Haloperidol, lorazepam, or both for psychotic agitation? A multicenter, prospective, double-blind, emergency department study

Management of the Agitated Patient

The acutely agitated patient should be managed in a step-wise fashion, beginning with non-coercive de-escalation strategies and moving on to pharmacologic interventions and physical restraints as necessary. Face-to-face examination, monitoring, and documentation by the physician are essential. The emergency physician should be familiar with multiple pharmaceutical options, tailored to the individual patient. Use of ketamine, benzodiazepines and antipsychotics should be considered. Patient autonomy, safety, and medical well-being are paramount.

Use of a Novel Standardized Administration Protocol Reduces Agitation Pro Re Nata (PRN) Medication Requirements: The Birmingham Agitation Management (BAM) Initiative

BACKGROUND

Agitation management is a principal challenge on inpatient psychiatric units. Overreliance on common prescribing strategies of pro re nata (PRN) medication administration is problematic, given the tendencies to have overlapping or unclear indications.

OBJECTIVE

Piloted project to determine whether a standardized protocol for agitation intervention may reduce PRN medication administration.

METHODS

The Birmingham Agitation Management (BAM) interdisciplinary team uniquely connected the Brøset Violence Checklist (BVC) for assessment of agitation severity to a standardized PRN medication order set. Nurses on the piloted unit were trained on how to score the BVC and administer medications. Patients were assessed by the BVC every 4 hours and, based on their score, would receive no medication, low-dose benzodiazepine, high-dose benzodiazepine, or high-dose benzodiazepine plus antipsychotic. The primary end point compared the number of PRNs administered after novel protocol implementation with a retrospective cohort. Secondary measures included analysis of medication-related effects, seclusion, and physical restraint rates.

RESULTS

377 patients were included in the final analyses (184 pre-BAM, 193 BAM intervention group). No significant differences were seen in patient characteristics between groups. The total number of PRNs administered decreased by 42.5%, with both the mean and median number of administrations decreasing significantly (95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.68-5.75]; P < 0.001). A trend was noted between the number of PRNs administered and seclusion rates, but did not reach statistical significance (95% CI = [-7.28 to 60.31]; P = 0.124).

CONCLUSIONS

In seemingly the first initiative of its kind, we found that a standardized agitation management protocol can help decrease the total number of PRN administrations for agitation without worsening of restraint rates and may possibly reduce the risk of adverse effects. These results require validation in specific, larger populations.

Safety and effectiveness of benzodiazepines and antipsychotics for agitation in older adults in the emergency department

PURPOSE

To examine the safety and effectiveness of benzodiazepines (BZD) as compared to antipsychotics for the management of acute agitation in older adults in the emergency department (ED).

BASIC PROCEDURES

Retrospective observational cohort study of 21 EDs across four states in the US, including adults ≥60 years old who received either BZD or antipsychotics for acute agitation in the ED and subsequently were admitted to the hospital. Safety was measured as presence of adverse events: respiratory depression, cardiovascular effects, extrapyramidal side effects, or a fall during hospitalization. Effectiveness was measured as indicators of treatment failure: need for additional medication, one-to-one observation, or physical restraints following initial medication administration. Proportions and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were used to assess the association between potential risk factors and for efficacy and safety endpoints.

MAIN FINDINGS

A total of 684 patients were included (63.9% received a BZD and 36.1% an antipsychotic). There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events between groups (20.6% vs 14.6%, difference 6.0%, 95% CI -0.2% to 11.8%), but there was a higher intubation rate in the BZD group (2.7% vs 0.4%, difference 2.3%). There were more treatment failures in the antipsychotic group for the composite primary efficacy endpoint (94.3% vs 87.6%, difference 6.7%, 95% CI 2.5% to 10.9%). This appears to have been driven by the need for 1:1 observation; sensitivity analysis excluding 1:1 observation in the composite outcome demonstrated no significant difference with a failure rate of 38.5% in the antipsychotic group and 35.2% in the benzodiazepine group.

PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS

Overall there are high rates of treatment failure among agitated older adults receiving pharmacological treatment for agitation in the emergency department. The optimal selection of pharmacological treatment for agitation in older adults should be made considering patient-specific factors that could increase the risk of adverse effects or treatment failure.

