Intramuscular olanzapine for agitated patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Pearls for Caring for the Boarding Psychiatric Patient in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Emergency department (ED) boarding of psychiatric patients is a national issue that continues to worsen at a disturbing rate. Implementing strategies in the ED to provide continuous care for patients can help secure patient safety.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to discuss the boarding of psychiatric patients and its implications. It will focus on executing best clinical practices in managing boarding psychiatric patients in the ED. It will not focus on the treatment of substance use disorders.

DISCUSSION

This article will address the pearls for management plans that can be implemented in the ED, alongside discussing pregnant and elderly patients. Risk factors, complications, and treatments for boarding psychiatric patients are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with psychiatric disorders boarding in the ED need careful consideration of management plans to mitigate patient safety events.

Use of Olanzapine to Treat Agitation in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Series of N-of-One Trials

Agitation is common during post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) following traumatic brain injury (TBI) and is associated with risk of harm to patients and caregivers. Antipsychotics are frequently used to manage agitation in early TBI recovery despite limited evidence to support their efficacy, safety, and impact upon patient outcomes. The sedating and cognitive side effects of these agents are theorized to exacerbate confusion during PTA, leading to prolonged PTA duration and increased agitation. This study, conducted in a subacute inpatient rehabilitation setting, describes the results of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial investigating the efficacy of olanzapine for agitation management during PTA, analyzed as an n-of-1 series. Group comparisons were additionally conducted, examining level of agitation; number of agitated days; agitation at discharge, duration, and depth of PTA; length of hospitalization; cognitive outcome; adverse events; and rescue medication use. Eleven agitated participants in PTA (mean [M] age = 39.82 years, standard deviation [SD] = 20.06; mean time post-injury = 46.09 days, SD = 32.75) received oral olanzapine (n = 5) or placebo (n = 6) for the duration of PTA, beginning at a dose of 5 mg/day and titrated every 3 to 4 days to a maximum dose of 20 mg/day. All participants received recommended environmental management for agitation. A significant decrease in agitation with moderate to very large effect (Tau-U effect size = 0.37-0.86) was observed for three of five participants receiving olanzapine, while no significant reduction in agitation over the PTA period was observed for any participant receiving placebo. Effective olanzapine dose ranged from 5-20 mg. Response to treatment was characterized by lower level of agitation and response to treatment within 3 days. In group analyses, participants receiving olanzapine demonstrated poorer orientation and memory during PTA with large effect size (olanzapine, mean = 9.32, SD = 0.69; placebo, M = 10.68, SD = 0.30; p = .009, d = -2.16), and a trend toward longer PTA duration with large effect size (olanzapine, M = 71.96 days, SD = 20.31; placebo, M = 47.50 days, SD = 11.27; p = 0.072, d = 1.26). No further group comparisons were statistically significant. These results suggest that olanzapine can be effective in reducing agitation during PTA, but not universally so. Importantly, administration of olanzapine during PTA may lead to increased patient confusion, possibly prolonging PTA. When utilizing olanzapine, physicians must therefore balance the possible advantages of agitation management with the possibility that the patient may never respond to the medication and may experience increased confusion, longer PTA and potentially poorer outcomes. Further high-quality research is required to support these findings and the efficacy and outcomes associated with the use of any pharmacological agent for the management of agitation during the PTA period.

Cost-Effectiveness of Midazolam Versus Haloperidol Versus Olanzapine for the Management of Acute Agitation in the Accident and Emergency Department

OBJECTIVES

A multicenter randomized clinical trial in Hong Kong Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments concluded that intramuscular (IM) olanzapine is noninferior to haloperidol and midazolam, in terms of efficacy and safety, for the management of acutely agitated patients in A&E setting. Determining their comparative cost-effectiveness will further provide an economic perspective to inform the choice of sedative in this setting.

METHODS

This analysis used data from a randomized clinical trial conducted in Hong Kong A&E departments between December 2014 and September 2019. A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the 3 sedatives was conducted, from the A&E perspective and a within-trial time horizon, using a decision-analytic model. Sensitivity analyses were also undertaken.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, median total management costs associated with IM midazolam, haloperidol, and olanzapine were Hong Kong dollar (HKD) 1958.9 (US dollar [USD] 251.1), HKD 2504.5 (USD 321.1), and HKD 2467.6 (USD 316.4), respectively. Agitation management labor cost was the main cost driver, whereas drug costs contributed the least. Midazolam dominated over haloperidol and olanzapine. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses supported that midazolam remains dominant > 95% of the time and revealed no clear difference in the cost-effectiveness of IM olanzapine versus haloperidol (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio 667.16; 95% confidence interval -770.89, 685.90).

