Droperidol for acute psychosis

Droperidol for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation

BACKGROUND

People experiencing acute psychotic illnesses, especially those associated with agitated or violent behaviour, may require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. Droperidol, a butyrophenone antipsychotic, has been used for this purpose in several countries.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effects of droperidol, including its cost-effectiveness, when compared to placebo, other 'standard' or 'non-standard' treatments, or other forms of management of psychotic illness, in controlling acutely disturbed behaviour and reducing psychotic symptoms in people with schizophrenia-like illnesses.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated previous searches by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (18 December 2015). We searched references of all identified studies for further trial citations and contacted authors of trials. We supplemented these electronic searches by handsearching reference lists and contacting both the pharmaceutical industry and relevant authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with useable data that compared droperidol to any other treatment for people acutely ill with suspected acute psychotic illnesses, including schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, mixed affective disorders, the manic phase of bipolar disorder or a brief psychotic episode.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For included studies, we assessed quality, risk of bias and extracted data. We excluded data when more than 50% of participants were lost to follow-up. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four relevant trials from the update search (previous version of this review included only two trials). When droperidol was compared with placebo, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found evidence of a clear difference (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31, high-quality evidence). There was a clear demonstration of reduced risk of needing additional medication after 60 minutes for the droperidol group (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.85, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular arrhythmia (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.31, moderate-quality evidence) and respiratory airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.52, low-quality evidence) than placebo. For 'being ready for discharge', there was no clear difference between groups (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48, high-quality evidence). There were no data for mental state and costs.Similarly, when droperidol was compared to haloperidol, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found evidence of a clear difference (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09, high-quality evidence). There was a clear demonstration of reduced risk of needing additional medication after 60 minutes for participants in the droperidol group (2 RCTs, N = 255, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.90, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular hypotension (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.30 to 26.49,moderate-quality evidence) and cardiovascular hypotension/desaturation (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.12 to 67.98, low-quality evidence) than haloperidol. There was no suggestion that use of droperidol was unsafe. For mental state, there was no evidence of clear difference between the efficacy of droperidol compared to haloperidol (Scale for Quantification of Psychotic Symptom Severity, 1 RCT, N = 40, mean difference (MD) 0.11, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.29, low-quality evidence). There were no data for service use and costs.Whereas, when droperidol was compared with midazolam, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found droperidol to be less acutely tranquillising than midazolam (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.28, high-quality evidence). As regards the 'need for additional medication by 60 minutes after initial adequate sedation, we found an effect (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.20, moderate-quality evidence). In terms of adverse effects, we found no statistically significant differences between the two drugs for either airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.55, low-quality evidence) or respiratory hypoxia (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.03, moderate-quality evidence) - but use of midazolam did result in three people (out of around 70) needing some sort of 'airway management' with no such events in the droperidol group. There were no data for mental state, service use and costs.Furthermore, when droperidol was compared to olanzapine, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by any time point, we found no clear differences between the older drug (droperidol) and olanzapine (e.g. at 30 minutes: 1 RCT, N = 221, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11, high-quality evidence). There was a suggestion that participants allocated droperidol needed less additional medication after 60 minutes than people given the olanzapine (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular arrhythmia (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88, moderate-quality evidence) and respiratory airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.72, low-quality evidence) than olanzapine. For 'being ready for discharge', there was no difference between groups (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34, high-quality evidence). There were no data for mental state and costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Previously, the use of droperidol was justified based on experience rather than evidence from well-conducted and reported randomised trials. However, this update found high-quality evidence with minimal risk of bias to support the use of droperidol for acute psychosis. Also, we found no evidence to suggest that droperidol should not be a treatment option for people acutely ill and disturbed because of serious mental illnesses.

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.

Droperidol in the emergency department: is it safe?

Droperidol is an antipsychotic and antiemetic drug that has been used extensively by emergency physicians, psychiatrists, and anesthesiologists worldwide since 1967. It also has been used effectively for other diverse conditions, such as treatment of headache and vertigo. As of January 2001, Droperidol was no longer available in Europe after its founder, Janssen-Cilag Pharmaceuticals, discontinued its distribution. In December 2001, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) placed a black box warning on the use of Droperidol in response to an association between Droperidol and fatal cardiac dysrhythmias, such as torsade de pointes, resulting from prolongation of the QT interval. In this review we closely examine the pharmacology, indications, use, and complications associated with Droperidol, and speculate on its future use in the Emergency Department.