Zuclopenthixol acetate for acute schizophrenia and similar serious mental illnesses

Quality improvement through audit: Zuclopenthixol acetate prescribing, monitoring and patient outcomes in a regional health service

OBJECTIVE

Prescribers' expectations of Zuclopethixol Acetate's (ZA) efficacy and tolerability are shaped by clinical experience and organisational culture; however, these expectations may not be consistent with current evidence and best practice.

METHODS

Quality improvement project (QIP) through a process audit of ZA prescribing, monitoring and patient outcomes (adverse events) in order to identify issues requiring intervention to align with service standards and practices.

RESULTS

QIP interventions resulted in a statistically significant shift in psychiatrist oversight, identifying high dose ZA with adverse outcomes and cessation of prescribing/administration within the Emergency Department. Clinically significant changes in patterns of prescribing were observed between pre-post intervention audits.

CONCLUSION

Entrenching an evidence-based QIP approach to clinical practice can effect clinically significant patterns of practice change to improve safe prescribing and drug monitoring.

Pharmacological treatment of hyperactive delirium in people with COVID-19: rethinking conventional approaches

People with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) might have several risk factors for delirium, which could in turn notably worsen the prognosis. Although pharmacological approaches for delirium are debated, haloperidol and other first-generation antipsychotics are frequently employed, particularly for hyperactive presentations. However, the use of these conventional treatments could be limited in people with COVID-19, due to the underlying medical condition and the risk of drug-drug interactions with anti-COVID treatments. On these premises, we carried out a rapid review in order to identify possible alternative medications for this particular population. By searching PubMed and the Cochrane Library, we selected the most updated systematic reviews of randomised trials on the pharmacological treatment of delirium in both intensive and non-intensive care settings, and on the treatment of agitation related to acute psychosis or dementia. We identified medications performing significantly better than placebo or haloperidol as the reference treatment in each population considered, and assessed the strength of association according to validated criteria. In addition, we collected data on other relevant clinical elements (i.e. common adverse events, drug-drug interactions with COVID-19 medications, daily doses) and regulatory elements (i.e. therapeutic indications, contra-indications, available formulations). A total of 10 systematic reviews were included. Overall, relatively few medications showed benefits over placebo in the four selected populations. As compared with placebo, significant benefits emerged for quetiapine and dexmedetomidine in intensive care unit (ICU) settings, and for none of the medications in non-ICU settings. Considering also data from indirect populations (agitation related to acute psychosis or dementia), aripiprazole, quetiapine and risperidone showed a potential benefit in two or three different populations. Despite limitations related to the rapid review methodology and the use of data from indirect populations, the evidence retrieved can pragmatically support treatment choices of frontline practitioners involved in the COVID-19 outbreak, and indicate future research directions for the treatment of delirium in particularly vulnerable populations.

Neuroleptic malignant syndrome associated with the use of injection zuclopenthixol acetate

Zuclopenthixol is usually used in parental form to manage acute agitation and psychosis.[1] It has high affinity for dopamine D1 and D2 receptors. There are very few reports of Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome (NMS) with use of zuclopenthixol monotherapy. In this case report, we present a 35 year old male with alcohol dependence, presented to the emergency with altered sensorium, fever and stiffness of limbs. He had history of receiving Injection Zuclopenthixol acetate 200 mg thrice over 24 hours. Within 12-14 hours of the last injection, patient developed features suggestive of NMS. On investigations he was found to have raised serum creatinine phosphokinase levels (839.9U/L; reference laboratory value: 26 to 308 U/L) and leukocytosis. In view of these features, he was diagnosed with NMS and was started on supportive management to address the dehydration and was given Thiamine 500 mg thrice daily. Additionally he was started on Tab. Bromocriptine 5 mg thrice daily and lorazepam 2 mg/day. With this intervention, his symptoms improved over the period of 1 week and tablet bromocriptine was tapered off, after 1 week of being asymptomatic.

The Use of Rapid Tranquilization in Aggressive Behavior

BACKGROUND

Psychomotor agitation and aggressiveness in the context of mental illnessare medical emergencies. In a survey of six German psychiatric hospitals, 1.7 to 5 aggressive attacks per patient-year were reported. If talking to the patient has no calming effect, intervention with drugs is required. In this article, we review the evidence on tranquilizing drugs and discuss clinically relevant ethical and practical questions, e.g., with respect to involuntary medication.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent articles retrieved by a selective search in MEDLINE, supplemented by a reference search.

RESULTS

The evidence for the treatment of psychomotor agitation with antipsychotic drugs and benzodiazepines is relatively good. Randomized, controlled trials and a number of Cochrane reviews are available. These publications, however, contain data only on patients who were able to give informed consent. Their findings are often not applicable to real-life emergencies, e.g., when the patient is intoxicated with alcohol or suffers from a pre-existing disease. Haloperidol has a relatively weak effect on aggression when given alone and can also cause side effects such as early dyskinesia and epileptic seizures. It should, therefore, no longer be used as monotherapy. On the other hand, haloperidol combined with benzodiazepines or promethazine and monotherapy with lorazepam, olanzapine, ziprasidone, or aripiprazole intramuscular are effective options for the treatment of aggressive psychomotor agitation.