CONCLUSIONS

IM midazolam is the dominant cost-effective treatment for the management of acute agitation in the A&E setting. IM olanzapine could be considered as an alternative to IM haloperidol given that there is no clear difference in cost-effectiveness, and their adverse effect profile should be considered when choosing between them.

Psychopharmacology of agitation in acute psychotic and manic episodes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide updated guidance for the medication treatment of acute agitation in the setting of psychosis or mania on inpatient psychiatric units.

RECENT FINDINGS

This topic presented challenges: studies are sparse, tend to be under-powered, and are difficult to compare. Though there have been few recent studies, there have been several recent meta-analyses, Cochrane reviews, and published guidelines that sift through the primarily older evidence as well as more recent trials. The reviewers often do not agree on what seems to have the best evidence for efficacy and safety.

SUMMARY

We conclude that the best approach is to summarize in some detail the evidence for each possible treatment and the interpretations published recently on each of those treatments, and then present recommendations for medication management in tiered rankings, based on the authors' qualitative review of the data and opinions. For oral treatment, the first-tier options are (alphabetically) haloperidol with lorazepam, lorazepam alone, and olanzapine. The second tier includes haloperidol with promethazine, loxapine inhaler, and risperidone alone. Tier 3 includes asenapine and quetiapine. For intramuscular treatment, the first-tier includes haloperidol plus promethazine, and olanzapine alone, and the second-tier includes haloperidol with lorazepam, and lorazepam alone.

Managing acute agitation and aggression in the world of drug shortages

Acute agitation and aggression create safety risks for both patients and staff, often leading to psychiatric emergencies. Quick and appropriate treatment is necessary to achieve safe and effective outcomes. Unfortunately, there are several factors that hinder timely interventions, such as medication shortages and delay in staff preparedness. Ultimately, the goal of managing acute agitation and aggression in the clinical setting is to de-escalate the situation and prevent harm to patients and staff. This article will explore useful interventions in realizing treatment goals for the management of agitation and aggression in adults while navigating limitations faced in practice.

Consideration of Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotics for Polypharmacy Regimen in the Treatment of Schizophrenia: Put It on the Table or Not?

Antipsychotic monotherapy (APM) is considered best-acceptable treatment option regardless of antipsychotic class and formulation types for treating schizophrenia. However, antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP) has been also widely utilized in routine clinical practice. Despite APP has some clinical benefits it has also numerous pitfalls in relation with increased total number and doses of APs leading to adverse events as well as decrease of treatment adherence and persistence resulting in poor clinical outcomes. Recent introduction of long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) to the market has offered a chance for better medication adherence/persistence and also provided a simplification of treatment regime leading to more stabilized treatment for schizophrenia patients. When we cannot stay away from APP in the treatment of schizophrenia, clinicians need to find more proper APP regimens and thereby utilization of APP in efficient way should be a practical strategy to benefit schizophrenia patient in a real world treatment setting. With this regard, LAIs can be one of available APP regimen for treatment of schizophrenia in routine practice since their clinical utility and pharmacokinetic stability over oral APs have been well-elaborated today. However, when we have to commence LAIs as a part of APP with oral APs or other LAIs, every effort should be made before doing so whether or not validated and available treatment options or other clinical factors were not done or evaluated yet. Any treatment guidelines do not support APP regardless of the formulation of APP regimen or address two or more LAIs for treatment of schizophrenia till today.

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.

Intramuscular midazolam, olanzapine, or haloperidol for the management of acute agitation: A multi-centre, double-blind, randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The safety and effectiveness of intramuscular olanzapine or haloperidol compared to midazolam as the initial pharmacological treatment for acute agitation in emergency departments (EDs) has not been evaluated.

METHODS

A pragmatic, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled trial was conducted from December 2014 to September 2019, in six Hong Kong EDs. Patients (aged 18-75 years) with undifferentiated acute agitation requiring parenteral sedation were randomised to 5 mg intramuscular midazolam (n = 56), olanzapine (n = 54), or haloperidol (n = 57). Primary outcomes were time to adequate sedation and proportion of patients who achieved adequate sedation at each follow-up interval. Sedation levels were measured on a 6-level validated scale (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02380118).

