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

Effectiveness and safety of aripiprazole oral solution in the acute treatment of schizophrenia in Chinese patients

BACKGROUND

This study investigates the effectiveness and safety of aripiprazole oral solution in Chinese patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, single-arm phase IV study involving 134 patients in China in the acute stage of schizophrenia from May 2021 to July 2022. The patients received aripiprazole oral solution 10 - 30 mg/d for 12 weeks. The effectiveness endpoints included the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS) and the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale score. The safety endpoints included adverse events, laboratory inspection indicators (including the serum prolactin level [PRL]), and waist circumferences (WC).

RESULTS

Ultimately, 86 patients (64.18%) completed the trial, and 21 patients (15.67%) dropped out due to poor effectiveness. From baseline to week eight, 43.28% of patients had a PANSS reduction of ≥ 50%, 82.84% of patients improved in the CGI-Improvement (CGI-I scale score of 1 - 3), and the percentage of patients with abnormal PRL and waist circumferences decreased significantly. In total, 45 patients (33.58%) experienced mild adverse drug reactions predominately manifested as extrapyramidal symptoms (EPSs; 9.70%), constipation (8.96%), and palpitations (7.46%). Upon further subgroup analysis, aripiprazole oral solution demonstrated significantly improved effectiveness in first-episode schizophrenia patients and those with symptoms of agitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Aripiprazole oral solution displayed positive clinical effectiveness and favorable tolerability in Chinese patients in the acute stage of schizophrenia.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2100044653. Name of trial registration: A real-world study of Aripiprazole Oral Solution in the treatment of schizophrenia (Registration date: 25/03/2021). The full trial protocol can be accessed at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( http://www.chictr.org.cn/ ).

Atypical antipsychotic drugs in dual disorders: current evidence and clinical guidelines

BACKGROUND

Concurrent disorder or dual diagnosis refers to a combination of substance use disorders and mental disorders that occur in the same patient simultaneously. These conditions pose significant clinical and healthcare impacts and are often underdiagnosed, undertreated, and complex to manage.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the quality of current pharmacological recommendations for the management of dual diagnosis, particularly by evaluating the use of second-generation antipsychotics (SGA).

METHOD

A literature search was performed using the PubMed and Scopus databases for publications up to September 21, 2021, without any time restrictions. The following search strings were used: (aripiprazole OR brexpiprazole OR cariprazine OR paliperidone OR risperidone OR quetiapine OR clozapine OR olanzapine) AND (psychosis OR schizophrenia OR schizoaffective) AND ("substance use disorder" OR cocaine OR alcohol OR cannabis OR heroin OR "double diagnosis" OR "dual diagnosis")) NOT (animal OR rat OR mouse) NOT (review or meta-analysis).

RESULTS

The search produced a final set of 41 articles. Most patients were males and were affected by schizophrenia, with cannabis the most abused substance, followed by alcohol. Aripiprazole was the most used drug, either orally or by long-acting formulations, followed by risperidone with oral and long-acting formulations, clozapine, olanzapine, and quetiapine.

CONCLUSION

The findings highlight the use of SGA for the treatment of psychotic symptoms in comorbidity with substance use. Future studies on people with dual diagnosis and focused on long-term evaluations are warranted and need to investigate the efficacy of newly introduced molecules, such as partial D2 agonists and long-acting injectable antipsychotics.

Substance Abuse Associated with Aggressive/Violent Behaviors in Psychiatric Outpatients and Related Psychotropic Prescription

Psychiatric disorders with substance abuse are considered the leading causes of most violent and aggressive behaviors in the general population. This study was aimed to assess the impact of substance abuse and the therapeutic approaches adopted by psychiatrists in aggressive vs non-aggressive outpatients (n = 400) attending community-based psychiatric services and recruited over a 3-year period. Clinical and therapeutic variables were collected from medical records and the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS) was used to assess any aggressive/violent behavior. Violent behaviors were significantly higher in alcohol and substance abusers compared to non-abusers (p < 0.01), except for heroin abusers. Mean weighted MOAS score was significantly higher in patients taking antipsychotics (p < 0.005). The administration of Haloperidol, Zuclopenthixol, and Clozapine was more frequent in aggressive than in non-aggressive patients. The most frequently administered drug in these patients was Haloperidol (23.91%), with a higher mean daily dosage in violent vs non-violent patients. Our results confirm the well-established relationship between substance abuse and violent behaviors in psychiatric inpatients also within outpatient community services. Observed rates of most frequently prescribed antipsychotics to aggressive patients did not show any preference for newer generation compounds, with clinicians operating in the community setting likely being in need for further evidence and specific training to support their treatment choice.