CONCLUSION

All of these drugs, if accepted by the patient, can also have an additional, beneficial placebo effect, with the patient calming down more rapidly than could be explained on pharmacological grounds alone. It is, therefore, important in emergencies (as at other times) for the patient to be involved in treatment decisions to the greatest possible extent.

Neuroleptic malignant syndrome associated with the use of injection zuclopenthixol acetate

Zuclopenthixol is available in two parenteral formulation,i.e., in the form of acetate and decanoate. It has high affinity for dopamine D1 and D2 receptors. There is limited literature of association of neuroleptic malignant syndrome with the use of zuclopenthixol monotherapy. These case reports have mostly implicated zuclopenthixol decanoate, and also zuclopenthixol acetate. In this report, we present a case of neuroleptic malignant syndrome associated with use of zuclopenthixol acetate.

Acute interventions for aggression and agitation in psychosis: study protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Individuals with psychosis may access emergency services due to aggression and agitation. When the de-escalation technique fails to achieve tranquillisation, several pharmacological options are available. However, evidence on which intervention to prefer in terms of efficacy and tolerability to achieve resolution of the acute episode (ie, rapid tranquillisation) of aggression and agitation is currently fragmentary.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will include all randomised controlled trials comparing drugs or drug combinations or placebo for aggression or agitation episodes in adult individuals with psychosis. We will include individuals with psychosis (eg, schizophrenia and related disorders, bipolar disorder with psychotic symptoms, psychotic depression) but not substance or medication-induced psychosis or psychosis due to another medical condition. Our primary outcomes are the change in aggression or agitation scores within few hours since the administration of the intervention (efficacy outcome) and the proportion of participants who dropped out due to adverse effects (tolerability outcome). We will retrieve relevant studies from the register of studies of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group. Also, we will run additional searches on CENTRAL, Embase and PubMed to retrieve potentially eligible studies focusing on other psychiatric diagnoses than those in the schizophrenia spectrum. We will conduct a random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) for primary and secondary outcomes. In case of rare events of dichotomous outcomes, a common-effect Mantel-Haenszel NMA will be used instead. We will use the surface under the cumulative ranking curve and the mean ranks to rank all available treatments. Local and global methods of evaluation of inconsistency will be employed. Quality of evidence contributing to network estimates of the main outcomes will also be assessed with Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study does not require ethical approval. We will disseminate our findings by publishing results in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019137945.

Managing acutely aggressive or agitated people in a psychiatric setting: a survey in Lebanon

Background: Violent patients constitute 10% of all psychiatric admissions. Treatment options and clinical practice interventions vary across the globe and no survey of practice in a Middle Eastern setting exists. Surveying treatments in Lebanon will show treatment interventions used in this part of the world and, most importantly, provide the treatment options that could potentially be used for clinical trials pertaining to emergency psychiatry. Methods: A survey of clinicians' opinions and practice was conducted between July and August 2017 at the largest psychiatric hospital in Lebanon. Results: Five of seven experienced psychiatrists provided opinions when interviewed of their preferred intervention when dealing with an emergency psychiatric episode. Whilst this varied in detail, there was a consistent view that there should first be verbal control, then use of medications, and finally physical restrain of the patient. A total of 39 emergency episodes (28 people) occurred in the one month (64% men in their 30s). Bipolar disorder was the most frequent single diagnosis behind the aggression (n=16, 41%; 12 people 43%) but the combined schizophrenia-like illnesses underlay 18 of the 39 episodes (46%; 13/28 people 46%). In clinical life, we found evidence of high family involvement, but little attempts made at initial verbal control in the hospital. All 39 episodes involved administration of pharmacological interventions. Medications were used in 29 of cases (74%) and non-medication interventions used in the remaining 10/39 (26%). Conclusion: This survey provides some evidence that clinicians' preferences may not fully reflect clinical practice but also that experienced clinicians are using several clearly effective techniques to manage these very difficult situations. However, as for other parts of the world, treatment in Lebanon has limited or no underpinning by evidence from well-designed, conducted and reported evaluative studies.

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

BACKGROUND

Aggressive, agitated or violent behaviour due to psychosis constitutes an emergency psychiatric treatment where fast-acting interventions are required. Risperidone is a widely accessible antipsychotic that can be used to manage psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether oral risperidone alone is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (up to April 2017); this register is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including AMED, BIOSIS CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rapid use of risperidone and other drugs, combinations of drugs or placebo for people exhibiting aggression or agitation (or both) thought to be due to psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected all citations from searches, identified relevant abstracts, and independently extracted data from all included studies. For binary data we calculated risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated mean difference (MD), all with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and used a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and used the GRADE approach to produce a 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