FINDINGS

Of 206 patients randomised, 167 (mean age, 42 years; 98 [58·7%] male) were analysed. Median time to sedation for IM midazolam, olanzapine, and haloperidol was 8·5 (IQR 8·0), 11·5 (IQR 30·0), and 23·0 (IQR 21·0) min, respectively. At 60 min, similar proportions of patients were adequately sedated (98%, 87%, and 97%). There were statistically significant differences for time to sedation with midazolam compared to olanzapine (p = 0·03) and haloperidol (p = 0·002). Adverse event rates were similar across the three arms. Dystonia (n = 1) and cardiac arrest (n = 1) were reported in the haloperidol group.

INTERPRETATION

Midazolam resulted in faster sedation in patients with undifferentiated agitation in the emergency setting compared to olanzapine and haloperidol. Midazolam and olanzapine are preferred over haloperidol's slower time to sedation and potential for cardiovascular and extrapyramidal side effects.

FUNDING

Research Grants Council, Hong Kong.

QTc Interval Prolongation with Therapies Used to Treat Patients with Parkinson's Disease Psychosis: A Narrative Review

In addition to the classic motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease (PD), people with PD frequently experience nonmotor symptoms that can include autonomic dysfunction and neuropsychiatric symptoms such as PD psychosis (PDP). Common patient characteristics, including older age, use of multiple medications, and arrhythmias, are associated with increased risk of corrected QT interval (QTc) prolongation, and treatments for PDP (antipsychotics, dementia medications) may further increase this risk. This review evaluates how medications used to treat PDP affect QTc interval from literature indexed in the PubMed and Embase databases. Although not indicated for the treatment of psychosis, dementia therapies such as donepezil, rivastigmine, memantine, and galantamine are often used with or without antipsychotics and have minimal effects on QTc interval. Among the antipsychotics, data suggesting clinically meaningful QTc interval prolongation are limited. However, many antipsychotics have other safety concerns. Aripiprazole, olanzapine, and risperidone negatively affect motor function and are not recommended for PDP. Quetiapine is often sedating, can exacerbate underlying neurogenic orthostatic hypotension, and may prolong the QTc interval. Pimavanserin was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2016 and remains the only FDA-approved medication available to treat hallucinations and delusions associated with PDP. However, pimavanserin can increase QTc interval by approximately 5-8 ms. The potential for QTc prolongation should be considered in patients with symptomatic cardiac arrhythmias and those receiving QT-prolonging medications. In choosing a medication to treat PDP, expected efficacy must be balanced with potential safety concerns for individual patients.

Safety and effectiveness of olanzapine and droperidol for chemical restraint for non-consenting adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chemical restraint (CR) is emergency drug management for acute behavioural disturbances in people with mental illness, provided with the aim of rapid calming and de-escalating potentially dangerous situations.

AIMS

To describe a systematic review of Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) reporting on short-term safety and effectiveness of drugs used for CR, administered to non-consenting adults with mental health conditions, who require emergency management of acute behavioural disturbances. A meta-analysis was conducted of those RCTs with comparable interventions, outcome measures and measurement timeframes.

METHOD

Academic databases were searched for RCTs published between 1 January 1996 and 20th April 2020. Relevant RCTs were critically appraised using the 13-item JBI checklist. All RCTs were described, and step-wise filters were applied to identify studies suitable for meta-analysis. For these, forest and funnel plots were constructed, and Q and I² statistics guided interpretation of pooled findings, tested using MedCalc Version 19.1.

RESULTS

Of 23 relevant RCTs, 18 (78.2% total) had excellent methodological quality scores (at least 90%). Eight RCTs were potentially relevant for meta-analysis (six of excellent quality), reporting 20 drug arms in total. Adverse events for 6-36% patients were reported in all 20 drug arms. Four drug arms from two homogenous studies of N = 697 people were meta-analysed. These RCTs tested two antipsychotic drugs (droperidol, olanzapine) delivered intravenously in either 5 mgs or 10 mg doses, with outcomes of time to calm, percentage calm within five or 10 min, and adverse events. There were no significant differences between drug arms for either measure of calm. However, 5 mg olanzapine incurred significantly lower risk of adverse events than 10 mg olanzapine (OR 0.4 (95%CI 0.2-0.8)), although no dose differences were found for droperidol.

