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

Antipsychotic Drugs: The Antithesis to Neurorehabilitation in Models of Pre-Clinical Traumatic Brain Injury

Sixty-nine million traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) are reported worldwide each year, and, of those, close to 3 million occur in the United States. In addition to neurobehavioral and cognitive deficits, TBI induces other maladaptive behaviors, such as agitation and aggression, which must be managed for safe, accurate assessment and effective treatment of the patient. The use of antipsychotic drugs (APDs) in TBI is supported by some expert guidelines, which suggests that they are an important part of the pharmacological armamentarium to be used in the management of agitation. Despite the advantages of APDs after TBI, there are significant disadvantages that may not be fully appreciated clinically during decision making because of the lack of a readily available updated compendium. Hence, the aim of this review is to integrate the existing findings and present the current state of APD use in pre-clinical models of TBI. The studies discussed were identified through PubMed and the University of Pittsburgh Library System search strategies and reveal that APDs, particularly those with dopamine2 (D2) receptor antagonism, generally impair the recovery process in rodents of both sexes and, in some instances, attenuate the potential benefits of neurorehabilitation. We believe that the compilation of findings represented by this exhaustive review of pre-clinical TBI + APD models can serve as a convenient source for guiding informed decisions by critical care clinicians and physiatrists contemplating APD use for patients exhibiting agitation.

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.

International research into 22 years of use of chemical restraint: An evidence overview

BACKGROUND

Chemical restraint (CR) (also known as rapid tranquilisation) is the forced (non-consenting) administration of medications to manage uncontrolled aggression, anxiety, or violence in people who are likely to cause harm to themselves or others. Our population of interest was adults with mental health disorders (with/without substance abuse). There has been a growing international movement over the past 22 years towards reducing/eliminating restrictive practices such as CR. It is appropriate to summarise the research that has been published over this time, identify trends and gaps in knowledge, and highlight areas for new research to inform practice.

AIMS

To undertake a comprehensive systematic search to identify, and describe, the volume and nature of primary international research into CR published since 1995.

METHODS

This paper reports the processes and overall findings of a systematic search for all available primary research on CR published between 1 January 1996 and 31 July 2018. It describes the current evidence base by hierarchy of evidence, country (ies) producing the research, CR definitions, study purpose, and outcome measures.

RESULTS

This review identified 311 relevant primary studies (21 RCTs; 46 non-controlled experimental or prospective observational studies; 77 cross-sectional studies; 69 retrospective studies; 67 opinion pieces, position or policy statements; and 31 qualitative studies). The USA, UK, and Australia contributed over half the research, whilst cross-country collaborations comprised 6% of it. The most common research settings comprised acute psychiatric wards (23.3%), general psychiatric wards (21.6%), and general hospital emergency departments (19.0%).

DISCUSSION

A key lesson learnt whilst compiling this database of research into CR was to ensure that all papers described non-consenting administration of medications to manage adults with uncontrolled aggression, anxiety, or violence. There were tensions in the literature between using effective CR without producing adverse events, and how to decide when CR was needed (compared with choosing non-chemical intervention for behavioural emergencies), respecting patients' dignity whilst safeguarding their safety, and preserving safe workplaces for staff, and care environments for other patients. The range of outcome measures suggests opportunities to standardise future research.

First line in psychiatric emergency: pre-hospital emergency protocol for mental disorders in Iran

INTRODUCTION

This article is a report of designing a rapid and effective guide for paramedics who take care of patients in a pre-hospital setting to answer developing demands.

METHODS

The relevant literature was reviewed, and the topics were extracted. Then, the extracted items were discussed in an expert panel. Finally, items were discussed in a meeting including emergency technicians and emergency technical assistants to identify implementation problems.

RESULTS

Important topics for managing psychiatric patients were categorized at three levels: 1) Patient safety and security issues, 2) Patient status assessment and diagnosis, and 3) Patient management (medical, behavioral management, and referral to a treatment center).

DISCUSSION

This protocol can be a solution to improve emergency technician training. Such summarized protocols can be used for rapid review immediately before exposing a patient with an acute psychiatric condition. Due to specific cultural and different access to medicines in Iran, some issues are different.