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.

Efficacy of Combination Haloperidol, Lorazepam, and Diphenhydramine vs. Combination Haloperidol and Lorazepam in the Treatment of Acute Agitation: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic and sedative combinations are commonly used for treating agitation in the emergency department despite limited evidence regarding their comparative safety and efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of combination haloperidol, lorazepam, and diphenhydramine (B52) to combination haloperidol and lorazepam (52) in treating acute agitation.

METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included adult patients ≥ 18 years of age who received either B52 or 52 at a Banner Health facility between August 2017 and September 2020. Patients were excluded if they had a pre-existing movement disorder or were withdrawing from alcohol. The primary outcome was administration of additional agitation medication(s) within 2 h of B52 or 52. Secondary outcomes included incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms, length of stay, and additional safety measures.

RESULTS

There was no difference in administration frequency of additional agitation medication(s) (B52: n = 28 [14%] vs. 52: n = 40 [20%]; p = 0.11). Patients who received 52 were more likely to require an antimuscarinic medication within 2 days (15 vs. 6 patients, p = 0.04). Of the patients who received an antimuscarinic medication, none had documented extrapyramidal symptoms. The 52 group had shorter length of stay (13.8 vs. 17 h; p = 0.03), lower incidence of hypotension (7 vs. 32 patients; p < 0.001), and oxygen desaturation (0 vs. 6 patients; p = 0.01), and fewer physical restraints (53 vs. 86 patients; p = 0.001) compared with the B52 group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the B52 and 52 combinations infrequently required repeat agitation medication; however, the B52 combination resulted in more oxygen desaturation, hypotension, physical restraint use, and longer length of stay.

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.

Randomized Double-blind Trial of Intramuscular Droperidol, Ziprasidone, and Lorazepam for Acute Undifferentiated Agitation in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

The optimal agent to treat acute agitation in the emergency department (ED) has not been determined. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of intramuscular droperidol, ziprasidone, and lorazepam for acute agitation in the ED.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind trial of ED patients with acute agitation requiring parenteral sedation. The study was conducted under exception from informed consent (21 CFR 50.24) from July 2004 to March 2005. Patients were randomized to receive 5 mg of droperidol, 10 mg of ziprasidone, 20 mg of ziprasidone, or 2 mg of lorazepam intramuscularly. We recorded Altered Mental Status Scale (AMSS) scores, nasal end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO₂ ), and pulse oximetry (SpO₂ ) at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 minutes as well as QTc durations and dysrhythmias. Respiratory depression was defined as a change in ETCO₂ consistent with respiratory depression or SpO₂  < 90%. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients adequately sedated (AMSS ≤ 0) at 15 minutes.

RESULTS

We enrolled 115 patients. Baseline AMSS scores were similar between groups. For the primary outcome, adequate sedation at 15 minutes, droperidol administration was effective in 16 of 25 (64%) patients, compared to seven of 28 (25%) for 10 mg of ziprasidone, 11 of 31 (35%) for 20 mg of ziprasidone, and nine of 31 (29%) for lorazepam. Pairwise comparisons revealed that droperidol was more effective that the other medications, with 39% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3% to 54%) more compared to 20 mg of ziprasidone and 33% (95% CI = 8% to 58%) more compared to lorazepam. There was no significant difference between groups in need of additional rescue sedation. Numerically, respiratory depression was lower with droperidol (3/25 [12%]) compared to 10 mg of ziprasidone (10/28 [36%]), 20 mg of ziprasidone (12/31 [39%]), or lorazepam (15/31 [48%]). One patient receiving 20 mg of ziprasidone required intubation to manage an acute subdural hematoma. No patients had ventricular dysrhythmias. QTc durations were similar in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Droperidol was more effective than lorazepam or either dose of ziprasidone for the treatment of acute agitation in the ED and caused fewer episodes of respiratory depression.

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.