CONCLUSION

5 mg intravenous olanzapine is recommended for quick, safe emergency management of people with acute behavioural disturbances associated with mental illness.

How to treat mania

OBJECTIVE

In this paper, we aimed at reviewing evidence-based treatment options for bipolar mania and proposed tentative evidence-based clinical suggestions regarding the management of a manic episode, especially regarding the choice of the proper mood stabilizer and antipsychotic medication.

METHOD

A narrative review was undertaken addressing 'treatment of bipolar mania'. Findings have been synthesized and incorporated with clinical experience into a model to support different treatment choices.

RESULTS

To date, there is solid evidence supporting the use of several medications, such as lithium, divalproex, and carbamazepine, and antipsychotics, such as chlorpromazine, haloperidol, risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, aripiprazole, inhaled loxapine, asenapine, and cariprazine in acute mania, and some evidence supporting the use of clozapine or electroconvulsive therapy in treatment-refractory cases. However, in clinical practice, when making decisions about treatment, personalized treatment is needed, according to the different clinical presentations and more complex clinical situations within the manic episode and considering a long-term view and with the objective of not only a symptomatic but also functional recovery. After remission from acute mania, psychoeducation strategies are useful to ensure adherence.

DISCUSSION

Despite the evidence forefficacy of many currently available treatments for mania, the majority of RCTs provide little direction for the clinician as to what steps might be optimal in different presentations of mania as well as in the presence of specific patient characteristics. Manic episodes should be managed on a personalized basis considering the clinical course and patient criteria and with the expectation of maintaining that treatment in the long-term.

Use of olanzapine to treat agitation in traumatic brain injury: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Agitation is common in the early stages of recovery from traumatic brain injury (TBI), when patients are in post-traumatic amnesia (PTA). Agitation is associated with risk of harm to patients and caregivers. Recent guidelines recommend that agitation during PTA is managed using environmental modifications. Agitation is also frequently treated pharmacologically, with the use of atypical antipsychotics such as olanzapine among the most common. This is despite a lack of well-designed studies to support the use of antipsychotics within this context. This study will be a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial. We will examine the efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness and outcomes associated with the use of olanzapine for reducing agitation in patients in PTA following TBI over and above recommended environmental management.

Methods

Fifty-eight TBI rehabilitation inpatients who are in PTA and are agitated will receive olanzapine or placebo for the duration of PTA. All participants will additionally receive optimal environmental management for agitation. Measures of agitation, PTA and health will be undertaken at baseline. Treatment administration will begin at a dose of 5 mg daily and may be escalated to a maximum dose of 20 mg per day. Throughout the treatment period, agitation and PTA will be measured daily, and adverse events monitored weekly. Efficacy will be assessed by treatment group comparison of average Agitated Behaviour Scale scores during PTA. Participants will cease treatment upon emergence from PTA. Agitation levels will continue to be monitored for a further 2 weeks, post-treatment measures of health will be undertaken and cognitive and functional status will be assessed. Level of agitation and functional health will be assessed at hospital discharge. At 3 months post-discharge, functional outcomes and health service utilisation will be measured.

Discussion

This trial will provide crucial evidence to inform the management of agitation in patients in PTA following TBI. It will provide guidance as to whether olanzapine reduces agitation over and above recommended environmental management or conversely whether it increases or prolongs agitation and PTA, increases length of inpatient hospitalisation and impacts longer term cognitive and functional outcomes. It will also speak to the safety and cost-effectiveness of olanzapine use in this population.

Trial registration

ANZCTR ACTRN12619000284167. Registered on 25 February 2019

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.

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.

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.

Study Enrollment When "Preconsent" Is Utilized for a Randomized Clinical Trial of Two Treatments for Acute Agitation in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Acute agitation in the emergency department (ED) represents a danger to both patients and their caregivers. Medication is often needed, and few high-quality randomized trials have evaluated the optimal drugs for this vulnerable population. In the United States, as of 2017, randomized trials of drugs typically cannot be conducted under Waiver of Consent (46 CFR 45.116), and Exception From Informed Consent trials (21 CFR 50.24) are limited to life-threatening conditions, are onerous, and require filing an investigational new drug application with the FDA. We sought to conduct a randomized double-dummy trial of inhaled loxapine versus intramuscular haloperidol + lorazepam for acute agitation in the ED by obtaining consent in advance ("preconsent") in patients at risk of future agitation, allowing study drug administration up to 3 years later if the patient presented with acute agitation.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to report the successful enrollment rate of patients preconsented at an earlier ED visit for this trial.