Medicinal Chemistry Strategies for the Development of Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors against Resistance

Despite significant efficacy, one of the major limitations of small-molecule Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) agents is the presence of clinically acquired resistance, which remains a major clinical challenge. This Perspective focuses on medicinal chemistry strategies for the development of BTK small-molecule inhibitors against resistance, including the structure-based design of BTK inhibitors targeting point mutations, e.g., (i) developing noncovalent inhibitors from covalent inhibitors, (ii) avoiding steric hindrance from mutated residues, (iii) making interactions with the mutated residue, (iv) modifying the solvent-accessible region, and (v) developing new scaffolds. Additionally, a comparative analysis of multi-inhibitions of BTK is presented based on cross-comparisons between 2916 unique BTK ligands and 283 other kinases that cover 7108 dual/multiple inhibitions. Finally, targeting the BTK allosteric site and uding proteolysis-targeting chimera (PROTAC) as two potential strategies are addressed briefly, while also illustrating the possibilities and challenges to find novel ligands of BTK.

The Management of Psychomotor Agitation Associated with Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorder: A Brief Review

The early and correct assessment of psychomotor agitation (PMA) is essential to ensure prompt intervention by healthcare professionals to improve the patient’s condition, protect healthcare staff, and facilitate future management. Proper training for recognizing and managing agitation in all care settings is desirable to improve patient outcomes. The best approach is one that is ethical, non-invasive, and respectful of the patient’s dignity. When deemed necessary, pharmacological interventions must be administered rapidly and avoid producing an excessive state of sedation, except in cases of severe and imminent danger to the patient or others. The purpose of this brief review is to raise awareness about best practices for the management of PMA in emergency care situations and consider the role of new pharmacological interventions in patients with agitation associated with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia.

Which Emergent Medication Should I Give Next? Repeated Use of Emergent Medications to Treat Acute Agitation

Agitation is a common symptom encountered among patients treated in psychiatric emergency settings. While there are many guidelines available for initial management of the acutely agitated patient, there is a notable dearth of guidelines that delineate recommended approaches to the acutely agitated patient in whom an initial medication intervention has failed. This manuscript aims to fill this gap by examining evidence available in the literature and providing clinical algorithms suggested by the authors for sequential medication administration in patients with persistent acute agitation in psychiatric emergency settings. We discuss risk factors for medication-related adverse events and provide options for patients who are able to take oral medications and for patients who require parenteral intervention. We conclude with a discussion of the current need for well-designed studies that examine sequential medication options in patients with persistent acute agitation.

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.

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.

Time from the Admission as the Predictor of Aggressive Behavior of Inpatients with Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorder

The aim was to assess the incidence of aggressive events (AE) committed by patients diagnosed with schizophrenia spectrum disorethder (SSD) after the first 7 days of hospitalization in psychiatric institution, in comparison to other psychiatric patients. This retrospective cohort study was performed at Psychiatric Hospital "Sveti Ivan", Zagreb, Croatia, using hospital safety records of all patients admitted between 2015 and 2017. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients who committed AE more than a week after the admission to the hospital. Secondary outcome was the time in days from admission to the first incident of AE. The primary analysis was performed using a multivariable binary logistic regression. SSD patients committed AE more often than other patients (incidence rate ratio 3.97 (95% CI 2.35-6.69; p < 0.001; FDR q = 0.002), but these occurred earlier in the course of hospitalization: median (IQR) 2 (1-10) days from admission compared to 11 (2-32) days in other patients. SSD patients had significantly and clinically relevantly lower odds for AE after the first week of hospitalization adjusted for the large number of pre-planned possible confounders (OR = 0.10; 95% CI 0.02-0.45; p = 0.003; FDR q = 0.002). SSD patients seem to express more aggression earlier in the course of hospitalization. Findings of this study indicate that hospitalization-inherent AE risk factors may play an important role in the etiology of AE and inpatients aggressive behavior. Their possible moderating effect should be included in risk-assessment instruments.