Safety and efficacy of pharmacologic agents used for rapid tranquilization of emergency department patients with acute agitation or excited delirium

Introduction: Management of patients with acute agitation or aggressive behavior can pose a significant challenge to health-care providers in emergency departments. Areas covered: This article provides a comprehensive review of the pharmacologic properties, efficacy, and safety profiles of select intramuscular (IM) sedative agents (i.e., antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, and ketamine) for rapid tranquilization. Expert opinion: Using antipsychotics and benzodiazepines - whether a single agent or combined - will have similar efficacy in producing sedation. But there are differences in the time to sedation depending on which agent is used. Based upon the available studies, droperidol (5-10 mg IM) and midazolam (5-10 mg IM) have the fastest onset of sedation when either is used as a single agent. When combination therapy is used, using midazolam with an antipsychotic agent, instead of lorazepam, may result in faster sedative effect. QT prolongation and torsades de pointes are uncommon adverse drug effects of antipsychotic administration. Ketamine is often reserved as a second-line agent when antipsychotics and benzodiazepines fail to produce the desired tranquilization. However, ketamine (5 mg/kg IM) is more frequently associated with airway compromise requiring endotracheal intubation. A low-dose of ketamine (2 mg/kg IM) may reduce the risk of airway compromise while providing adequate sedation.

Treatment of Agitation With Lorazepam in Clinical Practice: A Systematic Review

Acute agitation is a frequent occurrence in both inpatient and outpatient psychiatric settings, and the use of medication to calm a patient may be warranted to mitigate the situation. Lorazepam is a benzodiazepine that is widely used for management of acute agitation. Despite its widespread use, there is remarkably little clinical evidence for the benefits of lorazepam in acute agitation. We performed a systematic review with focus on lorazepam, including all randomized clinical trials on lorazepam in mental and behavioral disorders, excluding studies on dementia and pediatric patients and in mixed conditions. A total of 11 studies met inclusion criteria, and all were in patients with mental and behavioral disorders. Most trials generally found improvements across a variety of outcomes related to agitation, although there was some disparity if specific outcomes were considered. In the five studies with haloperidol, the combination of lorazepam and haloperidol was superior to either agent alone, but with no differences between monotherapy with the individual agents. In the study comparing lorazepam to olanzapine, olanzapine was superior to lorazepam, and both were superior to placebo. As expected, the safety of lorazepam among the different studies was consistent with its well-characterized profile with dizziness, sedation, and somnolence being the most common adverse events. Based on this structured review, lorazepam can be considered to be a clinically effective means of treating the acutely agitated patient.

Intramuscular medication for treatment of agitation in the emergency department: A systematic review of controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Severely agitated patients in the emergency department (ED) are often sedated with intramuscularly-administered medications. The evidence base underlying particular medication choices is surprisingly sparse, as existing reviews either have methodological limitations or have included data collected outside of emergent settings.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to examine all controlled trials in emergent settings that have used standardized scales to measure the effectiveness of intramuscular medication for the treatment of acute agitation.

METHODS

This review was registered in Prospero as CRD42018105745. PubMed, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for prospective controlled trials investigating intramuscular antipsychotics for agitation. Articles were assessed for bias across five domains using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.

RESULTS

Eight studies were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review, none of which had a low risk of bias. Five studies had a moderate risk of bias with heterogenous designs, populations, and treatments. These studies seemed to suggest that second generation antipsychotics (SGAs) likely reduce agitation as effectively as first generation antipsychotics (FGAs) plus an adjunctive medication with similar or lower risk of side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing trials on the use of intramuscular antipsychotics in the ED/psychiatric ED setting were small, heterogenous, and at a moderate or high risk of bias. Given the clinical importance of this topic, further prospective investigations are desperately needed but are currently unfeasible under Food and Drug Administration Exception From Informed Consent regulations.