METHODS

This was an analysis of patients age 18 to 64 with bipolar I disorder or schizophrenia preconsented for enrollment in the trial (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02877108) conducted at a single urban academic center seeing approximately 60,000 patients per year. Eligible patients were assessed for capacity to consent by trained research associates, and informed consent was obtained at an ED visit for the possibility of administering drugs for agitation within the next 3 years. In the event the patient later presented to the ED and the attending physician deemed the patient required treatment for acute agitation, preconsent was confirmed and study drug would be administered.

RESULTS

Over 67 days, 1,461 patients were screened in the ED, 269 had bipolar I or schizophrenia, 194 of whom had a contraindication to inhaled loxapine leaving 75 eligible patients; preconsent was obtained in 43 patients. Four additional patients who had not preconsented were consented for the trial in real time (three by surrogate, one patient had capacity while agitated) resulting in a total of 47 consented patients. Of these 47, a total of 12 were later removed from the study: 10 patients had unrecognized exclusion criteria for inhaled loxapine, one preconsented patient contacted the investigators at a later date and asked to be removed, and one surrogate revoked consent immediately after providing it. Only two patients were successfully enrolled, neither by preconsent: one was enrolled via a surrogate the day of enrollment, and the other was mildly agitated and had capacity to consent. The remaining patient with a valid surrogate consent did not receive study medication.

CONCLUSIONS

Utilization of preconsent to enroll patients in a randomized trial of treatments for acute agitation in the ED requires substantial resources and may not be feasible.

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.

The pharmacological management of agitated and aggressive behaviour: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction:

Non-pharmacological interventions preferably precede pharmacological interventions in acute agitation. Reviews of pharmacological interventions remain descriptive or compare only one compound with several other compounds. The goal of this study is to compute a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect on restoring calmness after a pharmacological intervention, so a more precise recommendation is possible.

Method:

A search in Pubmed and Embase was done to isolate RCT’s considering pharmacological interventions in acute agitation. The outcome is reaching calmness within maximum of 2 h, assessed by the psychometric scales of PANSS-EC, CGI or ACES. Also the percentages of adverse effects was assessed.

Results:

Fifty-three papers were included for a systematic review and meta-analysis. Most frequent studied drug is olanzapine. Changes on PANNS-EC and ACES at 2 h showed the strongest changes for haloperidol plus promethazine, risperidon, olanzapine, droperidol and aripiprazole. However, incomplete data showed that the effect of risperidon is overestimated. Adverse effects are most prominent for haloperidol and haloperidol plus lorazepam.

Conclusion:

Olanzapine, haloperidol plus promethazine or droperidol are most effective and safe for use as rapid tranquilisation. Midazolam sedates most quickly. But due to increased saturation problems, midazolam is restricted to use within an emergency department of a general hospital.

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.

A prospective naturalistic multicenter study on choice of parenteral medication in psychiatric emergency settings in Japan

Aim

To provide information about psychiatric emergency situations in Japan, we examined psychiatrists’ preference among parenteral medication since intramuscular (IM)‐olanzapine became available and clinical characteristics in patients given IM‐olanzapine compared to those given other parenteral medication.

Methods

We conducted a naturalistic study proceeding over a 1‐year period in 9 psychiatric emergency departments.

Results

Among 197 patients, the distribution of IM‐injections (n = 89) was as follows: IM‐olanzapine, 66 patients (74.2%), IM‐levomepromazine, 17 patients (19.1%), IM‐haloperidol, 5 patients (5.6%), and IM‐diazepam, 1 patient (1.1%). The distribution of intravenous (IV)‐injections (n = 108) was as follows: IV‐haloperidol, 78 patients (72.2%), and IV‐benzodiazepines (diazepam, flunitrazepam, or midazolam), 30 patients (27.8%). Advantages of IM‐olanzapine over other parenteral medications in efficacy were found as follows: less frequent needs of an additional injection despite no difference in duration until a patient became cooperative for oral administration, and less frequent needs of restraint after the injection. Furthermore, advantages of IM‐olanzapine over other injections in safety were found as follows: less frequent appearance of extrapyramidal symptoms, no occurrence of ECG abnormality and other serious adverse events except a fall, less frequent needs of an adjunctive anticholinergic drug, and less frequent needs of another kind of drug additionally injected.