Organisational interventions for preventing and minimising aggression directed towards healthcare workers by patients and patient advocates

BACKGROUND

Workplace aggression is becoming increasingly prevalent in health care, with serious consequences for both individuals and organisations. Research and development of organisational interventions to prevent and minimise workplace aggression has also increased. However, it is not known if interventions prevent or reduce occupational violence directed towards healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of organisational interventions that aim to prevent and minimise workplace aggression directed towards healthcare workers by patients and patient advocates.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases from inception to 25 May 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Wiley Online Library); MEDLINE (PubMed); CINAHL (EBSCO); Embase (embase.com); PsycINFO (ProQuest); NIOSHTIC (OSH-UPDATE); NIOSHTIC-2 (OSH-UPDATE); HSELINE (OSH-UPDATE); and CISDOC (OSH-UPDATE). We also searched the ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portals (www.who.int/ictrp/en).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) of any organisational intervention to prevent and minimise verbal or physical aggression directed towards healthcare workers and their peers in their workplace by patients or their advocates. The primary outcome measure was episodes of aggression resulting in no harm, psychological, or physical harm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods for data collection and analysis. This included independent data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment by at least two review authors per included study. We used the Haddon Matrix to categorise interventions aimed at the victim, the vector or the environment of the aggression and whether the intervention was applied before, during or after the event of aggression. We used the random-effects model for the meta-analysis and GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies. Four studies were conducted in nursing home settings, two studies were conducted in psychiatric wards and one study was conducted in an emergency department. Interventions in two studies focused on prevention of aggression by the vector in the pre-event phase, being 398 nursing home residents and 597 psychiatric patients. The humour therapy in one study in a nursing home setting did not have clear evidence of a reduction of overall aggression (mean difference (MD) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.34; very low-quality evidence). A short-term risk assessment in the other study showed a decreased incidence of aggression (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78; very low-quality evidence) compared to practice as usual. Two studies compared interventions to minimise aggression by the vector in the event phase to practice as usual. In both studies the event was aggression during bathing of nursing home patients. In one study, involving 18 residents, music was played during the bathing period and in the other study, involving 69 residents, either a personalised shower or a towel bath was used. The studies provided low-quality evidence that the interventions may result in a medium-sized reduction of overall aggression (standardised mean difference (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.05; 2 studies), and physical aggression (SMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.46 to -0.24; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), but not in verbal aggression (SMD -0.31, 95% CI; -0.89 to 0.27; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). One intervention focused on the vector, the pre-event phase and the event phase. The study compared a two-year culture change programme in a nursing home to practice as usual and involved 101 residents. This study provided very low-quality evidence that the intervention may result in a medium-sized reduction of physical aggression (MD 0.51, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.91), but there was no clear evidence that it reduced verbal aggression (MD 0.76, 95% CI -0.02 to 1.54). Two studies evaluated a multicomponent intervention that focused on the vector (psychiatry patients and emergency department patients), the victim (nursing staff), and the environment during the pre-event and the event phase. The studies included 564 psychiatric staff and 209 emergency department staff. Both studies involved a comprehensive package of actions aimed at preventing violence, managing violence and environmental changes. There was no clear evidence that the psychiatry intervention may result in a reduction of overall aggression (odds ratio (OR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.15; low-quality evidence), compared to the control condition. The emergency department study did not result in a reduction of aggression (MD = 0) but provided insufficient data to test this.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low to low-quality evidence that interventions focused on the vector during the pre-event phase, the event phase or both, may result in a reduction of overall aggression, compared to practice as usual, and we found inconsistent low-quality evidence for multi-component interventions. None of the interventions included the post-event stage. To improve the evidence base, we need more RCT studies, that include the workers as participants and that collect information on the impact of violence on the worker in a range of healthcare settings, but especially in emergency care settings. Consensus on standardised outcomes is urgently needed.