The pharmacological management of acute behavioural disturbance: Data from a clinical audit conducted in UK mental health services

BACKGROUND

A quality improvement programme addressing prescribing practice for acutely disturbed behaviour was initiated by the Prescribing Observatory for Mental Health.

METHOD

This study analysed data from a baseline clinical audit conducted in inpatient mental health services in member trusts.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight mental health services submitted data on 2172 episodes of acutely disturbed behaviour. A benzodiazepine alone was administered in 60% of the 1091 episodes where oral medication only was used and in 39% of the 1081 episodes where parenteral medication (rapid tranquillisation) was used. Haloperidol was combined with lorazepam in 22% of rapid tranquillisation episodes and with promethazine in 3%. Physical violence towards others was strongly associated with receiving rapid tranquillisation in men (odds ratio 1.74, 1.25-2.44; p<0.001) as was actual or attempted self-harm in women (odds ratio 1.87, 1.19-2.94; p=0.007). Where physical violence towards others was exhibited, a benzodiazepine and antipsychotic was more likely to be prescribed than a benzodiazepine alone (odds ratio 1.39, 1.00-1.92; p=0.05). The data suggested that 25% of patients were at least 'extremely or continuously active' in the hour after rapid tranquillisation was administered.

CONCLUSION

The current management of acutely disturbed behaviour with parenteral medication may fail to achieve a calming effect in up to a quarter of episodes. The most common rapid tranquillisation combination used was lorazepam and haloperidol, for which the randomised controlled trial evidence is very limited. Rapid tranquillisation prescribing practice was not wholly consistent with the relevant National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline, which recommends intramuscular lorazepam on its own or intramuscular haloperidol combined with intramuscular promethazine. Clinical factors prompting the use of rapid tranquillisation rather than oral medication may differ between the genders.

Guidelines for the Pharmacotherapy of Schizophrenia in Adults

OBJECTIVE

The present guidelines address the pharmacotherapy of schizophrenia in adults across different stages, phases, and symptom domains.

METHOD

Guidelines were developed using the ADAPTE process, which takes advantage of existing guidelines. Six guidelines were identified for adaptation, with recommendations extracted from each. For those specific to the pharmacotherapy of schizophrenia in adults, a working group selected between guidelines and recommendations to create an adapted guideline.

RESULTS

Recommendations can be categorized into 6 areas that include 1) first-episode schizophrenia, 2) acute exacerbation, 3) relapse prevention and maintenance treatment, 4) treatment-resistant schizophrenia, 5) clozapine-resistant schizophrenia, and 6) specific symptom domains. For each category, recommendations are made based on the available evidence, which is discussed and linked to other established guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

In most cases, evidence-based recommendations are made that can be used to guide current clinical treatment and decision making. Notably, however, there is a paucity of established evidence to guide treatment decision making in the case of clozapine-resistant schizophrenia, a subsample that represents a sizable proportion of those with schizophrenia.

Rat brain CYP2D enzymatic metabolism alters acute and chronic haloperidol side-effects by different mechanisms

Risk for side-effects after acute (e.g. parkinsonism) or chronic (e.g. tardive dyskinesia) treatment with antipsychotics, including haloperidol, varies substantially among people. CYP2D can metabolize many antipsychotics and variable brain CYP2D metabolism can influence local drug and metabolite levels sufficiently to alter behavioral responses. Here we investigated a role for brain CYP2D in acutely and chronically administered haloperidol levels and side-effects in a rat model. Rat brain, but not liver, CYP2D activity was irreversibly inhibited with intracerebral propranolol and/or induced by seven days of subcutaneous nicotine pre-treatment. The role of variable brain CYP2D was investigated in rat models of acute (catalepsy) and chronic (vacuous chewing movements, VCMs) haloperidol side-effects. Selective inhibition and induction of brain, but not liver, CYP2D decreased and increased catalepsy after acute haloperidol, respectively. Catalepsy correlated with brain, but not hepatic, CYP2D enzyme activity. Inhibition of brain CYP2D increased VCMs after chronic haloperidol; VCMs correlated with brain, but not hepatic, CYP2D activity, haloperidol levels and lipid peroxidation. Baseline measures, hepatic CYP2D activity and plasma haloperidol levels were unchanged by brain CYP2D manipulations. Variable rat brain CYP2D alters side-effects from acute and chronic haloperidol in opposite directions; catalepsy appears to be enhanced by a brain CYP2D-derived metabolite while the parent haloperidol likely causes VCMs. These data provide novel mechanistic evidence for brain CYP2D altering side-effects of haloperidol and other antipsychotics metabolized by CYP2D, suggesting that variation in human brain CYP2D may be a risk factor for antipsychotic side-effects.

