A double-blind, randomized comparison of the efficacy and safety of intramuscular injections of olanzapine, lorazepam, or placebo in treating acutely agitated patients diagnosed with bipolar mania

Is intravenous valproate more efficacious than oral valproate for inpatients with bipolar I disorder with a manic or depressive episode and concomitant symptoms of opposite polarity?

INTRO

Valproic acid (VPA) is a commonly prescribed mood stabilizer, available in both oral (OS) and intravenous (IV) formulations. However, few studies have compared their safety and efficacy. This retrospective study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of and IV-VPA in patients with Bipolar Disorder.

METHODS

Fifty patients with Bipolar Disorder experiencing a manic or depressive episode, with concomitant symptoms of opposite polarity, admitted to our inpatient unit and treated with IV-VPA were included in a retrospective, single-centre, non-randomized, open-label, parallel-group comparative study. Fifty patients experiencing a manic or depressive episode, with concomitant symptoms of opposite polarity, treated with oral-VPA and selected among those who were admitted to the inpatient unit prior to the introduction of IV-VPA in our clinical practice, were included as the control group (matched based on age, gender and clinical scales score at baseline). The Clinical Global Impression (CGI), Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) scores were recorded at baseline, after 3 days of treatment and discharge from the inpatient unit. Patients were asked to respond on the basis of the symptoms present on the day the scale was administered. Response rate and the presence of adverse effects were also recorded.

RESULTS

Both patients treated with oral and IV-VPA demonstrated significant improvements in all psychometric scales (p < 0.001). However, the IV group exhibited superior efficacy, with significantly lower scores on the CGI, YMRS, MADRS and HAM-A scales on Day 3 and at discharge from the inpatient unit. The IV-VPA treatment showed higher response rates on all psychometric scales, and no adverse effects were reported in either group.

CONCLUSION

This retrospective study supports the use of IV-VPA as a more efficacious treatment option for patients with Bipolar Disorder, particularly in acute settings where rapid symptom improvement is crucial. Both oral and IV-VPA were found to be safe and well-tolerated.

Improving the pharmacotherapeutic treatment of agitation associated with bipolar disorder

INTRODUCTION

Agitation is commonly encountered in people with bipolar disorder, particularly when experiencing a manic episode. The number of approved pharmacological agents to manage acute episodes of agitation in this population is limited.

AREAS COVERED

A search was conducted using the US National Library of Medicine PubMed.gov resource for English-language papers of clinical trials and reviews/meta-analyses, using the text words 'bipolar disorder' AND 'agitation,' as well as any papers with both two text words in the title, without any date restrictions.

EXPERT OPINION

Existing pharmacologic options approved by regulatory authorities for the treatment of acute episodes of agitation associated with bipolar disorder have similar degrees of efficacy but differ in their tolerability profiles and ease of use, giving clinicians an opportunity to individualize treatment. The goal is to treat mild-moderate agitation before it evolves into severe agitation, encouraging noninvasive pharmacologic treatment options. Inhaled loxapine and sublingual dexmedetomidine are newer options with rapid onset of action and may be preferable for patients willing to cooperate with treatment.

Lorazepam use during clinical trials of adults with bipolar mania episodes

Background

Lorazepam has commonly been prescribed to reduce agitation during bipolar 1 mania trials. Its use has varied considerably by trial methodology and in clinical practice.

Methods

The extent and amount of lorazepam treatment was recorded and analyzed from available brief, controlled trials of acute bipolar mania and in clinical reports in adults.

Results

In 3-week, placebo-controlled clinical trials (n = 19), most manic subjects (79%) were treated with lorazepam to reduce agitation. This treatment was most prominent during the antimanic drug wash-out phase that preceded placebo-controlled trials. Doses of lorazepam administered during the first 7-10 days of the pre-trial and the early trial phases averaged 2.2 mg/day. These doses were one-third the lorazepam/clonazepam doses administered during placebo-controlled, non-washout trials. Far higher benzodiazepine doses for manic agitation were noted in emergency department reports. Intake enrollment was strikingly restricted only in placebo-controlled trials that used pretrial drug wash-out.

Conclusions

Medication treatment conclusions from placebo-controlled, drug washout trials are not representative of clinical treatment for acute bipolar mania.

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.