The review now contains data from nine trials (total n = 582) reporting on five comparisons. Due to risk of bias, small size of trials, indirectness of outcome measures and a paucity of investigated and reported 'pragmatic' outcomes, evidence was graded as very-low quality. None of the included studies provided useable data on our primary outcome 'tranquillisation or asleep' by 30 minutes, repeated need for tranquillisation or any economic outcomes. Data were available for our other main outcomes of agitation or aggression, needing restraint, and incidence of adverse effects.Risperidone versus haloperidol (up to 24 hours follow-up)For the outcome, specific behaviour - agitation, no clear difference was found between risperidone and haloperidol in terms of efficacy, measured as at least 50% reduction in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - Psychotic Agitation Sub-score (PANSS-PAS) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.26; participants = 124; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) and no effect was observed for need to use restraints (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 9.21; participants = 28; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). Incidence of adverse effects was similar between treatment groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.66; participants = 124; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence).Risperidone versus olanzapineOne small trial (n = 29) reported useable data for the comparison risperidone versus olanzapine. No effect was observed for agitation measured as PANSS-PAS endpoint score at two hours (MD 2.50, 95% CI -2.46 to 7.46; very low-quality evidence); need to use restraints at four days (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.39 to 5.28; very-low quality evidence); specific movement disorders measured as Behavioural Activity Rating Scale (BARS) endpoint score at four days (MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.83; very low-quality evidence).Risperidone versus quetiapineOne trial reported (n = 40) useable data for the comparison risperidone versus quetiapine. Aggression was measured using the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS) endpoint score at two weeks. A clear difference, favouring quetiapine was observed (MD 1.80, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.40; very-low quality evidence). No evidence of a difference between treatment groups could be observed for incidence of akathisia after 24 hours (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 6.06; very low-quality evidence). Two participants allocated to risperidone and one allocated to quetiapine experienced myocardial ischaemia during the trial.Risperidone versus risperidone + oxcarbazepineOne trial (n = 68) measured agitation using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - Excited Component.(PANSS-EC) endpoint score and found a clear difference, favouring the combination treatment at one week (MD 2.70, 95% CI 0.42 to 4.98; very low-quality evidence), but no effect was observed for global state using Clinical Global Impression - Improvement (CGI-I) endpoint score at one week (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.21; very-low quality evidence). Incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms after 24 hours was similar between treatment groups (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.14; very-low quality evidence).Risperidone versus risperidone + valproic acidTwo trials compared risperidone with a combination of risperidone plus valproic acid. No clear differences between the treatment groups were observed for aggression (MOAS endpoint score at three days: MD 1.07, 95% CI -0.20 to 2.34; participants = 54; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) or incidence of akathisia after 24 hours: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.03; participants = 122; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, results for the main outcomes show no real effect for risperidone. The only data available for use in this review are from nine under-sampled trials and the evidence available is of very low quality. This casts uncertainty on the role of risperidone in rapid tranquillisation for people with psychosis-induced aggression. High-quality pragmatic RCTs are feasible and are needed before clear recommendations can be drawn on the use of risperidone for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.

Revisiting the Therapeutic Potential of Bothrops jararaca Venom: Screening for Novel Activities Using Connectivity Mapping

Snake venoms are sources of molecules with proven and potential therapeutic applications. However, most activities assayed in venoms (or their components) are of hemorrhagic, hypotensive, edematogenic, neurotoxic or myotoxic natures. Thus, other relevant activities might remain unknown. Using functional genomics coupled to the connectivity map (C-map) approach, we undertook a wide range indirect search for biological activities within the venom of the South American pit viper Bothrops jararaca. For that effect, venom was incubated with human breast adenocarcinoma cell line (MCF7) followed by RNA extraction and gene expression analysis. A list of 90 differentially expressed genes was submitted to biosimilar drug discovery based on pattern recognition. Among the 100 highest-ranked positively correlated drugs, only the antihypertensive, antimicrobial (both antibiotic and antiparasitic), and antitumor classes had been previously reported for B. jararaca venom. The majority of drug classes identified were related to (1) antimicrobial activity; (2) treatment of neuropsychiatric illnesses (Parkinson’s disease, schizophrenia, depression, and epilepsy); (3) treatment of cardiovascular diseases, and (4) anti-inflammatory action. The C-map results also indicated that B. jararaca venom may have components that target G-protein-coupled receptors (muscarinic, serotonergic, histaminergic, dopaminergic, GABA, and adrenergic) and ion channels. Although validation experiments are still necessary, the C-map correlation to drugs with activities previously linked to snake venoms supports the efficacy of this strategy as a broad-spectrum approach for biological activity screening, and rekindles the snake venom-based search for new therapeutic agents.

Aripiprazole (intramuscular) for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation (rapid tranquillisation)

BACKGROUND

People experiencing psychosis may become aggressive. Antipsychotics, such as aripiprazole in intramuscular form, can be used in such situations.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of intramuscular aripiprazole in the treatment of psychosis-induced aggression or agitation (rapid tranquillisation).