Treatment Options for Acute Agitation in Psychiatric Patients: Theoretical and Empirical Evidence

Acute agitation is a common presenting symptom in the emergency ward and is also dealt with on a routine basis in psychiatry. Usually a symptom of an underlying mental illness, it is considered urgent and immediate treatment is indicated. The practice of treating agitation on an acute care basis is also referred to as rapid tranquilization. A variety of psychotropic drugs and combinations thereof can be used. The decision is usually made based on availability and the clinician's experience, with the typical antipsychotic haloperidol (alone or in combination with antihistaminergic and anticholinergic drugs such as promethazine), the benzodiazepines lorazepam, diazepam and midazolam as well as a variety of atypical antipsychotics being used for this purpose. Haloperidol is associated with extrapyramidal symptoms (which can be controlled by co-administration of promethazine) and may control agitation without inducing sedation, while benzodiazepines have a more pronounced sedating activity. The atypical antipsychotics aripiprazole and ziprasidone are better tolerated, while olanzapine is also a powerful sedative. Clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of different treatment options have been conducted but they are extremely heterogenous and most have numerous methodological flaws, leading to a poor overall quality of evidence upon which guidelines for the appropriate treatment could be based. The combination of haloperidol and promethazine, which combines the sedative properties of the antihistamine with the more selective calming action of haloperidol (with a reduced risk of extrapyramidal effects compared to haloperidol alone because of the anticholinergic properties of promethazine) may be the best choice based on empirical evidence.

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.

Aripiprazole Long-Acting Injection During First Episode Schizophrenia-An Exploratory Analysis

Background: Long-acting injectable (LAI) aripiprazole was found to be efficacious in schizophrenia. In common clinical practice, the use of LAIs is often restricted to chronic patients with frequent relapses and poor adherence. Recently, some investigators advanced the idea of early LAI use also in young people with schizophrenia at their first psychotic episode (FEP). Objective: Our study aimed to assess the effect of LAI aripiprazole once monthly (AOM) in the treatment of FEP in patients aged 18-26 years. Methods: We included 50 patients with DSM-5 schizophrenia as assessed with SCID, and used the Clinical Global Impressions Scale-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) to assess symptom severity and the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL), the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and the Personal and Social Performance Scale (PSP) to assess quality of life (QoL) and global health perception at baseline and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after the first AOM injection. Results: AOM was associated with a progressive improvement, compared to baseline, of both positive (p < 0.001) and negative (p < 0.001) symptoms and in general psychopathology (p < 0.001) and decrease in global severity (p < 0.001). We also observed progressive improvement in QoL and social and personal functioning. Treatment adherence was 78% at study endpoint. Our results support that AOM may improve psychotic symptoms, QoL and social functioning in young FEP patients. Further studies should compare AOM to its oral formulation in the treatment of young patients with schizophrenia at the outset of their illness.

Joint BAP NAPICU evidence-based consensus guidelines for the clinical management of acute disturbance: De-escalation and rapid tranquillisation

The British Association for Psychopharmacology and the National Association of Psychiatric Intensive Care and Low Secure Units developed this joint evidence-based consensus guideline for the clinical management of acute disturbance. It includes recommendations for clinical practice and an algorithm to guide treatment by healthcare professionals with various options outlined according to their route of administration and category of evidence. Fundamental overarching principles are included and highlight the importance of treating the underlying disorder. There is a focus on three key interventions: de-escalation, pharmacological interventions pre-rapid tranquillisation and rapid tranquillisation (intramuscular and intravenous). Most of the evidence reviewed relates to emergency psychiatric care or acute psychiatric adult inpatient care, although we also sought evidence relevant to other common clinical settings including the general acute hospital and forensic psychiatry. We conclude that the variety of options available for the management of acute disturbance goes beyond the standard choices of lorazepam, haloperidol and promethazine and includes oral-inhaled loxapine, buccal midazolam, as well as a number of oral antipsychotics in addition to parenteral options of intramuscular aripiprazole, intramuscular droperidol and intramuscular olanzapine. Intravenous options, for settings where resuscitation equipment and trained staff are available to manage medical emergencies, are also included.

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.