Olanzapine intramuscular shows better efficacy than zuclopenthixol acetate intramuscular in reducing the need for restraint, but not in comparison to haloperidol intramuscular

Many psychotic patients are treated with antipsychotic medications during acute agitation and aggressive behavior episodes in an attempt to achieve a rapid calming effect. Those medications include olanzapine, zuclopenthixol acetate, and haloperidol intramuscular administration. This study compared the effectiveness of these injections in reducing the need for restraint during agitated-psychotic episodes that include aggression. Sociodemographical and clinical data were retrieved from the electronic medical records of 179 patients who needed rapid calming while hospitalized in a mental health center with acute psychosis. The treatments administered were olanzapine intramuscular, zuclopenthixol acetate intramuscular, and haloperidol intramuscular. The assessed outcomes were rate of restraint and violent behavior. Olanzapine was found significantly more effective in reducing the need for restraint compared to zuclopenthixol acetate. No significant differences were found between haloperidol and the other two with regard to restraint. Neither were other significant differences found between the groups with regard to violent or self-harming behaviors. No significant differences were found in the rate of violent behavior and antipsychotic dosage at discharge. In conclusion, in inpatients with acute agitated psychosis, olanzapine intramuscular shows better efficacy in reducing the need for restraint, at least as compared to zuclopenthixol acetate intramuscular.

Evaluation of intramuscular olanzapine and ziprasidone in the medically ill

Introduction

Despite the paucity of studies evaluating short-acting parenteral second-generation antipsychotics in the medically ill, their use in this population has increased. The purpose of this study was to characterize the use of IM olanzapine and ziprasidone in the medically ill at an academic medical center.

Methods

This is a retrospective medical record review of all patients who received IM olanzapine or ziprasidone on nonpsychiatric inpatient units at a large academic medical center from August 1, 2015 to July 31, 2017. The primary endpoint characterized the indication for use. Secondary endpoints included safety, effectiveness, and prescribing patterns.

Results

After exclusion criteria, a total of 100 patients were included in this study, predominantly white males with a mean age of 56 years. Seventy-four percent of patients received IM ziprasidone and 26% received IM olanzapine. The most common indications for use were agitation of nonpsychotic origin (40%) and delirium (33%). Patients received IM olanzapine and ziprasidone when their use was contraindicated (26.9% vs 9.5%, respectively).

Discussion

Intramuscular second-generation antipsychotics are increasingly being used in the medically ill for delirium and agitation. Our study confirms these were the most common indications for IM second-generation antipsychotic use in this population. Additionally, their use appeared to be well-tolerated, and no patient developed Torsades de Pointes even when combined with other agents that putatively increase QTc. Given the retrospective, single-center, nonrandomized design of this study, the safety and effectiveness of these parenteral second-generation antipsychotics in common causes of acute agitation should continue to be further evaluated.

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.

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.

A naturalistic multicenter study of intramuscular olanzapine in the treatment of acutely agitated manic or schizophrenic patients

Background

We conducted a naturalistic, multicenter, 24-hour, nonrandomized, observational study describing for the first time the effectiveness and safety of intramuscular (IM) olanzapine to control agitation and aggression in “real world” patients with psychosis. The data thus obtained was compared with that reported from randomized double-blind clinical trials.

Method

92 patients attending psychiatric emergency settings were enrolled. The study subjects were 44 male and 48 female patients with a mean age of 36.5 ± 12 years and DSM-IV-TR diagnoses of schizophrenia (48.9%), psychotic disorder not specified (23.9%) or bipolar disorder (27.2%). 10 mg IM olanzapine was administered to all patients. An optional second injection was permitted ≥ 2 hours later in line with hospital policy. Evaluations (PANSS-EC and CGI-S) were performed at baseline and 2 and 24 hours following the IM injection.

Results

Two hours after IM olanzapine was administered, a mean decrease of –9.6 in the PANSS-EC from a baseline score of 26.5 was recorded. At the 24-hour endpoint a statistically and clinically significant reduction in the PANSS-EC scores (11.6 ± 5.3) was observed as compared with values at study entry (26.5 ± 5.9) and at 2 hours endpoint (16.9 ± 9.3), which represent a mean decrease of –14.9 and –5.3, respectively.

Conclusion

The present naturalistic study provides naturalistic data on the effectiveness of IM olanzapine in the treatment of acute agitation in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar mania that is in line the data obtained in randomized double-blind clinical trials.

