antipsychotics, for people with acute psychotic illnesses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected studies, quality assessed them and extracted data. For binary outcomes we calculated standard estimates of relative risk (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI), and weighted number needed to treat or harm (NNT/NNH) statistics. For continuous outcomes we estimated a weighted mean difference between groups. If heterogeneity was found, we used a random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eleven studies with a total of 648 participants. When comparing benzodiazepines with placebo, sedation was equally prevalent (n=102, 1 RCT, RR 1.67 CI 0.4 to 6.6), however, fewer people allocated lorazepam remained excited at 24 hours (n=102, RR 0.62 CI 0.4 to 1.0, NNT 5 CI 3 to 59). The lorazepam and placebo group experienced similar non-significant, low levels of adverse effects. In the comparison of benzodiazepines versus use of antipsychotics without use of anticholinergics/antihistamines, people allocated benzodiazepines did not clearly need additional medication compared with those given antipsychotics (n=216, 2 RCTs, RR 1.28 CI 0.5 to 3.2). Numbers sedated were also equivocal between groups (n=324, 6 RCTs, RR 0.76 CI 0.5 to 1.2) as were mental state ratings. Extrapyramidal symptoms were significantly higher in the antipsychotic treatment group (n=391, 7 RCTs, RR 0.17 CI 0.1 to 0.4, NNT 6 CI 2 to 17). Two trials (total n=83) comparing lorazepam plus haloperidol with lorazepam alone found no clear difference for the need of additional medication (n=83, 2 RCTs, RR 1.02 CI 0.8 to 1.3) or 'not improved' at one hour (n=20, 1 RCT, RR 1.47 CI 0.66 to 3.25). There was no difference in the incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms (n=83, 2 RCTs, RR 1.94 CI 0.2 to 20.3). Finally when the benzodiazepine plus antipsychotic combination was compared with antipsychotics alone (2 RCTs, n=95) there was no difference between groups in the need for additional medications (n=67, 1 RCT, RR 0.95 CI 0.8 to 1.2) or for mental state measures. Extrapyramidal symptoms were significantly lower for people receiving both benzodiazepines and antipsychotics compared with those receiving antipsychotics alone (n=95, 2 RCTs, RR 0.45 CI 0.2 to 0.9, NNH 2 CI 1 to 5). There was no significant difference in the number of participants unfit for early discharge (n=28, 1 RCT, RR 0.90 CI 0.54 to 1.5).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient data from these studies to support or refute the use of benzodiazepines with or without antipsychotics where emergency drugs are needed. The sole use of older antipsychotics unaccompanied by anticholinergic drugs may be problematic, but studies in this review are not large enough to identify any serious adverse effects of benzodiazepines such as respiratory depression. Larger, more informative studies are needed before definite conclusions can be drawn as to the efficacy of benzodiazapines.

Pharmacological management of acute agitation

Acute agitation occurs in a variety of medical and psychiatric conditions, and when severe can result in behavioural dyscontrol. Rapid tranquillisation is the assertive use of medication to calm severely agitated patients quickly, decrease dangerous behaviour and allow treatment of the underlying condition. Intramuscular injections of typical antipsychotics and benzodiazepines, given alone or in combination, have been the treatment of choice over the past few decades. Haloperidol and lorazepam are the most widely used agents for acute agitation, are effective in a wide diagnostic arena and can be used in medically compromised patients. Haloperidol can cause significant extrapyramidal symptoms, and has rarely been associated with cardiac arrhythmia and sudden death. Lorazepam can cause ataxia, sedation and has additive effects with other CNS depressant drugs.Recently, two fast-acting preparations of atypical antipsychotics, intramuscular ziprasidone and intramuscular olanzapine, have been developed for treatment of acute agitation. Intramuscular ziprasidone has shown significant calming effects emerging 30 minutes after administration for acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia and other nonspecific psychotic conditions. Intramuscular ziprasidone is well tolerated and has gained widespread use in psychiatric emergency services since its introduction in 2002. In comparison with other atypical antipsychotics, ziprasidone has a relatively greater propensity to increase the corrected QT (QTc) interval and, therefore, should not be used in patients with known QTc interval-associated conditions. Intramuscular olanzapine has shown faster onset of action, greater efficacy and fewer adverse effects than haloperidol or lorazepam in the treatment of acute agitation associated with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar mania and dementia. Intramuscular olanzapine has been shown to have distinct calming versus nonspecific sedative effects. The recent reports of adverse events (including eight fatalities) associated with intramuscular olanzapine underscores the need to follow strict prescribing guidelines and avoid simultaneous use with other CNS depressants. Both intramuscular ziprasidone and intramuscular olanzapine have shown ease of transition to same-agent oral therapy once the episode of acute agitation has diminished. No randomised, controlled studies have examined either agent in patients with severe agitation, drug-induced states or significant medical comorbidity. Current clinical experience and one naturalistic study with intramuscular ziprasidone suggest that it is efficacious and can be safely used in such populations. These intramuscular atypical antipsychotics may represent a historical advance in the treatment of acute agitation.

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.

An open study of risperidone liquid in the acute phase of schizophrenia

An open-label study was performed to investigate the clinical efficacy and mechanisms of risperidone liquid in ameliorating positive symptoms in the acute phase of schizophrenia. Eighty-eight patients (M/F: 50/38; age: 18-74 years;, mean +/- SD =32 +/- 16 years) meeting DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia and treated with risperidone liquid (14 patients also used lorazepam) were evaluated with regard to their clinical improvement and extrapyramidal side effects using the positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) and the Simpson and Angus scale (SAS), while plasma concentrations of HVA and MHPG were analysed by HPLC-ECD before and 4 weeks after risperidone liquid administration. Patients showing a 50% or greater improvement in PANSS scores were defined as responders. An improvement in the PANSS scores related to excitement, hostility and poor impulse control was seen within 7 days after administration of risperidone liquid, and an improvement with regard to hallucinatory behaviour and uncooperativeness was seen within 14 days after its administration. Finally, 68% of patients were classified as responders 4 weeks after risperidone liquid administration. The scores of SAS were not changed after risperidone liquid administration. Pretreatment plasma homovanillic acid (HVA) levels in the responders (8.1 +/- 2.9 ng/ml) were higher than those in nonresponders (5.9 +/- 1.9 ng/ml). In addition, a negative correlation was seen between the changes in plasma HVA levels and the percentage of improvement in PANSS scores. On the other hand, there were no differences between pretreatment plasma 3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylglycol (MHPG) levels and those of nonresponders. These results suggest that risperidone liquid is effective and well tolerated for the treatment of acute phase schizophrenic patients, and that efficacy is related to its affects on dopaminergic activity, not noradrenergic activity.

Evidence-based treatment of psychiatric patient

There is controversy concerning the proper treatment of psychiatric patients in the emergency department. Emergency physicians commonly use physical or chemical restraints or both in the course of treating psychiatric patients. This review applies the rigors of an evidence-based evaluation of the literature concerning the choices of treatment for these patients.

Intramuscular antipsychotics: Clinical experience review

Acute agitation is a therapeutic dilemma. Rapid control of agitation is necessary to minimize danger both to recipients of care and to caregivers. Although a comprehensive assessment may ultimately be necessary to determine the cause of agitation and to identify or exclude underlying medical illness, it is often imperative to treat agitation immediately. In this imperfect clinical world, it is essential to have treatments that are both safe and effective for patients with a wide variety of causes of agitation.