Improving the management of acutely agitated patients in the emergency department through implementation of Project BETA (Best Practices in the Evaluation and Treatment of Agitation)

Agitated patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) can escalate to aggressive and violent behaviors with the potential for injury to themselves, ED staff, and others. Agitation is a nonspecific symptom that may be caused by or result in a life-threatening condition. Project BETA (Best Practices in the Evaluation and Treatment of Agitation) is a compilation of the best evidence and consensus recommendations developed by emergency medicine and psychiatry experts in behavioral emergencies to improve our approach to the acutely agitated patient. These recommendations focus on verbal de-escalation as a first-line treatment for agitation; pharmacotherapy that treats the most likely etiology of the agitation; appropriate psychiatric evaluation and treatment of associated medical conditions; and minimization of physical restraint/seclusion. Implementation of Project BETA in the ED can improve our ability to manage a patient's agitation and reduce the number of physical assaults on ED staff. This article summarizes the BETA guidelines and recent supporting literature for managing the acutely agitated patient in the ED followed by a discussion of how a large county hospital integrated these recommendations into daily practice.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Rapid tranquilization: new approaches in the emergency treatment of behavioral disturbances

Psychiatric emergencies are often accompanied by behavioral disturbances that interfere with normal assessment and call for immediate intervention. Different pharmacological treatment regimens have been used for this purpose. Most of these regimens are based upon common clinical practice and have limited evidence base. Recently, a major publication by experts in the field of emergency psychiatry has covered this topic and the therapeutic armamentarium has been extended with the atypical antipsychotics. However, research is still hampered by different methodological limitations: unclear definition of the agitated state and therapeutic goal, idiosyncratic measurement, small sample sizes. The perspective of the patient and the interaction between the emergency care setting and treatment regimen also need further attention. All these important, but often neglected issues are covered in a selective review of the literature.

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.

Association of Delirium Response and Safety of Pharmacological Interventions for the Management and Prevention of Delirium: A Network Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Although several pharmacological interventions for delirium have been investigated, their overall benefit and safety remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate evidence regarding pharmacological interventions for delirium treatment and prevention.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, ClinicalKey, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to May 17, 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) examining pharmacological interventions for delirium treatment and prevention.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

To extract data according to a predetermined list of interests, the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines were applied, and all meta-analytic procedures were conducted using a random-effects model.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were treatment response in patients with delirium and the incidence of delirium in patients at risk of delirium.

RESULTS

A total of 58 RCTs were included, in which 20 RCTs with 1435 participants (mean age, 63.5 years; 65.1% male) compared the outcomes of treatment and 38 RCTs with 8168 participants (mean age, 70.2 years; 53.4% male) examined the prevention of delirium. A network meta-analysis demonstrated that haloperidol plus lorazepam provided the best response rate for delirium treatment (odds ratio [OR], 28.13; 95% CI, 2.38-333.08) compared with placebo/control. For delirium prevention, the ramelteon, olanzapine, risperidone, and dexmedetomidine hydrochloride groups had significantly lower delirium occurrence rates than placebo/control (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.66 for ramelteon; OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.09-0.69 for olanzapine; OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.07-0.99 for risperidone; and OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31-0.80 for dexmedetomidine hydrochloride). None of the pharmacological treatments were significantly associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality compared with placebo/control.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This network meta-analysis demonstrated that haloperidol plus lorazepam might be the best treatment and ramelteon the best preventive medicine for delirium. None of the pharmacological interventions for treatment or prophylaxis increased the all-cause mortality.

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.

Coadministration of intramuscular olanzapine and benzodiazepines in agitated patients with mental illness

Introduction:

Intramuscular antipsychotics are commonly used to manage agitated patients. In 2005, Eli Lilly placed a warning on olanzapine's prescribing information following post-marketing reports of fatal drug reactions when intramuscular olanzapine was used in the setting of benzodiazepines. Data is lacking examining this drug combination.

Methods:

A medication use evaluation was conducted at a county psychiatric hospital surveying the usage of concomitant intramuscular olanzapine and lorazepam from October 1, 2016, to July 20, 2017. A literature search was conducted to review available evidence.

Results:

Ninety-one instances of the drug combination were discovered, with no serious adverse events following administration. Of these 91 patients, 41 received both medications within 60 minutes of each other. No instances of hypotension, bradycardia, bradypnea, or oxygen desaturation occurred following administration. The literature review yielded 1 randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial, 3 retrospective chart reviews, and several case studies.