SEARCH METHODS

On 11 December 2014 and 11 April 2017, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-based Register of Trials which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that randomised people with psychosis-induced aggression or agitation to receive either intramuscular aripiprazole or another intramuscular intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations and, where possible, abstracts, ordered papers and re-inspected and quality assessed these. We included studies that met our selection criteria. At least two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. We chose a fixed-effect model. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using mean differences (MD) and their CIs. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to create 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

Searching found 63 records referring to 21 possible trials. We could only include three studies, all completed over the last decade, with 885 participants, of which 707 were included for quantitative analyses in this systematic review. Due to limited comparisons, small size of trials and a paucity of investigated and reported 'pragmatic' outcomes, evidence was mostly graded as low or very low quality. No trials reported useful data for one of our primary outcomes of tranquil or asleep by 30 minutes. Economic outcomes were also not reported in the trials.When compared with placebo, fewer people in the aripiprazole group needed additional injections compared to the placebo group (2 RCTs, n = 382, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.85, very low-quality evidence). Clinically important improvement in agitation at two hours favoured the aripiprazole group (2 RCTs, n = 382, RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.92, very low-quality evidence). The numbers of non-responders after the first injection also favoured aripiprazole (1 RCT, n = 263, RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.71, low-quality evidence). Although no effect was found, more people in the aripiprazole compared to the placebo group experienced adverse effects (1 RCT, n = 117, RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.46, very low-quality evidence).Aripiprazole required more injections compared to haloperidol (2 RCTs, n = 477, RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.63, very low-quality evidence), with no significant difference in agitation (2 RCTs, n = 477, RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11, very low-quality evidence), and similar non-responders after first injection (1 RCT, n = 360, RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.79, low-quality evidence). Aripiprazole and haloperidol did not differ when taking into account the overall number of people that experienced at least one adverse effect (1 RCT, n = 113, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.35, very low-quality evidence).Compared to aripiprazole, olanzapine was better at reducing agitation (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.99, low-quality evidence) and had a more favourable effect on global state change scores (1 RCT, n = 80, MD 0.58, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.15, low-quality evidence), both at two hours. No differences were found in terms of experiencing at least one adverse effect during the 24 hours after treatment (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.24, very low-quality evidence). However, participants allocated to aripiprazole experienced less somnolence (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.82, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence is of poor quality but there is some evidence aripiprazole is effective compared to placebo and haloperidol, but not when compared to olanzapine. However, considering that evidence comes from only three studies, caution is required in generalising these results to real-world practice. This review firmly highlights the need for more high-quality trials on intramuscular aripiprazole in the management of people with acute aggression or agitation.

Benzodiazepines for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation

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 examine whether benzodiazepines, alone or in combination with other pharmacological agents, is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation when compared with placebo, other pharmacological agents (alone or in combination) or non-pharmacological approaches.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (January 2012, 20 August 2015 and 3 August 2016), inspected reference lists of included and excluded studies, and contacted authors of relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing benzodiazepines alone or in combination with any antipsychotics, versus antipsychotics alone or in combination with any other antipsychotics, benzodiazepines or antihistamines, for people who were aggressive or agitated due to psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected studies, quality assessed them and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) between groups. If there was heterogeneity, this was explored using a random-effects model. We assessed risk of bias and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty trials including 695 participants are now included in the review. The trials compared benzodiazepines or benzodiazepines plus an antipsychotic with placebo, antipsychotics, antihistamines, or a combination of these. The quality of evidence for the main outcomes was low or very low due to very small sample size of included studies and serious risk of bias (randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding were not well conducted in the included trials, 30% of trials (six out of 20) were supported by pharmaceutical institutes). There was no clear effect for most outcomes.Benzodiazepines versus placeboOne trial compared benzodiazepines with placebo. There was no difference in the number of participants sedated at 24 hours (very low quality evidence). However, for the outcome of global state, clearly more people receiving placebo showed no improvement in the medium term (one to 48 hours) (n = 102, 1 RCT, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.97, very low quality evidence). Benzodiazepines versus antipsychoticsWhen compared with haloperidol, there was no observed effect for benzodiazepines for sedation by 16 hours (n = 434, 8 RCTs, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.54, low quality evidence). There was no difference in the number of participants who had not improved in the medium term (n = 188, 5 RCTs, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.11, low quality evidence). However, one small study found fewer participants improved when receiving benzodiazepines compared with olanzapine (n = 150, 1 RCT, RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.18, very low quality evidence). People receiving benzodiazepines were less likely to experience extrapyramidal effects in the medium term compared to people receiving haloperidol (n = 233, 6 RCTs, RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.41, low quality evidence).Benzodiazepines versus combined antipsychotics/antihistaminesWhen benzodiazepine was compared with combined antipsychotics/antihistamines (haloperidol plus promethazine), there was a higher risk of no improvement in people receiving benzodiazepines in the medium term (n = 200, 1 RCT, RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.05, low quality evidence). However, for sedation, the results were controversial between two groups: lorazepam may lead to lower risk of sedation than combined antipsychotics/antihistamines (n = 200, 1 RCT, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.98, low quality evidence); while, midazolam may lead to higher risk of sedation than combined antipsychotics/antihistamines (n = 200, 1 RCT, RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.23, low quality evidence).Other combinationsData comparing benzodiazepines plus antipsychotics versus benzodiazepines alone did not yield any results with clear differences; all were very low quality evidence. When comparing combined benzodiazepines/antipsychotics (all studies compared haloperidol) with the same antipsychotics alone (haloperidol), there was no difference between groups in improvement in the medium term (n = 185, 4 RCTs, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.46, low quality evidence), but sedation was more likely in people who received the combination therapy (n = 172, 3 RCTs, RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.67,very low quality evidence). Only one study compared combined benzodiazepine/antipsychotics with antipsychotics; however, this study did not report our primary outcomes. One small study compared combined benzodiazepines/antipsychotics with combined antihistamines/antipsychotics. Results showed a higher risk of no clinical improvement (n = 60, 1 RCT, RR 25.00, 95% CI 1.55 to 403.99, very low quality evidence) and sedation status (n = 60, 1 RCT, RR 12.00, 95% CI 1.66 to 86.59, very low quality evidence) in the combined benzodiazepines/antipsychotics group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from RCTs for the use of benzodiazepines alone is not good. There were relatively few good data. Most trials were too small to highlight differences in either positive or negative effects. Adding a benzodiazepine to other drugs does not seem to confer clear advantage and has potential for adding unnecessary adverse effects. Sole use of older antipsychotics unaccompanied by anticholinergic drugs seems difficult to justify. Much more high-quality research is still needed in this area.

Zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Oral zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride (Clopixol) is an anti-psychotic treatment for people with psychotic symptoms, especially those with schizophrenia. It is associated with neuroleptic malignant syndrome, a prolongation of the QTc interval, extra-pyramidal reactions, venous thromboembolism and may modify insulin and glucose responses.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride for treatment of schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (latest search 09 June 2015). There were no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride for schizophrenia. We included trials meeting our inclusion criteria and reporting useable data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a random-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 trials, randomising 1850 participants. Data were reported for 12 comparisons, predominantly for the short term (up to 12 weeks) and inpatient populations. Overall risk of bias for included studies was low to unclear.Data were unavailable for many of our pre-stated outcomes of interest. No data were available, across all comparisons, for death, duration of stay in hospital and general functioning.Zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride versus: 1. placeboMovement disorders (EPSEs) were similar between groups (1 RCT, n = 28, RR 6.07 95% CI 0.86 to 43.04 very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in numbers leaving the study early (2 RCTs, n = 100, RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.60, very low-quality evidence). 2. chlorpromazineNo clear differences were found for the outcomes of global state (average CGI-SI endpoint score) (1 RCT, n = 60, MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.49) or movement disorders (EPSEs) (3 RCTs, n = 199, RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.45), both very low-quality evidence. More people left the study early for any reason from the zuclopenthixol group (6 RCTs, n = 766, RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.81, low-quality evidence). 3. chlorprothixeneThere was no clear difference in numbers leaving the study early for any reason (1 RCT, n = 20, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.93, very low-quality evidence). 4. clozapineNo useable data were presented. 5. haloperidolNo clear differences between treatment groups were found for the outcomes global state score (average CGI endpoint score) (1 RCT, n = 49, MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.55) or leaving the study early (2 RCTs, n = 141, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.35), both very low-quality evidence. 6. perphenazineThose receiving zuclopenthixol were more likely to require medication in the short term for EPSEs than perphenazine (1 RCT, n = 50, RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.22, very low-quality evidence). Similar numbers left the study early (2 RCTs, n = 104, RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.47, very low-quality evidence). 7. risperidoneThose receiving zuclopenthixol were more likely to require medications for EPSEs than risperidone (1 RCT, n = 98,RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.28, very low quality evidence). There was no clear difference in numbers leaving the study early ( 3 RCTs, n = 154, RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.02) or in mental state (average PANSS total endpoint score) (1 RCT, n = 25, MD -3.20, 95% CI -7.71 to 1.31), both very low-quality evidence). 8. sulpirideNo clear differences were found for global state (average CGI endpoint score) ( 1 RCT, n = 61, RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.85, very low-quality evidence), requiring hypnotics/sedatives (1 RCT, n = 61, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.32, very low-quality evidence) or leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 61, RR 2.07 95% CI 0.97 to 4.40, very low-quality evidence). 9. thiothixeneNo clear differences were found for the outcomes of 'global state (average CGI endpoint score) (1 RCT, n = 20, RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.46) or leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 20, RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.35), both very low-quality evidence). 10. trifluoperazineNo useable data were presented. 11. zuclopenthixol depotThere was no clear difference in numbers leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 46, RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.36 to 10.58, very low-quality evidence). 12. Zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride (cis z isomer) versus zuclopenthixol (cis z/trans e isomer)There were no clear differences in reported side-effects ( 1 RCT, n = 57, RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.18, very low-quality evidence) and in numbers leaving the study early (4 RCTs, n = 140, RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.41, very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride appears to cause more EPSEs than clozapine, risperidone or perphenazine, but there was no difference in EPSEs when compared to placebo or chlorpromazine. Similar numbers required hypnotics/sedatives when zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride was compared to sulpiride, and similar numbers of reported side-effects were found when its isomers were compared. The other comparisons did not report adverse-effect data.Reported data indicate zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride demonstrates no difference in mental or global states compared to placebo, chlorpromazine, chlorprothixene, clozapine, haloperidol, perphenazine, sulpiride, thiothixene, trifluoperazine, depot and isomers. Zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride, when compared with risperidone, is favoured when assessed using the PANSS in the short term, but not in the medium term.The data extracted from the included studies are mostly equivocal, and very low to low quality, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Prescribing practice is unlikely to change based on this meta-analysis. Recommending any particular course of action about side-effect medication other than monitoring, using rating scales and clinical assessment, and prescriptions on a case-by-case basis, is also not possible.There is a need for further studies covering this topic with more antipsychotic comparisons for currently relevant outcomes.