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.

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.

Haloperidol plus promethazine for psychosis-induced aggression

BACKGROUND

Health services often manage agitated or violent people, and such behaviour is particularly prevalent in emergency psychiatric services (10%). The drugs used in such situations should ensure that the person becomes calm swiftly and safely.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether haloperidol plus promethazine is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression.

SEARCH METHODS

On 6 May 2015 we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of Trials, which is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, BIOSIS, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised clinical trials with useable data focusing on haloperidol plus promethazine for psychosis-induced aggression.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted data. 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 fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We found two new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the 2015 update searching. The review now includes six studies, randomising 1367 participants and presenting data relevant to six comparisons.When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with haloperidol alone for psychosis-induced aggression for the outcome not tranquil or asleep at 30 minutes, the combination treatment was clearly more effective (n=316, 1 RCT, RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.87, high-quality evidence). There were 10 occurrences of acute dystonia in the haloperidol alone arm and none in the combination group. The trial was stopped early as haloperidol alone was considered to be too toxic.When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with olanzapine, high-quality data showed both approaches to be tranquillising. It was suggested that the combination of haloperidol plus promethazine was more effective, but the difference between the two approaches did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance (n=300, 1 RCT, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.61, high-quality evidence). Lower-quality data suggested that the risk of unwanted excessive sedation was less with the combination approach (n=116, 2 RCTs, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.84).When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with ziprasidone all data were of lesser quality. We identified no binary data for the outcome tranquil or asleep. The average sedation score (Ramsay Sedation Scale) was lower for the combination approach but not to conventional levels of statistical significance (n=60, 1 RCT, MD -0.1, 95% CI - 0.58 to 0.38). These data were of low quality and it is unclear what they mean in clinical terms. The haloperidol plus promethazine combination appeared to cause less excessive sedation but again the difference did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance (n=111, 2 RCTs, RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.43).We found few data for the comparison of haloperidol plus promethazine versus haloperidol plus midazolam. Average Ramsay Sedation Scale scores suggest the combination of haloperidol plus midazolam to be the most sedating (n=60, 1 RCT, MD - 0.6, 95% CI -1.13 to -0.07, low-quality evidence). The risk of excessive sedation was considerably less with haloperidol plus promethazine (n=117, 2 RCTs, RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.49, low-quality evidence). Haloperidol plus promethazine seemed to decrease the risk of needing restraints by around 12 hours (n=60, 1 RCT, RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.55, low-quality evidence). It may be that use of midazolam with haloperidol sedates swiftly, but this effect does not last long.When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with lorazepam, haloperidol plus promethazine seemed to more effectively cause sedation or tranquillisation by 30 minutes (n=200, 1 RCT, RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.68, high-quality evidence). The secondary outcome of needing restraints or seclusion by 12 hours was not clearly different between groups, with about 10% in each group needing this intrusive intervention (moderate-quality evidence). Sedation data were not reported, however, the combination group did have less 'any serious adverse event' in 24-hour follow-up, but there were not clear differences between the groups and we are unsure exactly what the adverse effect was. There were no deaths.When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with midazolam, there was clear evidence that midazolam is more swiftly tranquillising of an aggressive situation than haloperidol plus promethazine (n=301, 1 RCT, RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.75 to 4.8, high-quality evidence). On its own, midazolam seems to be swift and effective in tranquillising people who are aggressive due to psychosis. There was no difference in risk of serious adverse event overall (n=301, 1 RCT, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.95, high-quality evidence). However, 1 in 150 participants allocated haloperidol plus promethazine had a swiftly reversed seizure, and 1 in 151 given midazolam had swiftly reversed respiratory arrest.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Haloperidol plus promethazine is effective and safe, and its use is based on good evidence. Benzodiazepines work, with midazolam being particularly swift, but both midazolam and lorazepam cause respiratory depression. Olanzapine intramuscular and ziprasidone intramuscular do seem to be viable options and their action is swift, but resumption of aggression with subsequent need to re-inject was more likely than with haloperidol plus promethazine. Haloperidol used on its own without something to offset its frequent and serious adverse effects does seem difficult to justify.