A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of second generation antipsychotics in the treatment of mania

Second generation antipsychotic agents are increasingly used in the management of acute mania. A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of these agents, as both monotherapy and in combination with mood stabilisers, was performed to establish the evidence for their use. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were critically appraised in more detail than studies that presented lower levels of evidence such as case reports, case series and open label follow up studies. We found 11 RCTs reporting on patients treated with second generation antipsychotics for acute bipolar mania, of which three included randomisation between the second generation antipsychotic and placebo, and eight between a mood stabiliser combined with either the second generation antipsychotic or placebo. Data from non-randomised trials is also presented.

A prospective, observational study of the safety and effectiveness of intramuscular psychotropic treatment in acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia and bipolar mania

This naturalistic, observational pan-European study assessed the safety and early effectiveness of intramuscular (IM) psychotropic treatments in patients with acute agitation suffering from schizophrenia or bipolar mania. One thousand nine hundred and forty of 1945 patients completed the 24-hour observation period after initial IM treatment. Patients from 12 European countries were included (mean age 39 years; 58% male, 66% schizophrenia). IM treatment was at the physician's discretion. The primary objective was to describe the acute tolerability of IM psychotropic therapies in clinical practice, with particular emphasis on EPS. At baseline, 68% of the patients received IM monotherapy, with IM olanzapine most commonly prescribed (36%). During the first 24hours, 190 (9.8%) patients experienced EPS. The occurrence of EPS was statistically significantly lower in patients treated with IM olanzapine compared to those treated with other IM psychotropic medications (mainly typical antipsychotics and benzodiazepines): acute dystonia: 1.1%, 95% CI 0.5–2.3 and 2.9%, CI 2.0–4.0; akathisia: 2.3%, CI 1.3–3.7 and 5.5%, CI 4.3–6.9; Parkinsonism: 2.9%, CI 1.8–4.4 and 7.8%, CI 6.4–9.4, respectively. Anticholinergic treatment was given to 12% IM olanzapine versus 31% non-olanzapine treated patients. Acute agitation after 24hours was reduced by 1.68 (95% CI 1.46–1.91) points on the Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) in IM olanzapine patients and 1.51 (95% CI 1.30–1.73) points in non-olanzapine patients. Additional psychotropic medication was required for 90% of the patients during the first 24hours of treatment. Results provide naturalistic evidence for low EPS rates and improvement of agitation with IM psychotropic medications during acute states of patients suffering from acute mania or schizophrenia.

The treatment of acute agitation associated with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder: investigational drugs in early stages of their clinical development, and their clinical context and potential place in therapy

Introduction: Acute agitation in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder may require pharmacologic management. Ideal medication characteristics for this indication include rapid onset, minimal side effects, and noninvasive administration techniques.Areas Covered: This review summarizes investigational agents in early clinical development for the management of acute agitation in patients with psychosis or mania; it also assesses where these agents may fit with current therapies to provide a clinical perspective. The authors conducted a broad search of clinicaltrials.gov to identify investigational agents for agitation or aggression in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Two medications met the search criteria: dexmedetomidine film (BXCL501) and intranasal olanzapine (INP105).Expert Opinion: Olanzapine is a well-known molecular entity in the psychiatric armamentarium but dexmedetomidine would be a new and unfamiliar agent for mental health providers. Nonetheless, although it is too early to make definitive statements about tolerability and efficacy, their unique administration mechanisms suggest that dexmedetomidine film and intranasal olanzapine may become valuable options for the rapid management of acute agitation in patients who are willing to cooperate with medication therapy.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Management of acute agitation in psychosis: an evidence-based approach in the USA

Agitation in psychiatric settings, particularly in psychosis, presents a staggering challenge for clinicians, who must both manage the patient's acute symptoms and simultaneously make an accurate diagnosis. Too often, the management of the former confounds the latter. Patients are very often sedated medically, which masks their underlying condition, rendering accurate diagnosis delayed and inherently difficult. Significant data are available regarding both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for agitation that maximise symptom control while minimising confounding side-effects. In this article, a review of the historical evolution of agitation management in psychotic illness is presented, followed by an evidence-based clinical guideline for managing agitation in psychosis in the USA.

Association between atypical antipsychotic agents and type 2 diabetes: Review of prospective clinical data

Background

Most evidence suggesting an association between schizophrenia, antipsychotic medications and diabetes has been based on retrospective studies not controlled for important confounders.

Aims

To compare diabetogenic risk between antipsychotic medications; and to describe the limitations of current prospective data-sets.