Discussion:

Data detailing a causal relationship between olanzapine/benzodiazepine combinations and serious adverse effects is lacking. Available evidence does not consistently support a strong cause and effect relationship. The results of this medication use evaluation are not consistent with the Food and Drug Administration warning. Further controlled research is needed to help define the actual risk of using concomitant intramuscular olanzapine and benzodiazepines.

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.

Approach to the Agitated Emergency Department Patient

BACKGROUND

Acute agitation is a common occurrence in the emergency department (ED) that requires rapid assessment and management.

OBJECTIVE

This review provides an evidence-based summary of the current ED evaluation and management of acute agitation.

DISCUSSION

Acute agitation is an increasingly common presentation to the ED and has a broad differential diagnosis including metabolic, neurologic, infectious, toxicologic, and psychiatric etiologies. Missed diagnosis of a dangerous etiology of the patient's agitation may result in severe morbidity and mortality. Assessment and management of the agitated patient should occur concurrently. Focused history and physical examination are recommended, though control of the patient's agitation may be required. All patients should receive a point-of-care glucose test, with additional testing depending upon the specific patient presentation. Initial management should involve verbal de-escalation techniques, followed by pharmacologic interventions, with physical restraints reserved as a last resort. Pharmacologic options include first-generation antipsychotics, second-generation antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, and ketamine. Finally, the management of pediatric, pregnant, and elderly patients warrants special consideration.

CONCLUSION

Acute agitation is an important presentation that requires prompt recognition and treatment. A focused and thorough examination coupled with appropriate management strategies can assist emergency clinicians to safely and effectively manage these patients.

Lorazepam prescription and monitoring in acute adult psychiatric wards

Aims and Method

This study examines prescription and monitoring of lorazepam on three acute adult psychiatric wards at a university teaching hospital. Retrospective data from 102 consecutive in-patients were analysed.

Results

There were 83 patients (81.4%) who were prescribed lorazepam, however 45 of these (46%) were never administered it. Indication for lorazepam prescription was documented by the doctor in 35 patients (42.2%). Administration by nursing staff was documented in the medical notes on 86 occasions (60.0%) and on 32 of these (37.0%) the indication was unclear. On 21 occasions (14.7%) more than 2 mg was given; 13.7% of prescriptions were not reviewed and 64% of those reviewed after more than 4 weeks.

Clinical Implications

Lorazepam was overprescribed and inadequately monitored, which may increase the risk of dependence.

