Intramuscular olanzapine versus intramuscular aripiprazole for the treatment of agitation in patients with schizophrenia: A pragmatic double-blind randomized trial

The safety and efficacy of sequential intramuscular/oral ziprasidone treatment of acute episode in patients with schizophrenia: a multicenter, open-labeled study

BACKGROUND

Ziprasidone mesylate injection is an atypical antipsychotic drug which is recently approved in China. In combination with its oral formulation, sequential therapy with ziprasidone brings new interventions to patients with agitation in the acute phase of schizophrenia. The purpose of this 7-day multicenter study conducted in China was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ziprasidone sequential treatment through intramuscular/oral routes in agitated patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS

A total of 95 patients were enrolled from three centers in this study. The study duration was 7 days. In the first 3 days, subjects were administered an intramuscular injection of ziprasidone 10-40 mg daily and started sequentially with oral ziprasidone 40-80 mg at dinner (or lunch) from the day of the last intramuscular injection. In the following 4 days, according to the severity of the symptoms and the drug response, 120-160 mg of ziprasidone was orally administered daily. In total, six visits were scheduled to assess the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Behavioral Activity Rating Scale (BARS), the Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S), and Improvement (CGI-I) scores throughout the procedure. Lastly, adverse events were recorded during treatment.

RESULTS

Out of the 95 patients that were enrolled, 83 cases were effectively completed. Visits 3, 4, 6, PANSS, and PANSS-excited component (PANSS-EC) subscale points, and Visit 2-Visit 6 viewpoints, BARS scale points, and baseline scores denote a progressive downward trend (P < 0.001). In this study, 62 adverse events were reported. The most common adverse events were extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) (23 cases) and excessive sedation(10 cases), and 13 cases of prolonged QTc interval were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Ziprasidone IM demonstrated significant and rapid reduction in agitation, and sequential oral formulation keep stability and continuation of the treatment can further ensure efficacy. Ziprasidone sequential therapy may provide a new approach to acute agitation in schizophrenic patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Chinese Clinical Trials Registry; URL: https://www.chictr.org.cn : ChiCTR-OIC-16007970.

Short-acting intramuscular second-generation antipsychotic drugs for acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psychomotor agitation is a common condition in patients with psychotic disorders. One treatment possibility is intramuscular (IM) second-generation antipsychotics. Yet their efficacy in this formulation and for this aim is unclear. This network meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of short-acting IM second-generation antipsychotic drugs, haloperidol and placebo in patients with diagnosis of schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like disorders that present acute agitation.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, PubMed, BIOSIS, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP up to November 2018 and PubMed until March 2020. Study selection and outcome extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted to compare the different IM second-generation antipsychotics among themselves and with IM haloperidol and placebo. The primary outcome was the number of responders at 2 h after the first injection. Responders at 24 h were also analysed.

RESULTS

10 studies with 1964 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Ziprasidone, olanzapine, aripiprazole and haloperidol were more efficacious than placebo in calming patients at 2 h after administration. Furthermore, olanzapine was superior to aripiprazole. The results at 24 h confirmed the superiority of aripiprazole, olanzapine and haloperidol over placebo, while for ziprasidone no data were available.

CONCLUSIONS

All second-generation antipsychotics available as intramuscular medications were effective in reducing agitation in people with schizophrenia. Olanzapine was somewhat more efficacious than aripiprazole.

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.

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.

Rapid tranquillisation: the science and advice

‘Rapid tranquillisation’ refers to the use of medication to calm highly agitated individuals experiencing mental disorder who have not responded to non-pharmacological approaches. Commonly it is the initial stage in the treatment of severe and enduring illness. Using medication in this way requires particularly robust evidence of efficacy and the management of side-effects. This article attempts to integrate current understanding of the neurochemical mechanisms of underlying illness and drug actions with therapeutic interventions. It distinguishes arousal from agitation, and effects on sedation from tranquillisation. It reviews critically the practice of rapid tranquillisation in the light of new evidence, changes in the NICE guidelines and British National Formulary recommendations and a national audit (POMH-UK). Broader aspects of management, known as ‘restrictive practices’ (such as control and restraint and seclusion), psychological support of team members, incident reporting, risk assessment, monitoring and medico-legal aspects are not covered.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

•

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

None.

Trends in pharmacological emergency treatment of patients suffering from schizophrenia over a 16-year observation period

Patients suffering from schizophrenia are often treated in locked psychiatric units because of psychomotor agitation, hostility and aggressive behavior, or suicidality. Because of legal conditions, investigations on these acutely ill patients are difficult, and many studies do not represent 'real-life psychiatry'. This retrospective survey was conducted at the Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics of the Medical University, Innsbruck, Austria. Data were collected from the records of all adult inpatients suffering from a schizophrenia spectrum disorder according to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th ed. (ICD-10) (F2x) who had been admitted to a locked unit in 1997, 2002, 2007, and 2012. In addition to demographic data, diagnoses at the time of admission, length of stay at the locked unit, and psychopharmacological treatment (3 h before and following admission) were recorded. The mean length of stay at a locked unit decreased significantly from 11.8±4.43 days (mean±SD) in 1997 to 8.5±12.96 days (mean±SD) in 2012. The use of antipsychotics decreased nonsignificantly from 1997 to 2012. Despite an increasing use of second compared with first-generation antipsychotic drugs over the course of time, haloperidol was the most frequently used single compound in all investigated years except 2012. The majority of medications were administered orally. The use of benzodiazepines did not change substantially over the course of time. All in all, pharmacological emergency treatment of patients suffering from schizophrenia spectrum disorders in locked units was in line with current treatment guidelines, which recommend the use of second-generation antipsychotic drugs, monotherapy, oral application, and cautious dosing.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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.