Method

Systematic review of prospective clinical data.

Results

No difference in the incidence of glycaemic abnormalities between placebo cohorts and antipsychotic medication cohorts was identified. No significant difference between any of the antipsychotic medications studied in terms of their association with glycaemic abnormalities was identified. Treatment-related weight gain did not appear to increase the risk of developing diabetes.

Conclusions

Diabetogenic potential ascribed to atypical antipsychotic drugs, resulting from retrospective studies, may be incorrect. Cohort sizes and incomplete sampling must preclude any definitive conclusions. Long-term, large, comparative prospective trials are needed, along with agreement upon glucose measurement of choice.

Atypical antipsychotics in bipolar disorder: the treatment of mania

The development of atypical antipsychotics has stimulated research on the treatment of mania. Several well-established options now exist for monotherapy of mania. None of the atypicals has shown greater efficacy than haloperidol in improving manic symptoms, but they all produce fewer extrapyramidal side-effects and they may differ in their effects on depressive symptoms. Combinations of an antipsychotic with lithium or valproate offer further options, with somewhat greater efficacy in treating mania but also with more side-effects.

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.

Measurement of agitation and aggression in adult and aged neuropsychiatric patients: review of definitions and frequently used measurement scales

Agitation and aggression in adult psychiatric patients with psychoses and in persons with dementia increase the burden of disease and frequently cause hospitalization. The implementation of currently available management strategies and the development of new ones is hindered by inconsistent terminology that confuses agitation with aggression. This confusion is maintained by many rating scales that fail to distinguish between these two syndromes. We review the frequently used rating scales with a particular focus on their ability to separate agitation from aggression. Agitation and aggression are two different syndromes. For example, reactive aggression is often precipitated by rejection of care and may not be associated with agitation per se. We propose, in treatment studies of behavioral symptoms of dementia and challenging behaviors in psychoses, that outcomes should be evaluated separately for agitation and aggression. This is important for investigation of drug effectiveness since the medication may be effective against one syndrome but not the other. Separate assessments of agitation and aggression should be a general principle of trial design with particular salience for registration studies of medications proposed for approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory bodies.

The International College of Neuro-Psychopharmacology (CINP) Treatment Guidelines for Bipolar Disorder in Adults (CINP-BD-2017), Part 3: The Clinical Guidelines

Background

The current paper introduces the actual International College of Neuro-Psychopharmacology clinical guidelines for the treatment of bipolar disorder.

Concept and structure of the guidelines

The current clinical guidelines are based on evidence-based data, but they also intend to be clinically useful, while a rigid algorithm was developed on the basis of firm evidence alone. Monotherapy was prioritized over combination therapy. There are separate recommendations for each of the major phases of bipolar disorder expressed as a 5-step algorithm.

Discussion

The current International College of Neuro-Psychopharmacology clinical guidelines for the treatment of bipolar disorder are the most up-to-date guidance and are as evidence based as possible. They also include recommendations concerning the use of psychotherapeutic interventions, again on the basis of available evidence. This adherence of the workgroup to the evidence in a clinically oriented way helped to clarify the role of specific antidepressants and traditional agents like lithium, valproate, or carbamazepine. The additional focus on specific clinical characteristics, including predominant polarity, mixed features, and rapid cycling, is also a novel approach. Many issues need further studies, data are sparse and insufficient, and many questions remain unanswered. The most important and still unmet need is to merge all the guidelines that concern different phases of the illness into a single one and in this way consider BD as a single unified disorder, which is the real world fact. However, to date the research data do not permit such a unified approach.

The International College of Neuro-Psychopharmacology (CINP) Treatment Guidelines for Bipolar Disorder in Adults (CINP-BD-2017), Part 2: Review, Grading of the Evidence, and a Precise Algorithm

Background

The current paper includes a systematic search of the literature, a detailed presentation of the results, and a grading of treatment options in terms of efficacy and tolerability/safety.

Material and Methods

The PRISMA method was used in the literature search with the combination of the words 'bipolar,' 'manic,' 'mania,' 'manic depression,' and 'manic depressive' with 'randomized,' and 'algorithms' with 'mania,' 'manic,' 'bipolar,' 'manic-depressive,' or 'manic depression.' Relevant web pages and review articles were also reviewed.