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

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol used alone is recommended to help calm situations of aggression or agitation for people with psychosis. It is widely accessible and may be the only antipsychotic medication available in limited-resource areas.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether haloperidol alone is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation, wherein clinicians are required to intervene to prevent harm to self and others.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (26th May 2016). This register is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including AMED, BIOSIS CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings, with no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people exhibiting aggression and/or agitation thought to be due to psychosis, allocated rapid use of haloperidol alone (by any route), compared with any other treatment. Outcomes of interest 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. We included trials meeting our selection criteria and providing useable data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected all citations from searches, identified relevant abstracts, and independently extracted data from all included studies. For binary data we calculated risk ratio (RR), for continuous data we calculated mean difference (MD), and for cognitive outcomes we derived standardised mean difference (SMD) effect sizes, all with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and using a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and used the GRADE approach to produce 'Summary of findings' tables which included our pre-specified main outcomes of interest.

MAIN RESULTS

We found nine new RCTs from the 2016 update search, giving a total of 41 included studies and 24 comparisons. Few studies were undertaken in circumstances that reflect real-world practice, and, with notable exceptions, most were small and carried considerable risk of bias. Due to the large number of comparisons, we can only present a summary of main results.Compared with placebo, more people in the haloperidol group were asleep at two hours (2 RCTs, n=220, RR 0.88, 95%CI 0.82 to 0.95, very low-quality evidence) and experienced dystonia (2 RCTs, n=207, RR 7.49, 95%CI 0.93 to 60.21, very low-quality evidence).Compared with aripiprazole, people in the haloperidol group required fewer injections than those in the aripiprazole group (2 RCTs, n=473, RR 0.78, 95%CI 0.62 to 0.99, low-quality evidence). More people in the haloperidol group experienced dystonia (2 RCTs, n=477, RR 6.63, 95%CI 1.52 to 28.86, very low-quality evidence).Four trials (n=207) compared haloperidol with lorazepam with no significant differences with regard to number of participants asleep at one hour (1 RCT, n=60, RR 1.05, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.44, very low-quality of evidence) or those requiring additional injections (1 RCT, n=66, RR 1.14, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.43, very low-quality of evidence).Haloperidol's adverse effects were not offset by addition of lorazepam (e.g. dystonia 1 RCT, n=67, RR 8.25, 95%CI 0.46 to 147.45, very low-quality of evidence).Addition of promethazine was investigated in two trials (n=376). More people in the haloperidol group were not tranquil or asleep by 20 minutes (1 RCT, n=316, RR 1.60, 95%CI 1.18 to 2.16, moderate-quality evidence). Acute dystonia was too common in the haloperidol alone group for the trial to continue beyond the interim analysis (1 RCT, n=316, RR 19.48, 95%CI 1.14 to 331.92, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Additional data from new studies does not alter previous conclusions of this review. If no other alternative exists, sole use of intramuscular haloperidol could be life-saving. Where additional drugs are available, sole use of haloperidol for extreme emergency 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. Adding a benzodiazepine to haloperidol does not have strong evidence of benefit and carries 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.

De-escalation techniques for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation

BACKGROUND

Aggression is a disposition, a willingness to inflict harm, regardless of whether this is behaviourally or verbally expressed and regardless of whether physical harm is sustained.De-escalation is a psychosocial intervention for managing people with disturbed or aggressive behaviour. Secondary management strategies such as rapid tranquillisation, physical intervention and seclusion should only be considered once de-escalation and other strategies have failed to calm the service user.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of de-escalation techniques in the short-term management of aggression or agitation thought or likely to be due to psychosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (latest search 7 April, 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials using de-escalation techniques for the short-term management of aggressive or agitated behaviour. We planned to include trials involving adults (at least 18 years) with a potential for aggressive behaviour due to psychosis, from those in a psychiatric setting to those possibly under the influence of alcohol or drugs and/or as part of an acute setting as well. We planned to include trials meeting our inclusion criteria that provided useful data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors inspected all abstracts of studies identified by the search process. As we were unable to include any studies, we could not perform data extraction and analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 345 citations that were identified using the search strategies, we found only one reference to be potentially suitable for further inspection. However, after viewing the full text, it was excluded as it was not a randomised controlled trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Using de-escalation techniques for people with psychosis induced aggression or agitation appears to be accepted as good clinical practice but is not supported by evidence from randomised trials. It is unclear why it has remained such an under-researched area. Conducting trials in this area could be influenced by funding flow, ethical concerns - justified or not - anticipated pace of recruitment as well the difficulty in accurately quantifying the effects of de-escalation itself. With supportive funders and ethics committees, imaginative trialists, clinicians and service-user groups and wide collaboration this dearth of randomised research could be addressed.