Conclusions

Olanzapine has rapidly become the first choice of intramuscular medication in psychiatric emergency situations since it became available in Japan, probably due to the advantages in both efficacy and safety. This study reflecting psychiatric emergency practice in Japan may contribute to periodic international comparison of psychiatric emergency practice.

Effects of atypical antipsychotic drugs on QT interval in patients with mental disorders

Background

Drug-induced QT prolongation is associated with higher risk of cardiac arrhythmias and cardiovascular mortality. We investigated the effects of atypical antipsychotic drugs on QT interval in children and adults with mental disorders.

Methods

We conducted random-effects direct frequentist meta-analyses of aggregate data from randomized controlled trials (RCT) and appraised the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Our search in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov, and PharmaPendium up to October 2017 identified studies that examined aripiprazole, quetiapine, risperidone, olanzapine, ziprasidone and brexpiprazole.

Results

Low quality evidence suggests that aripiprazole (four meta-analyses and twelve RCTs), brexpiprazole (one systematic review and four RCTs) or olanzapine (five meta-analyses and twenty RCTs) do not increase QT interval. Low quality evidence suggests that ziprasidone (five meta-analyses and 11 RCTs) increases QT interval and the rates of QT prolongation while risperidone (four meta-analyses, 70 RCTs) and quetiapine (two meta-analyses and seven RCTs) are associated with QT prolongation and greater odds of torsades de pointes ventricular tachycardia especially in cases of drug overdose.

Conclusions

The main conclusion of our study is that in people with mental disorders and under treatment with atypical antipsychotic drugs, in order to avoid QT prolongation and reduce the risk of ventricular tachycardia clinicians may recommend aripiprazole, brexpiprazole or olanzapine in licensed doses. Long-term comparative safety needs to be established.

Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) 2018 guidelines for the management of patients with bipolar disorder

The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) previously published treatment guidelines for bipolar disorder in 2005, along with international commentaries and subsequent updates in 2007, 2009, and 2013. The last two updates were published in collaboration with the International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD). These 2018 CANMAT and ISBD Bipolar Treatment Guidelines represent the significant advances in the field since the last full edition was published in 2005, including updates to diagnosis and management as well as new research into pharmacological and psychological treatments. These advances have been translated into clear and easy to use recommendations for first, second, and third- line treatments, with consideration given to levels of evidence for efficacy, clinical support based on experience, and consensus ratings of safety, tolerability, and treatment-emergent switch risk. New to these guidelines, hierarchical rankings were created for first and second- line treatments recommended for acute mania, acute depression, and maintenance treatment in bipolar I disorder. Created by considering the impact of each treatment across all phases of illness, this hierarchy will further assist clinicians in making evidence-based treatment decisions. Lithium, quetiapine, divalproex, asenapine, aripiprazole, paliperidone, risperidone, and cariprazine alone or in combination are recommended as first-line treatments for acute mania. First-line options for bipolar I depression include quetiapine, lurasidone plus lithium or divalproex, lithium, lamotrigine, lurasidone, or adjunctive lamotrigine. While medications that have been shown to be effective for the acute phase should generally be continued for the maintenance phase in bipolar I disorder, there are some exceptions (such as with antidepressants); and available data suggest that lithium, quetiapine, divalproex, lamotrigine, asenapine, and aripiprazole monotherapy or combination treatments should be considered first-line for those initiating or switching treatment during the maintenance phase. In addition to addressing issues in bipolar I disorder, these guidelines also provide an overview of, and recommendations for, clinical management of bipolar II disorder, as well as advice on specific populations, such as women at various stages of the reproductive cycle, children and adolescents, and older adults. There are also discussions on the impact of specific psychiatric and medical comorbidities such as substance use, anxiety, and metabolic disorders. Finally, an overview of issues related to safety and monitoring is provided. The CANMAT and ISBD groups hope that these guidelines become a valuable tool for practitioners across the globe.

Safety and effectiveness of rapid-acting intra-muscular olanzapine for agitation associated with schizophrenia - Japan postmarketing surveillance study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of rapid-acting intramuscular (IM) olanzapine in the treatment of acute agitation associated with schizophrenia in real-world clinical settings in Japan.