Benzodiazepines for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation

BACKGROUND

Acute psychotic illness, especially when associated with agitated or violent behaviour, can require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. In several countries, clinicians often use benzodiazepines (either alone or in combination with antipsychotics) for this outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether benzodiazepines, alone or in combination with other pharmacological agents, is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation when compared with placebo, other pharmacological agents (alone or in combination) or non-pharmacological approaches.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (January 2012, 20 August 2015 and 3 August 2016), inspected reference lists of included and excluded studies, and contacted authors of relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing benzodiazepines alone or in combination with any antipsychotics, versus antipsychotics alone or in combination with any other antipsychotics, benzodiazepines or antihistamines, for people who were aggressive or agitated due to psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected studies, quality assessed them and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) between groups. If there was heterogeneity, this was explored using a random-effects model. We assessed risk of bias and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty trials including 695 participants are now included in the review. The trials compared benzodiazepines or benzodiazepines plus an antipsychotic with placebo, antipsychotics, antihistamines, or a combination of these. The quality of evidence for the main outcomes was low or very low due to very small sample size of included studies and serious risk of bias (randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding were not well conducted in the included trials, 30% of trials (six out of 20) were supported by pharmaceutical institutes). There was no clear effect for most outcomes.Benzodiazepines versus placeboOne trial compared benzodiazepines with placebo. There was no difference in the number of participants sedated at 24 hours (very low quality evidence). However, for the outcome of global state, clearly more people receiving placebo showed no improvement in the medium term (one to 48 hours) (n = 102, 1 RCT, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.97, very low quality evidence). Benzodiazepines versus antipsychoticsWhen compared with haloperidol, there was no observed effect for benzodiazepines for sedation by 16 hours (n = 434, 8 RCTs, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.54, low quality evidence). There was no difference in the number of participants who had not improved in the medium term (n = 188, 5 RCTs, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.11, low quality evidence). However, one small study found fewer participants improved when receiving benzodiazepines compared with olanzapine (n = 150, 1 RCT, RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.18, very low quality evidence). People receiving benzodiazepines were less likely to experience extrapyramidal effects in the medium term compared to people receiving haloperidol (n = 233, 6 RCTs, RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.41, low quality evidence).Benzodiazepines versus combined antipsychotics/antihistaminesWhen benzodiazepine was compared with combined antipsychotics/antihistamines (haloperidol plus promethazine), there was a higher risk of no improvement in people receiving benzodiazepines in the medium term (n = 200, 1 RCT, RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.05, low quality evidence). However, for sedation, the results were controversial between two groups: lorazepam may lead to lower risk of sedation than combined antipsychotics/antihistamines (n = 200, 1 RCT, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.98, low quality evidence); while, midazolam may lead to higher risk of sedation than combined antipsychotics/antihistamines (n = 200, 1 RCT, RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.23, low quality evidence).Other combinationsData comparing benzodiazepines plus antipsychotics versus benzodiazepines alone did not yield any results with clear differences; all were very low quality evidence. When comparing combined benzodiazepines/antipsychotics (all studies compared haloperidol) with the same antipsychotics alone (haloperidol), there was no difference between groups in improvement in the medium term (n = 185, 4 RCTs, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.46, low quality evidence), but sedation was more likely in people who received the combination therapy (n = 172, 3 RCTs, RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.67,very low quality evidence). Only one study compared combined benzodiazepine/antipsychotics with antipsychotics; however, this study did not report our primary outcomes. One small study compared combined benzodiazepines/antipsychotics with combined antihistamines/antipsychotics. Results showed a higher risk of no clinical improvement (n = 60, 1 RCT, RR 25.00, 95% CI 1.55 to 403.99, very low quality evidence) and sedation status (n = 60, 1 RCT, RR 12.00, 95% CI 1.66 to 86.59, very low quality evidence) in the combined benzodiazepines/antipsychotics group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from RCTs for the use of benzodiazepines alone is not good. There were relatively few good data. Most trials were too small to highlight differences in either positive or negative effects. Adding a benzodiazepine to other drugs does not seem to confer clear advantage and has potential for adding unnecessary adverse effects. Sole use of older antipsychotics unaccompanied by anticholinergic drugs seems difficult to justify. Much more high-quality research is still needed in this area.

Rapid Tranquilization for Psychiatric Patients with Psychomotor Agitation: What is Known About it?

Rapid tranquilization is an intervention used in control of agitation or aggression in patients with mental disorders. This study synthesized the available evidence regarding efficacy and safety of drugs used for rapid tranquilization in psychiatric patients with psychomotor agitation. It is an overview study of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) identified in the database MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and LILACS until April 2015. A team of reviewers, in pairs and independently, identified eligible studies and assessed methodological quality using AMSTAR. Data were extracted from four studies (61 RCT, 8021 participants). The association of haloperidol with promethazine (H + P) promoted tranquilization and presented better safety profile, with moderate quality evidence. Olanzapine demonstrated benefit towards tranquilization and good safety profile, but needed additional administration to keep tranquilization. There was no benefit in the use of haloperidol alone or associated to another psychotropic to most outcomes evaluated. The evidence was of low quality to most of the interventions. H + P was considered a good option for rapid tranquilization, however, more RCT are necessary to confirm the efficacy and safety of the available interventions.

A Modern-Day Fight Club? The Stabilization and Management of Acutely Agitated Patients in the Emergency Department

This article is an overview of the treatment and management of acutely agitated patients as they present in the emergency department or emergency psychiatric facility. This article focuses on how a patient encounter may unfold and what issues need to be considered along the way. Verbal de-escalation is emphasized as a standard of care, including the offering of environmental changes and medications when indicated. Approved medications are reviewed as well as the proper use of restraints.