Zuclopenthixol versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Zuclopenthixol is an older antipsychotic that has three distinct formulations (zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride, zuclopenthixol acetate or Acuphase and zuclopenthixol decanoate). Although it has been in common use for many years no previous systematic review of its efficacy compared to placebo in schizophrenia has been undertaken.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of all formulations of zuclopenthixol when compared with a placebo in schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

On 6 November 2013 and 20 October 2015, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register, which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, PubMed, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. We also checked the references of all included studies and contacted authors of included studies for relevant studies and data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials comparing zuclopenthixol of any form with placebo for treatment of schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted and cross-checked data independently. We identified only a small number of studies so we cross checked all studies. We calculated fixed-effect relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous data. We analysed by intention-to-treat. Where possible we converted continuous outcomes into dichotomous outcomes. When this was not possible we used mean differences (MD) for continuous variables. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Only two studies, with a total of 65 participants, were eligible for inclusion in the review. Overall the quality of the two studies was low, with small study populations and significant sources of bias, so we were not able to use all the data in our comparisons. . The studies were old from 1968 and 1972, and would be unlikely to pass modern peer review standard. We were only able to find short-term data and only trials randomising zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride. We also hoped to identify data for zuclopenthixol acetate versus placebo and zuclopenthixol decanoate versus placebo comparisons. We were unable to identify any studies that included data on these two fairly widely used drugs.For our primary outcome of interest, clinically significant improvement, we found one study that provided useable data. Global state measured by clinical global impression scale (CGI) improvement showed different ratings when assessed by a psychiatrist or a nurse.The psychiatrist scores failed to achieve statistical significance, however when assessed by nursing staff, the difference favouring zuclopenthixol did reach statistical significance (1 RCT n = 29, RR 2.57 95% CI 1.06 to 6.20, very low quality data). There was also evidence of increased sedation with those treated with zuclopenthixol when compared with placebo (1 RCT n = 29, RR 4.67 95% CI 1.23 to 17.68, very low quality data). 'Leaving the study early' data were equivocal. No useable data were available for outcomes such as relapse, mental state, death, quality of life, service use or economic costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For people with schizophrenia this review shows that zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride may help with the symptoms of schizophrenia. The review provides some trial evidence that, if taking zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride, people may experience some adverse effects and sedation compared with placebo. However this evidence is of very low quality and with some significant sources of bias. There are no data for zuclopenthixol decanoate or zuclopenthixol acetate.For clinicians, the available trial data on the absolute effectiveness of zuclopenthixol dihydrochloride do support its use but the limited nature of the data and significant sources of bias make conclusions hard to draw. Zuclopenthixol in all three forms is a commonly used antipsychotic and it is disappointing that there are so few data regarding its use.

Haloperidol versus first-generation antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol is worldwide one of the most frequently used antipsychotic drugs with a very high market share. Previous narrative, unsystematic reviews found no differences in terms of efficacy between the various first-generation ("conventional", "typical") antipsychotic agents. This established the unproven psychopharmacological assumption of a comparable efficacy between the first-generation antipsychotic compounds codified in textbooks and treatment guidelines. Because this assumption contrasts with the clinical impression, a high-quality systematic review appeared highly necessary.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of haloperidol with other first-generation antipsychotics in schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis.

SEARCH METHODS

In October 2011 and July 2012, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register, which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. To identify further relevant publications, we screened the references of all included studies and contacted the manufacturers of haloperidol for further relevant trials and missing information on identified studies. Furthermore, we contacted the corresponding authors of all included trials for missing data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral haloperidol with another oral first-generation antipsychotic drug (with the exception of the low-potency antipsychotics chlorpromazine, chlorprothixene, levopromazine, mesoridazine, perazine, prochlorpromazine, and thioridazine) in schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis. Clinically important response to treatment was defined as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were global state, mental state, behaviour, overall acceptability (measured by the number of participants leaving the study early due to any reason), overall efficacy (attrition due to inefficacy of treatment), overall tolerability (attrition due to adverse events), and specific adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using The Cochrane Collaboration`s 'Risk of bias' tool.We analysed dichotomous outcomes with risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes with mean differences (MD), both with the associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). All analyses were based on a random-effects model and we preferably used data on an intention-to-treat basis where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