Results

The current report is based on the analysis of 57 guideline papers and 531 published papers related to RCTs, reviews, posthoc, or meta-analysis papers to March 25, 2016. The specific treatment options for acute mania, mixed episodes, acute bipolar depression, maintenance phase, psychotic and mixed features, anxiety, and rapid cycling were evaluated with regards to efficacy. Existing treatment guidelines were also reviewed. Finally, Tables reflecting efficacy and recommendation levels were created that led to the development of a precise algorithm that still has to prove its feasibility in everyday clinical practice.

Conclusions

A systematic literature search was conducted on the pharmacological treatment of bipolar disorder to identify all relevant random controlled trials pertaining to all aspects of bipolar disorder and graded the data according to a predetermined method to develop a precise treatment algorithm for management of various phases of bipolar disorder. It is important to note that the some of the recommendations in the treatment algorithm were based on the secondary outcome data from posthoc analyses.

Effects of asenapine on agitation and hostility in adults with acute manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder is associated with an increased risk of aggression. However, effective management of hostility and/or agitation symptoms may prevent patients from becoming violent. This analysis investigated the efficacy of the antipsychotic asenapine on hostility and agitation in patients with bipolar I disorder.

METHODS

Data were pooled from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III trials of asenapine in adults with manic or mixed episodes of bipolar I disorder (NCT00159744, NCT00159796, and NCT00764478). Post hoc analyses assessed the changes from baseline to day 21 on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) hostility-related item scores in asenapine- or placebo-treated patients with at least minimal or mild symptom severity and on the PANSS-excited component (PANSS-EC) total score in agitated patients. Changes were adjusted for improvements in overall mania symptoms to investigate direct effects on hostility.

RESULTS

Significantly greater changes in favor of asenapine versus placebo were observed in YMRS hostility-related item scores (irritability: least squares mean difference [95% confidence interval] =-0.5 [-0.87, -0.22], P=0.001; disruptive-aggressive behavior: -0.7 [-0.99, -0.37], P<0.0001), PANSS hostility item score (-0.2 [-0.44, -0.04]; P=0.0181), and PANSS-EC total score (-1.4 [-2.4, -0.4]; P=0.0055). Changes in the YMRS disruptive-aggressive behavior score and the sum of the hostility-related items remained significant after adjusting for improvements in other YMRS item scores.

CONCLUSION

Asenapine significantly reduced hostility and agitation in patients with bipolar I disorder; improvement was at least partially independent of overall improvement on mania symptoms.

Treatment of agitation in the acute psychiatric setting. An observational study of the effectiveness of intramuscular psychotropic medication

BACKGROUND

Agitation is frequent in the acute psychiatric setting. The observation and treatment of agitation is important to avoid harm to patients or staff, to reduce distress of the patient, and to reduce the risk of coercion, especially physical restraint.

AIM

To evaluate the effect of intramuscular treatment with psychotropics on agitation in a non-selected acute psychiatric population.

METHODS

The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale Excitement Component (PANSS-EC) was implemented in the acute psychiatric ward at Psychiatric Center Copenhagen to improve assessment and treatment of agitation. During a period of almost ~2 years the staff was requested to assess agitation before and after administration of intramuscular injections.

RESULTS

PANSS-EC was obtained at baseline and within 2 hours after injection for 135 injections with antipsychotics or benzodiazepines administered to 101 acute, non-selected psychiatric patients with high occurrence of co-morbid substance abuse. Mean PANSS-EC at baseline was 26.53 ± 4.87, and mean reduction in PANSS-EC was 14.99 ± 8.48 (p < 0.001). For 73% of injections PANSS-EC decreased with ≥40% (generally accepted definition of response). In 49% of cases patients were subjected to physical restraint. Patients subjected to restraint had a significantly higher PANSS-EC score. Patients who received a subsequent injection had a significantly lower decline in PANSS-EC score. Besides two cases of acute dystonia following haloperidol injections, no serious side-effects were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of agitation with intramuscular injections of psychotropics was in general effective in this non-selected, highly agitated psychiatric population, and injections were well tolerated.

Pharmacological treatment of acute agitation associated with psychotic and bipolar disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

We used systematic review methodology to identify and evaluate short-term pharmacological interventions for agitation associated with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

METHOD

We searched electronic databases for randomised controlled trials involving comparisons between current treatments for agitation, benzodiazepines, antipsychotics and placebo. The patient population was adults with agitation associated with psychotic or bipolar disorder treated in specialist mental health services. The outcome of interest was change in agitation measured by accepted standard scales. Paired meta-analyses and network meta-analyses are presented.