Two Sudden and Unexpected Deaths of Patients with Schizophrenia Associated with Intramuscular Injections of Antipsychotics and Practice Guidelines to Limit the Use of High Doses of Intramuscular Antipsychotics

Intravenous haloperidol has been associated with torsades de pointes (TdP). These two sudden deaths were probable adverse drug reactions (ADRs) following intramuscular (IM) antipsychotics. The autopsies described lack of heart pathology and were highly compatible with the possibility of TdP in the absence of risk factors other than the accumulation of antipsychotics with a high serum peak after the last injection, leading to death within hours. The first case was a 27-year-old African-American male with schizophrenia but no medical issues. His death was probably caused by repeated IM haloperidol injections of 10 mg (totaling 35 mg in 2 days). The second case involves a 42-year-old African-American female with metabolic syndrome. Her probable cause of death was the last ziprasidone IM injection of 20 mg in addition to (1) three extra haloperidol doses (2 hours before the ziprasidone injection, 5 mg oral haloperidol; approximately 21 hours earlier, 5 mg oral haloperidol; and 2 days prior, one 10 mg IM haloperidol injection), (2) 10 mg/day of scheduled oral haloperidol for 6 days before death, and (3) a long-acting paliperidone injection of 156 mg 18 days before death. The study of haloperidol glucuronidation and its impairment in some African-Americans is urgently recommended.

[Acute agitation conditions]

Acute agitation psychiatric emergencies as frequently occur in psychiatric as well as in non-psychiatric settings, such as general hospitals, specialized clinics, emergency services and private practices. Psychiatric emergencies can be life-threatening and necessitate immediate treatment. This article presents the core symptomatology, differential diagnoses and treatment options of acute agitation emergencies. Case control studies and reliable data regarding prevalence and treatment of acute agitation in psychiatric and general hospitals or private practices are sparse. Existing evidence suggests that optimization of diagnosis and therapy of psychiatric emergencies, such as acute agitation is warranted. Treatment of acute agitation, psychological distress and other psychiatric emergencies are highly demanding regarding psychiatric expertise and concerning the personality and behavior of the therapist. The basis of therapy comprises the ability to form a stable and trustworthy relationship with the patient as well as to patiently calm down agitated patients. Unambiguous and rapid decision-making that takes effective pharmacological treatment options into account usually leads to swift amelioration of the acute symptomatology.

Managing Agitation Associated with Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder in the Emergency Setting

Introduction

Patient agitation represents a significant challenge in the emergency department (ED), a setting in which medical staff are working under pressure dealing with a diverse range of medical emergencies. The potential for escalation into aggressive behavior, putting patients, staff, and others at risk, makes it imperative to address agitated behavior rapidly and efficiently. Time constraints and limited access to specialist psychiatric support have in the past led to the strategy of “restrain and sedate,” which was believed to represent the optimal approach; however, it is increasingly recognized that more patient-centered approaches result in improved outcomes. The objective of this review is to raise awareness of best practices for the management of agitation in the ED and to consider the role of new pharmacologic interventions in this setting.

Discussion

The Best practices in Evaluation and Treatment of Agitation (BETA) guidelines address the complete management of agitation, including triage, diagnosis, interpersonal calming skills, and medicine choices. Since their publication in 2012, there have been further developments in pharmacologic approaches for dealing with agitation, including both new agents and new modes of delivery, which increase the options available for both patients and physicians. Newer modes of delivery that could be useful in rapidly managing agitation include inhaled, buccal/sublingual and intranasal formulations. To date, the only formulation administered via a non-intramuscular route with a specific indication for agitation associated with bipolar or schizophrenia is inhaled loxapine. Non-invasive formulations, although requiring cooperation from patients, have the potential to improve overall patient experience, thereby improving future cooperation between patients and healthcare providers.

Conclusion

Management of agitation in the ED should encompass a patient-centered approach, incorporating non-pharmacologic approaches if feasible. Where pharmacologic intervention is necessary, a cooperative approach using non-invasive medications should be employed where possible.