Violence in the Emergency Department: A Global Problem

Violence against health care workers is an unfortunately common event. Because of several inherent factors, emergency departments are particularly vulnerable. Once an incident occurs, it often goes unreported and leads to both physical and mental trauma. Health care workers should learn to recognize the cues that patients are escalating toward violence and be familiar with various options for sedating agitated patients. If sedation is not successful, physical restraint may become necessary. There are measures that can be taken that may help minimize the likelihood of violence toward health care workers. These measures include legislation, physical design, and increased security.

Pharmacological management of acute severe behavioural disturbance: a survey of current protocols

OBJECTIVES

The investigators reviewed protocols for the pharmacological management of acute severe behavioural disturbance (ASBD) used in Australasian psychiatric settings. Relevant literature was also examined, with a focus on Australian research.

METHODS

All Fellows of the RANZCP were emailed on two occasions in 2014 requesting a copy of the guidelines for pharmacological management of the ASBD patient used in their workplace. A literature search was also undertaken.

RESULTS

Thirty-six pharmacological management protocols for the ASBD patient were received. Twenty-six of these referred to patients aged 18-65 years and were selected for analysis. A number of recent publications provided new evidence in relation to the safe and effective management of patients with ASBD.

CONCLUSIONS

ASBD is a heterogeneous, transnosological set of presentations requiring careful assessment and rational clinical decision making. Treatment protocols arising from an evolving evidence base provide safe and effective pathways for the majority of patients. However, sound clinical knowledge and a careful assessment of each presentation is required to enable the clinician to tailor treatment individually.

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.

Intravenous midazolam-droperidol combination, droperidol or olanzapine monotherapy for methamphetamine-related acute agitation: subgroup analysis of a randomized controlled trial

AIM

To examine the efficacy and safety of (1) midazolam-droperidol versus droperidol and (2) midazolam-droperidol versus olanzapine for methamphetamine-related acute agitation.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A multi-centre, randomized, double-blind, controlled, clinical trial was conducted in two Australian emergency departments, between October 2014 and September 2015.

PARTICIPANTS

Three hundred and sixty-one patients, aged 18-65 years, requiring intravenous medication sedation for acute agitation, were enrolled into this study. We report the results of a subgroup of 92 methamphetamine-affected patients.

INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR

Patients were assigned randomly to receive either an intravenous bolus of midazolam 5 mg-droperidol 5 mg combined, droperidol 10 mg or olanzapine 10 mg. Two additional doses were administered, if required: midazolam 5 mg, droperidol 5 mg or olanzapine 5 mg, respectively.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients sedated adequately at 10 minutes. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (ORs, 95% CI) were estimated.

FINDINGS

The baseline characteristics of patients in the three groups were similar. At 10 minutes, significantly more patients in the midazolam-droperidol group [29 of 34 (85.3%)] were sedated adequately compared with the droperidol group [14 of 30 (46.7%), OR = 6.63, 95% CI = 2.02-21.78] or with the olanzapine group [14 of 28 (50.0%), OR 5.80, 95% CI = 1.74-19.33]. The number of patients who experienced an adverse event (AE) in the midazolam-droperidol, droperidol and olanzapine groups was seven of 34, two of 30 and six of 28, respectively. The most common AE was oxygen desaturation.

CONCLUSION

A midazolam-droperidol combination appears to provide more rapid sedation of patients with methamphetamine-related acute agitation than droperidol or olanzapine alone.

Chemical agents for the sedation of agitated patients in the ED: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Chemical agents commonly used to sedate agitated patients in the emergency department include benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, or a combination of the 2 classes. Our objective was to determine if a class or combination therapy is (1) more effective, as measured by the proportion sedated at 15-20 minutes and the need for repeat sedation, and (2) safer, as measured by the proportion of reported adverse events.