The systematic review currently includes 63 randomised trials with 3675 participants. Bromperidol (n = 9), loxapine (n = 7), and trifluoperazine (n = 6) were the most frequently administered antipsychotics comparator to haloperidol. The included studies were published between 1962 and 1993, were characterised by small sample sizes (mean: 58 participants, range from 18 to 206) and the predefined outcomes were often incompletely reported. All results for the main outcomes were based on very low or low quality data. In many trials the mechanism of randomisation, allocation, and blinding was frequently not reported. In short-term studies (up to 12 weeks), there was no clear evidence of a difference between haloperidol and the pooled group of the other first-generation antipsychotic agents in terms of the primary outcome "clinically important response to treatment" (40 RCTs, n = 2132, RR 0.93 CI 0.87 to 1.00). In the medium-term trials, haloperidol may be less effective than the other first-generation antipsychotic group but this evidence is based on only one trial (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 0.51 CI 0.37 to 0.69).Based on limited evidence, haloperidol alleviated more positive symptoms of schizophrenia than the other antipsychotic drugs. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in global state, other mental state outcomes, behaviour, leaving the study early due to any reason, due to inefficacy, as well as due to adverse effects. The only statistically significant difference in specific side effects was that haloperidol produced less akathisia in the medium term.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of the meta-analytic calculations support the statements of previous narrative, unsystematic reviews suggesting comparable efficacy of first-generation antipsychotics. In efficacy-related outcomes, there was no clear evidence of a difference between the prototypal drug haloperidol and other, mainly high-potency first-generation antipsychotics. Additionally, we demonstrated that haloperidol is characterised by a similar risk profile compared to the other first-generation antipsychotic compounds. The only statistically significant difference in specific side effects was that haloperidol produced less akathisia in the medium term. The results were limited by the low methodological quality in many of the included original studies. Data for the main results were low or very low quality. Therefore, future clinical trials with high methodological quality are required.

[Drug management of agitation in emergency departments: theoretical recommendations and studies of practices]

Management of agitation is a frequent problematic of emergency departments that often leads to feelings of insecurity among clinicians. There are various practices regarding the drugs to be used in the management of agitations. Guidelines have been proposed by different groups of experts concerning the antipsychotic drugs that should be used for agitations in psychiatric conditions. Nevertheless, there is no clear-cut procedure referring to the utilization of intramuscular drugs in this situation. Moreover, there is no comparison available between the commonly used medications and other drugs, both in terms of superiority of efficacy and tolerance. In order to accurately assess these practices, evaluation protocols must minimize the interference with the service organization and the routine care. Further studies are required in order to develop guidelines about medications that have to be used to handle agitations, which must be based on robust evidence and applicable to emergency services.

Benzodiazepines for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation

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 with placebo or antipsychotics, alone or in combination with antihistamines, to control disturbed behaviour and reduce psychotic symptoms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (January 2012), inspected reference lists of included and excluded studies and contacted authors of relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing benzodiazepines alone or in combination with any antipsychotics, versus antipsychotics alone or in combination with any other antipsychotics, benzodiazepines or antihistamines, 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) using a fixed-effect model. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) between groups. If heterogeneity was identified, this was explored using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 trials with a total of n = 1968 participants. There was no significant difference for most outcomes in the one trial that compared benzodiazepines with placebo, although there was a higher risk of no improvement in people receiving placebo in the medium term (one to 48 hours) (n = 102, 1 RCT, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.97, very low quality evidence). There was no difference in the number of participants who had not improved in the medium term when benzodiazepines were compared with antipsychotics (n = 308, 5 RCTs, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.42, low quality evidence); however, people receiving benzodiazepines were less likely to experience extrapyramidal effects (EPS) in the medium term (n = 536, 8 RCTs, RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.39, moderate quality of evidence). Data comparing combined benzodiazepines and antipsychotics versus benzodiazepines alone did not yield any significant results. When comparing combined benzodiazepines/antipsychotics (all studies compared haloperidol) with the same antipsychotics alone (haloperidol), there was no difference between groups in improvement in the medium term (n = 155, 3 RCTs, RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.70, very low quality evidence) but sedation was more likely in people who received the combination therapy (n = 172, 3 RCTs, RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.67, very low quality evidence). However, more participants receiving combined benzodiazepines and haloperidol had not improved by medium term when compared to participants receiving olanzapine (n = 60,1 RCT, RR 25.00, 95% CI 1.55 to 403.99, very low quality evidence) or ziprasidone (n = 60, 1 RCT, RR 4.00, 95% CI 1.25 to 12.75 very low quality evidence). When haloperidol and midazolam were compared with olanzapine, there was some evidence the combination was superior in terms of improvement, sedation and behaviour.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from trials for the use of benzodiazepines alone is not good. There were relatively little good data and most trials are too small to highlight differences in either positive or negative effects. Adding a benzodiazepine to other drugs does not seem to confer clear advantage and has potential for adding unnecessary adverse effects. Sole use of older antipsychotics unaccompanied by anticholinergic drugs seems difficult to justify. Much more high quality research is needed in this area.