Comparison of haloperidol and midazolam in restless management of patients referred to the Emergency Department: A double-blinded, randomized clinical trial

Background:

Restless and violent behaviors are common in Emergency Departments (EDs), which need therapeutic interventions in most of the times. The first-generation anti-psychotic drugs are one of the most applicable therapeutic agents in the management of such patients, but their use has some limitations. Some studies suggest midazolam as an alternative medicine. Therefore, this study was performed with the aim of comparison of the efficacy and safety of haloperidol and midazolam in the restless management of referring patients to EDs.

Materials and Methods:

The present double-blinded trial was done on patients needed sedation and referred to the ED of Alzahra Hospital, Isfahan, Iran, in 2014. The patients were categorized into two random groups of haloperidol (5 mg) and midazolam receivers (2.5 mg for those weighing <50 kg and 5 mg in >50 kg), as intramuscular administration. The time to achieve sedation, need for rescue dose, need to resedation within the first 60 min, and adverse effects of drugs were compared among the groups.

Results:

Forty-eight patients were entered to the study. The mean age in the haloperidol and midazolam groups was 44.8 ± 4.1 years and 45.5 ± 4.7 years, respectively (P = 0.91). The mean time of sedation in the haloperidol and midazolam groups was 5.6 ± 0.3 min and 5.2 ± 0.1 min, respectively (P = 0.31). The mean time of full consciousness after sedation was 36.2 ± 4.5 min and 38.2 ± 3.4 min in the haloperidol and midazolam groups, respectively (P = 0.72). On average, time to arousal in the midazolam group was 10.33 min more than the haloperidol group, but it was not statistically significant.

Conclusion:

The results of the present study show that administration of midazolam and haloperidol have similar efficacy in the treatment of restless symptoms with the same recovery time from drug effects for referring patients to the ED. In addition, none of the adverse effects were observed in this study.

Droperidol v. haloperidol for sedation of aggressive behaviour in acute mental health: randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Agitation and aggression are significant problems in acute psychiatric units. There is little consensus on which drug is most effective and safest for sedation of these patients.

AIMS

To compare the effectiveness and safety of haloperidol v. droperidol for patients with agitation and aggression.

METHOD

In a masked, randomised controlled trial (ACTRN12611000565943) intramuscular droperidol (10 mg) was compared with intramuscular haloperidol (10 mg) for adult patients with acute behavioural disturbance in a psychiatric intensive care unit. The primary outcome was time to sedation within 120 min. Secondary outcomes were use of additional sedation, adverse events and staff injuries.

RESULTS

From 584 patients, 110 were randomised to haloperidol and 118 to droperidol. Effective sedation occurred in 210 (92%) patients within 120 min. There was no significant difference in median time to sedation: 20 min (interquartile range 15-30, range 10-75) for haloperidol v. 25 min (IQR 15-30, range 10-115) for droperidol (P = 0.89). Additional sedation was used more often with haloperidol (13% v. 5%, P = 0.06), but adverse effects were less common with haloperidol (1% v. 5%, P = 0.12). There were 8 staff injuries.

CONCLUSIONS

Both haloperidol and droperidol were effective for sedation of patients with acute behavioural disturbance.

Antipsychotic dosing: found in translation

In the field of schizophrenia research, as in other areas of psychiatry, there is a sense of frustration that greater advances have not been made over the years, calling into question existing research strategies. Arguably, many purported gains claimed by research have been "lost in translation," resulting in limited impact on diagnosis and treatment in the clinical setting. There are exceptions; for example, we would argue that different lines of preclinical and clinical research have substantially altered how we look at antipsychotic dosing. While this story remains a work in progress, advances "found in translation" have played an important role. Detailing these changes, the present paper speaks to a body of evidence that has already shifted clinical practice and raises questions that may further alter the manner in which antipsychotics have been administered over the last 6 decades.