METHODS

Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of studies comparing 2 or more chemical agents for sedation of agitated patients in the emergency department were carried out in PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane database. Meta-analyses for pairwise comparisons of drug class (benzodiazepine, antipsychotic, or combination) were carried out for each outcome: proportion sedated, need for repeat sedation, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Seven studies with 1135 patients were included. At 15-20 minutes, the proportion of patients sedated was greater with combination therapy than benzodiazepines alone (risk ratio [RR] = 1.31, P < .0001). Antipsychotics and combination agents required significantly less repeat sedations than benzodiazepines alone (RR = 0.49, P < .0001 and RR = 0.64, P = .002). There was significant heterogeneity in adverse event data, with respiratory system adverse events (desaturation, and need for airway and ventilatory support) being the most commonly reported. Benzodiazepines were associated with a higher incidence of adverse events than antipsychotics or combination therapy.

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy sedated a greater proportion of patients at 15-20 minutes than benzodiazepines alone. Antipsychotics and combination therapy were more effective, requiring less repeat doses for sedation than benzodiazepines. The risk of any adverse event was higher with benzodiazepines.

[Pharmacotherapy of psychiatric acute and emergency situations: General principles]

The pharmacotherapy of psychiatric emergencies is essentially determined by the acuteness, the scene of the emergency, the diagnostic assessment and the special pharmacological profile of the drug used. As there are no specific drugs, syndromic treatment is carried out. For this, primarily antipsychotic drugs and benzodiazepines are available. This article gives an overview of the current state of treatment options for major psychiatric emergency syndromes, namely agitation, delirium, stupor and catatonia, anxiety and panic, as well as drug-induced emergencies.

Assessment and management of agitation in psychiatry: Expert consensus

BACKGROUND

Psychomotor agitation is associated with different psychiatric conditions and represents an important issue in psychiatry. Current recommendations on agitation in psychiatry are not univocal. Actually, an improper assessment and management may result in unnecessary coercive or sedative treatments. A thorough and balanced review plus an expert consensus can guide assessment and treatment decisions.

METHODS

An expert task force iteratively developed consensus using the Delphi method. Initial survey items were based on systematic review of the literature. Subsequent surveys included new, re-worded or re-rated items.

RESULTS

Out of 2175 papers assessing psychomotor agitation, 124 were included in the review. Each component was assigned a level of evidence. Integrating the evidence and the experience of the task force members, a consensus was reached on 22 statements on this topic.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations on the assessment of agitation emphasise the importance of identifying any possible medical cause. For its management, experts agreed in considering verbal de-escalation and environmental modification techniques as first choice, considering physical restraint as a last resort strategy. Regarding pharmacological treatment, the "ideal" medication should calm without over-sedate. Generally, oral or inhaled formulations should be preferred over i.m. routes in mildly agitated patients. Intravenous treatments should be avoided.

Inhaled loxapine and intramuscular lorazepam in healthy volunteers: a randomized placebo-controlled drug-drug interaction study

Pharmacodynamic effects and safety of single‐dose inhaled loxapine administered via the Staccato^® system and intramuscular (IM) lorazepam in combination versus each agent alone were compared in a randomized, double‐blind, crossover study in healthy volunteers. Subjects received: inhaled loxapine 10 mg + IM lorazepam 1 mg; inhaled loxapine 10 mg + IM placebo; IM lorazepam 1 mg + Staccato placebo in random order, each separated by a 3‐day washout. Primary endpoints were maximum effect (minimum value) and area under the curve (AUC) from baseline to 2 h post treatment for respirations/min and pulse oximetry. Least‐squares means (90% confidence interval [CI]) for concomitant treatment versus each agent alone were derived and equivalence (no difference) confirmed if the 90% CI was within 0.8–1.25. Blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), sedation (100‐mm visual analog scale), and adverse events (AEs) were recorded. All 18 subjects (mean age, 20.4 years; 61% male) completed the study. There was no difference between inhaled loxapine + IM lorazepam and either agent alone on respiration or pulse oximetery during the 12‐h postdose period, confirmed by 90% CIs for AUC and C_min ratios. BP and HR were no different for inhaled loxapine + IM lorazepam and each agent alone over a 12‐h postdose period. Although the central nervous system sedative effects were observed for each treatment in healthy volunteers, the effect was greater following concomitant lorazepam 1 mg IM + inhaled loxapine 10 mg administration. There were no deaths, serious AEs, premature discontinuations due to AEs, or treatment‐related AEs.