METHODS

In this multicenter, postmarketing surveillance (PMS) study, patients with acute agitation associated with schizophrenia were treated with IM olanzapine daily in a daily clinical setting. The observational period ranged from 1 to 7 days, including the day of initial administration. Safety was assessed by reporting treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - Excited Component (PANSS-EC) score was used to evaluate effectiveness at baseline and at 2 hours (after each administration), 2 days, and 3 days (end of the observational period) from the last administration of the IM olanzapine injection.

RESULTS

The safety analysis set included 999 patients, and the initial dose of 10 mg was administered to 955 patients. TEAEs were reported in 28 patients (36 events), the most common of which were dyslalia (5 patients), akathisia and somno lence (4 patients each), hepatic function abnormal (3 patients), and constipation and dehydration (2 patients each). One serious adverse event of akathisia occurred during the observation period. The PANSS-EC score (mean ± standard deviation) was 23.3±6.4 (n=625) at baseline, 16.9±7.0 (n=522) at 2 hours after initial injection, and 14.9±6.5 (n=650) at the last observation carried forward.

CONCLUSION

The results of this Japanese PMS study demonstrated that IM olanzapine is safe and has a favorable effectiveness profile in the treatment of schizophrenia patients with acute agitation.

Effectiveness and safety of oral olanzapine treatment transitioned from rapid-acting intramuscular olanzapine for agitation associated with schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral olanzapine treatment transitioned from rapid-acting intramuscular olanzapine (RAIM) in patients with acute agitation associated with schizophrenia in a real-world clinical setting.

METHODS

The postmarketing surveillance study with a 3-day observational period after the last RAIM administration was conducted (original study). Following this, an extended study was added for patients who received oral olanzapine after RAIM administration during the original study period, in order to additionally observe them for 7 days after initial RAIM administration. Effectiveness and safety from initial RAIM administration were evaluated using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component score and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), respectively.

RESULTS

The effectiveness and safety analysis set included a total of 521 and 522 patients, respectively. A majority of patients received 10 mg of RAIM (475/522 patients, 91.0%). The mean ± SD total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component score was 23.6±6.2 (n=318) at baseline (before initial RAIM administration), 17.4±6.8 (n=280) at 2 hours after initial administration, 16.2±6.8 (n=246) 2 days after final administration, 14.9±6.2 (n=248) 3 days after final administration, 13.8±5.9 (n=242) 4 days after final administration, 13.2±5.8 (n=221) 7 days after initial administration, and 13.4±6.2 (n=351) at final observation (with the last observation carried forward approach), showing that reduction in agitation seen with RAIM was sustained with oral dose of olanzapine. The most common TEAEs were dyslalia and somnolence (each event occurred in four patients), and abnormal hepatic function and constipation (occurred in three patients). One serious adverse event of sudden cardiac death occurred after transitioned to oral olanzapine with many other antipsychotic drugs.

CONCLUSION

In the treatment of acute agitation associated with schizophrenia, RAIM could be generally transitioned to oral olanzapine without exacerbating adverse events or losing treatment effect.

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.

A randomized trial of aripiprazole vs blonanserin for the treatment of acute schizophrenia and related disorders

OBJECTIVE

There has been no direct comparison of aripiprazole and blonanserin for schizophrenia treatment. We conducted a 24-week, rater-masked, randomized trial of aripiprazole (6-30 mg/d) vs blonanserin (4-24 mg/d) in schizophrenia patients who were not taking any antipsychotic medication for more than 2 weeks before enrollment (UMIN000011194).

METHODS

The primary outcome measure for efficacy was improvement of Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at week 24. Secondary outcomes were PANSS subscale scores, 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-21) score, response rate, discontinuation rate, and individual adverse events.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients were recruited. The discontinuation rate was 86.4% in the aripiprazole group and 68.2% in the blonanserin treatment group. There was no significant difference in mean time to discontinuation between the groups. Although both treatment groups showed significant reductions in the PANSS total score, PANSS subscale scores, and HAMD-21 scores at week 24, the magnitudes of the changes did not differ between the groups. There were no significant differences in the incidences of adverse events including somnolence, extrapyramidal symptoms, prolactin-related adverse events, and weight change between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest similar efficacy and safety profiles of aripiprazole and blonanserin in the patients with schizophrenia. Double-blind controlled studies are needed to further explore the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole and blonanserin in schizophrenia.