Addressing the need for rapid treatment of agitation in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder: focus on inhaled loxapine as an alternative to injectable agents

Agitation (excessive motor or verbal activity) can be associated with schizophrenia or bipolar mania, and can further escalate into aggressive behavior and potentially lead to injuries in patients and staff. Medications used to treat agitation include antipsychotics and benzodiazepines, usually administered intramuscularly when rapid action is desired. Loxapine, a first-generation antipsychotic, has recently been reformulated into an inhaled powder that allows for direct administration to the lungs, resulting in rapid absorption into the systemic circulation. Administered via a single-use device, inhaled loxapine was tested in randomized controlled trials in agitation associated with schizophrenia or bipolar mania; doses of 5 mg and 10 mg were found to be efficacious, with an apparent dose response. In the Phase III studies, number needed to treat versus placebo for a ≥40% reduction from baseline on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale – Excited Component (PANSS-EC) at 2 hours was three for patients with bipolar disorder, and five for 5 mg and four for 10 mg for patients with schizophrenia, with effect sizes comparable to what has been observed in analogous studies of intramuscular injection of antipsychotics or lorazepam. Separation from placebo on the PANSS-EC was as early as 10 minutes postinhalation, the first time point where this was measured. Dysgeusia was the most commonly encountered spontaneously reported adverse event. Adverse events related to extrapyramidal symptoms and akathisia were relatively rare. Spirometry studies identified the potential for bronchospasm particularly in persons with asthma. Because of concerns over pulmonary safety, inhaled loxapine is restricted to use in hospitals and patients need to be prescreened for the presence of pulmonary disease, as well as monitored for signs and symptoms of bronchospasm for 1 hour postdose administration, as per a Food and Drug Administration-mandated Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy.

Zuclopenthixol acetate for acute schizophrenia and similar serious mental illnesses

BACKGROUND

Medication used for acute aggression in psychiatry must have rapid onset of effect, low frequency of administration and low levels of adverse effects. Zuclopenthixol acetate is said to have these properties.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the clinical effects of zuclopenthixol acetate for the management of acute aggression or violence thought to be due to serious mental illnesses, in comparison to other drugs used to treat similar conditions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia's Group Trials Register (July 2011). We supplemented this by citation searching and personal contact with authors and relevant pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised clinical trials involving people thought to have serious mental illnesses comparing zuclopenthixol acetate with other drugs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted and cross-checked data independently. We calculated fixed-effect relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous data. We analysed by intention-to-treat. We used mean differences (MD) for continuous variables.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no data for the primary outcome, tranquillisation. Compared with haloperidol, zuclopenthixol acetate was no more sedating at two hours (n = 40, 1 RCT, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.34). People given zuclopenthixol acetate were not at reduced risk of being given supplementary antipsychotics (n = 134, 3 RCTs, RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.30) although additional use of benzodiazepines was less (n = 50, 1 RCT, RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.47). People given zuclopenthixol acetate had fewer injections over seven days compared with those allocated to haloperidol IM (n = 70, 1 RCT, RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.84, NNT 4, CI 3 to 14). We found no data on more episodes of aggression or harm to self or others. One trial (n = 148) reported no significant difference in adverse effects for people receiving zuclopenthixol acetate compared with those allocated haloperidol at one, three and six days (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.27). Compared with haloperidol or clotiapine, people allocated zuclopenthixol did not seem to be at more risk of a range of movement disorders (< 20%). Three studies found no difference in the proportion of people getting blurred vision/dry mouth (n = 192, 2 RCTs, RR at 24 hours 0.90, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.70). Similarly, dizziness was equally infrequent for those allocated zuclopenthixol acetate compared with haloperidol (n = 192, 2 RCTs, RR at 24 hours 1.15, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.88). There was no difference between treatments for leaving the study before completion (n = 522, RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.31). One study reported no difference in adverse effects and outcome scores, when high dose (50-100 mg/injection) zuclopenthixol acetate was compared with low dose (25-50 mg/injection) zuclopenthixol acetate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations on the use of zuclopenthixol acetate for the management of psychiatric emergencies in preference to 'standard' treatment have to be viewed with caution. Most of the small trials present important methodological flaws and findings are poorly reported. This review did not find any suggestion that zuclopenthixol acetate is more or less effective in controlling aggressive acute psychosis, or in preventing adverse effects than intramuscular haloperidol, and neither seemed to have a rapid onset of action. Use of zuclopenthixol acetate may result in less numerous coercive injections and low doses of the drug may be as effective as higher doses. Well-conducted pragmatic randomised controlled trials are needed.