RESULTS

Seventeen randomised controlled trials were identified (n = 3841). Treatments included haloperidol, olanzapine, aripiprazole, risperidone and lorazepam. The primary outcome was change in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale Excited Component scores. Pair-wise comparisons suggest that after 60 min, olanzapine is superior to haloperidol; no other treatment was more effective than any other. At 120 min, loxapine 10 mg is more effective than loxapine 5 mg, and olanzapine is more effective than lorazepam. In the network meta-analyses, no treatment was superior to any other.

CONCLUSION

Because of limitations of available research, firm conclusions could not be drawn regarding the efficacy and safety of any identified intervention. Based on our results, there is no evidence that one drug is more effective or preferred over any other and treatment decisions could be made based on individual patient needs or costs. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Enhanced brain targeting efficacy of Olanzapine through solid lipid nanoparticles

Olanzapine (OLZ) is a typical anti-psychotic drug, which is highly lipophilic in nature, belongs to Biopharmaceutical Classification System (BCS) class II category. Though OLZ is an effective agent in the treatment of Schizophrenia, but it exhibits poor bioavailability (57%) due to extensive first-pass metabolism resulted in high dose is required to achieve therapeutic concentration in brain. Emerging evidences are indicating that high dose administration of OLZ may cause Extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) in the psychotic patients. Hence, the present study is designed to develop Olanzapine solid lipid (OLZ-SLNs) using minimal dose of OLZ thereby enhancing the brain efficacy as well as to reduce the side effects associated with OLZ. OLZ-SLNs have been prepared by "solvent diffusion method" using lipids, such as glyceryl monostearate (GMS), tripalmitin (TP), Tween 80, and Stearyl amine as positive charge inducer. The prepared OLZ-SLNs were subjected to particle size analysis, zeta potential, and poly dispersity index measurement by using Malvern Zetasizer. Pharmacokinetics assessments of OLZ-SLNs were carried in conscious male Wistar rats through intravenous administration. Results have shown that average particle size and zeta potential of SLNs of GMS and TP were ranged from 165.1 ± 2.2 to 110.5 ± 0.5 and 35.29 ± 1.2 and 66.50 ± 0.7 mV, respectively. Relative bioavailability of OLZ in the brain was increased up to 23-fold and clearance was decreased when OLZ-SLNs while administrated intravenously. The area under the curve (AUC) and mean residence time (MRT) of OLZ-SLNs in brain were higher than OLZ suspension. These results indicate that SLNs are a promising drug delivery for OLZ. It may be an effective tool to enhance the bioavailability of OLZ in the brain with less dose administration, which could reduce the EPS associated with OLZ.

A Large Retrospective Cohort of Patients Receiving Intravenous Olanzapine in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic with similar pharmacologic properties to droperidol. Due to the current droperidol shortage, the authors' clinical practice has been to substitute olanzapine for droperidol in many situations. At this time, olanzapine is U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved for oral and intramuscular (IM) use only, but due to its increased utility, intravenous (IV) olanzapine was recently approved for use in the study emergency department (ED).

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to review the use and safety of IV olanzapine in the ED patient population.

METHODS

A retrospective review of consecutive patients receiving IV olanzapine between January 1, 2014, and July 1, 2014, was conducted. Data were collected via an electronic medical record review. The study was deemed exempt from informed consent by our institutional review board.

RESULTS

A total of 713 patients received IV olanzapine during the study period. The median age was 38 years (range = 18 to 85 years), and 313 patients were male (43.9%). Primary indications for IV olanzapine administration included acute agitation (n = 245, 34.4%), abdominal pain (n = 165, 23.1%), headache (n = 121, 17.0%), nausea and vomiting (n = 107, 15.0%), pain (other; n = 60, 8.4%), and unknown (n = 15, 2.1%). IV dosing varied: 1.25 mg (n = 20, 2.8%), 2.5 mg (n = 185, 25.9%), 5 mg (n = 507, 71.1%), and 10 mg (n = 1, 0.1%). Forty-nine patients required a second dose of olanzapine (22 IV, 26 IM, one oral). The maximum total dose of olanzapine was 20 mg. Ninety-eight patients required a total of 146 doses of additional sedatives during their ED course. Other sedative medications included ketamine (n = 17, 2.4%), haloperidol (n = 48, 6.7%), and benzodiazepines (n = 81, 11.4%). Hypoxia was noted in 74 patients (10.4%). Major respiratory complications, including airway stimulation or repositioning maneuvers and intubation, occurred in 15 patients (2.1%). After consensus review, one intubation was classified as "likely related" to olanzapine administration, and two were classified as "possibly related" to olanzapine. Akathisia likely occurred in four patients (0.6%), and no allergic reactions were identified. Electrocardiograms (ECGs) were performed in 322 patients. A total of 251 patients had an ECG performed before olanzapine administration (median QTc = 404 ms), and 88 patients had an ECG performed after olanzapine administration (median QTc = 415 ms). Acute alcohol and drug intoxication was common, 118 (16.5%) patients were positive for ethanol, and seven of 23 drug screens were positive for sympathomimetics. Thirty-four of 284 admissions (4.5%) were to intermediate or intensive care unit beds. No patients died while in the ED and no cases of sudden cardiac death were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large retrospective review, IV olanzapine appears to be a safe in the management of a variety of ED indications. Hypoxia was common, but serious airway compromise was rare.

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.

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

We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of intramuscular (IM)-olanzapine (OLA-IM) versus controls in agitated patients. The risk ratio, number-needed-to-treat/harm, and standardized mean difference based on a random effects model were calculated. We identified 13 RCTs (19 comparisons) as follows: 7 comparisons with 1059 patients for OLA-IM versus placebo; 5 comparisons with 613 patients for OLA-IM versus haloperidol (HAL)-IM; 2 comparisons with 108 patients for OLA-IM versus ziprasidone (ZIP)-IM; 2 comparisons with 110 patients for OLA-IM versus HAL-IM plus midazolam; and 3 comparisons with 412 patients for OLA-IM versus HAL-IM plus promethazine, 2 comparisons with 355 patients for OLA-IM versus lorazepam-IM (LOR-IM); and 1 comparison with 67 patients for OLA-IM versus HAL-IM plus LOR-IM. OLA-IM was superior to placebo in both Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component (PANSS-EC) and Agitation-Calmness Evaluation Scale (ACES) scores 2 h after first injection, and had a comparable side effect profile, including over sedation, extrapyramidal symptoms, akathisia, and anticholinergic use. While there was no significant difference in PANSS-EC scores after 2 h between OLA-IM and HAL-IM, OLA-IM outperformed HAL-IM in ACES after 2 h. Compared with HAL-IM, OLA-IM was associated with fewer side effects, including anticholinergic use, akathisia, extrapyramidal symptoms, and dystonia, and marginally less QT prolongation compared with HAL-IM. Based on our findings, OLA-IM is preferable to HAL-IM for the treatment of agitated patients. However, comparator data for ZIP-IM, LOR-IM and HAL-IM combination therapy were insufficient.

Intramuscular Olanzapine in the Management of Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms in Hospitalized Older Adults: A Retrospective Descriptive Study

Background. While behavioral and psychological symptoms are frequent in hospitalized older adults with dementia or delirium, data supporting the off-label use of intramuscular atypical antipsychotics remain scarce. We examined the use of short-acting intramuscular (IM) olanzapine in hospitalized older adults to manage behavioral and psychological symptoms. Methods. A retrospective observational study of inpatients 65 years or older with at least one order for olanzapine IM during admission in urban Ontario Canada was conducted. Patient demographics, prescriptions for olanzapine IM, reason for administration, perceived effectiveness, adverse events, concurrently prescribed psychotropics, comorbidities, and patient discharge destination were recorded. Results. Among 82 patients aged 65-96 years (mean ± SD 79.3 ± 7.7) 85 cases were identified. Cognitive impairment or dementia affected 63.5% and 50.6% had comorbidities. Olanzapine IM was ordered 102 times and 34 patients (41%) received at least one dose. The intended efficacy was achieved in 79.4% of 78 cases of 124 doses given (62.9%). Fourteen (41%) patients who received doses experienced adverse events, with sedation and hypotension being the most common. Conclusions. Olanzapine IM appears effective in hospitalized older adults but is associated with potential adverse events. Structured monitoring and documentation are needed to ensure safe use in this high-risk population.

Efficacy and safety of valproic acid versus haloperidol in patients with acute agitation: results of a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of valproate versus haloperidol in decreasing the agitation level in affected patients in the emergency department. We assigned 80 acutely agitated patients to receive either intravenous sodium valproate (20 mg/kg) or intramuscular haloperidol (5 mg/1 ml). Agitation was measured at baseline and 30 min after the first injection using the Agitation-Calmness Evaluation Scale (ACES), the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component subscale, and the Agitated Behavior Scale. For 80 patients treated with sodium valproate, the mean ± SD dosage was 1541.5 ± 286 mg (range 940-2400). The mean postintervention ACES scores from baseline to 30 min after drug injection were 4.73 (SD = 1.93) for the valproate group and 5.45 (SD = 2.09) for the haloperidol group (P = 0.028). No significant differences were observed in terms of the mean changes 30 min after the intervention for two additional agitation scales. A larger proportion of patients in the haloperidol group experienced intense sedation (36.2%, P < 0.001) and extrapyramidal symptoms (8.7%, P = 0.007) compared with the valproate group (2.5% for intense sedation, no patient for extrapyramidal symptoms). The findings suggest that in the clinical practice setting of emergency psychiatry, intravenous valproate is as effective as haloperidol in reducing agitation, with a better safety profile.

Atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of pathological aggression in children and adolescents: literature review and clinical recommendations

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature about the use of atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of pathological aggression in children and adolescents.

METHOD

The databases MEDLINE, SciELO, and LILACS were searched for publications in Portuguese or English from 1992 to August 2011 using the following keywords: mental disease, child, adolescent, treatment, atypical antipsychotic, aggressive behavior, aggression, and violent behavior.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven studies of good methodological quality and clinical interest and relevance were identified. Studies including children and adolescents were relatively limited, because few atypical antipsychotics have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). All the medications included in this review (risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, aripiprazole and clozapine) have some effectiveness in treating aggression in children and adolescents, and choices should be based on clinical indications and side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

There are few studies about the effectiveness and safety of atypical antipsychotics for the pediatric population, and further randomized controlled studies with larger groups of patients and more diagnostic categories, such as severe conduct disorder and oppositional defiant disorder, should be conducted to confirm the results reported up to date and to evaluate the impact of long-term use.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIMS

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

[Drug management of agitation in emergency departments: theoretical recommendations and studies of practices]

Management of agitation is a frequent problematic of emergency departments that often leads to feelings of insecurity among clinicians. There are various practices regarding the drugs to be used in the management of agitations. Guidelines have been proposed by different groups of experts concerning the antipsychotic drugs that should be used for agitations in psychiatric conditions. Nevertheless, there is no clear-cut procedure referring to the utilization of intramuscular drugs in this situation. Moreover, there is no comparison available between the commonly used medications and other drugs, both in terms of superiority of efficacy and tolerance. In order to accurately assess these practices, evaluation protocols must minimize the interference with the service organization and the routine care. Further studies are required in order to develop guidelines about medications that have to be used to handle agitations, which must be based on robust evidence and applicable to emergency services.

QTc interval prolongation and torsade de pointes associated with second-generation antipsychotics and antidepressants: a comprehensive review

We comprehensively reviewed published literature to determine whether it supported the link between corrected QT (QTc) interval prolongation and torsade de pointes (TdP) for the 11 second-generation antipsychotics and seven second-generation antidepressants commonly implicated in these complications. Using PubMed and EMBASE, we identified four thorough QT studies (one each for iloperidone, ziprasidone, citalopram, and escitalopram), 40 studies specifically designed to assess QTc interval prolongation or TdP, 58 publications based on data from efficacy and safety trials, 18 toxicology studies, and 102 case reports. Thorough QT studies, QTc prolongation-specific studies, and studies based on efficacy and safety trials did not link drug-associated QTc interval prolongation with TdP. They only showed that the drugs reviewed caused varying degrees of QTc interval prolongation, and even that information was not clear and consistent enough to stratify individual drugs for this risk. The few toxicology studies provided valuable information but their findings are pertinent only to situations of drug overdose. Case reports were most informative about the drug-QTc interval prolongation-TdP link. At least one additional well established risk factor for QTc prolongation was present in 92.2 % of case reports. Of the 28 cases of TdP, six (21.4 %) experienced it with QTc interval <500 ms; 75 % of TdP cases occurred at therapeutic doses. There is little evidence that drug-associated QTc interval prolongation by itself is sufficient to predict TdP. Future research needs to improve its precision and broaden its scope to better understand the factors that facilitate or attenuate progression of drug-associated QTc interval prolongation to TdP.