Efficacy of lorazepam and haloperidol for rapid tranquilization in a psychiatric emergency room setting

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.

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.

Dosing antipsychotics in special populations of patients with schizophrenia: severe psychotic agitation, first psychotic episode and elderly patients

Antipsychotic (AP) dosing is well established in nonelderly patients with acute exacerbations of schizophrenia, but not in special populations.This review describes the AP dosing procedures that have been used in clinical studies for acute psychotic agitation, a first episode of psychosis (FEP), and elderly patients. AP dosing data was extracted from the databases of drug regulatory authorities, and from clinical studies available in the medical literature. In acute psychotic agitation, intramuscular and oral APs are frequently prescribed in higher doses than those that saturate D2 receptors. Supersaturating doses of APs should be avoided due to an increased risk of adverse effects. In FEP, many studies showed efficacy of low doses of APs. Studies with risperidone and haloperidol suggested a dose reduction of approximately one third. Titration with a lower starting dose is recommended in elderly patients, due to possible decreases in pharmacokinetic clearance, and due to the risk of concomitant diseases and drug interactions. Exposure to some APs has been associated with QTc prolongation and arrhythmias, and a small but significant increase in the risk of stroke and mortality with APs has been seen, particularly in older people with dementia-related psychosis.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIMS

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

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.

Sense and non-sense of polypharmacy: increasing efficacy, decreasing compliance?

The objective in managing patients with schizophrenia is to provide effective control of symptoms and enable the patient to reintegrate into society. Pharmacotherapy should, therefore, aim to provide optimum symptom control with minimal side effects using a simple dosage regimen. Ideally, this would be achieved through the use of a single agent. Some patients are successfully managed with a single antipsychotic drug, but it is often necessary or thought to be necessary to use a combination of agents to provide effective treatment. One European survey reported that most patients receive two to three psychotropic agents on average, but at least 5-22% receive five or more agents [53]. Unfortunately, the addition of more agents increases the risk of drug interactions, adverse events and non-compliance. This is amplified by the paucity of evidence-based medicine currently available to guide physicians in the use of combinations of agents, and the tendency of polypharmaceutical practice to be mostly driven by personal preference, clinical experience and marketing. This article therefore briefly looks at the feasibility of using various drug classes as adjunctive therapy in patients with schizophrenia.

The effectiveness of chemical restraint in managing acute agitation and aggression: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

One approach to manage people with behaviours of concern including agitated or aggressive behaviours in health care settings is through the use of fast-acting medication, called chemical restraint. Such management often needs to be delivered in crisis situations to patients who are at risk of harm to themselves or others. This paper summarizes the available evidence on the effectiveness and safety of chemical restraint from 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 3788 patients. The RCTs were of moderate to high quality and were conducted in pre-hospital, hospital emergency department, or ward settings. Drugs used in chemical restraint included olanzapine, haloperidol, droperidol, risperidol, flunitrazepam, midazolam, promethazine, ziprasidone, sodium valproate, or lorazepam. There was limited comparability between studies in drug choice, combination, dose, method of administration (oral, intramuscular, or intravenous drip), or timing of repeat administrations. There were 31 outcome measures, which were inconsistently reported. They included subjective measures of behaviours, direct measures of treatment effect (time to calm; time to sleep), indirect measures of agitation (staff or patient injuries, duration of agitative or aggressive episodes, subsequent violent episodes), and adverse events. The most common were time to calm and adverse events. There was little clarity about the superiority of any chemical method of managing behaviours of concern exhibited by patients in Emergency Departments or acute mental health settings. Not only is more targeted research essential, but best practice recommendations for such situations requires integrating expert input into the current evidence base.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Psychosis induced by amphetamines

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The study reviews publications on the use of methamphetamine and amphetamine in relation to psychotic symptoms, substance-induced psychosis, and primary psychosis published between July 2014 and December 2015. The databases MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched using the terms 'amphetamine psychosis' and 'methamphetamine psychosis' for the time period 1 July 2014 to 31 December 2015.

RECENT FINDINGS

There were 37 studies published on the subject during this time period. Risk factors for psychotic symptoms, substance-induced psychosis, and primary psychosis included patterns of drug use, but results also pointed to the importance of nondrug-related vulnerability. Cognitive impairment is associated with both amphetamine use and psychosis, and the impairment among those with amphetamine-induced psychosis resembles that of schizophrenia. At the neuronal level, GABAergic mechanisms may offer some understanding about the association between stimulant use and psychosis. Several different types of antipsychotic medication are effective for treating agitation and psychosis, but drugs with high DRD2 blockade should be used with caution. Some novel treatments are described, but are not sufficiently repeated to be recommended.

SUMMARY

During the past 18 months, studies have been published that cover risk factors, neuronal mechanisms, and treatment. These recent results do not differ from previous understandings, but the role of cognition and GABAergic dysfunction should be further investigated, and knowledge about resilience factors is still scarce. Also, a clearer evidence base for medical treatment of psychosis with concurrent amphetamine use is warranted. VIDEO ABSTRACT.

[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.

'As required' medication regimens for seriously mentally ill people in hospital

BACKGROUND

Drugs used to treat psychotic illnesses may take weeks to be effective. In the interim, additional 'as required' doses of medication can be used to calm patients in psychiatric wards. The practice is widespread, with 20% to 50% of people on acute psychiatric wards receiving at least one 'as required' dose of psychotropic medication during their admission.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of 'as required' medication regimens with regular patterns of medication for the treatment of psychotic symptoms or behavioural disturbance, thought to be secondary to psychotic illness. These regimens may be given alone or in addition to any regular psychotropic medication for the long-term treatment of schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register, which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, PsycINFO and registries of clinical trials, in November 2001, March 2006, July 2012 andOctober 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We aimed to include all relevant randomised controlled trials involving hospital inpatients with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses, comparing any regimen of medication administered for the short-term relief of behavioural disturbance, or psychotic symptoms, to be given at the discretion of ward staff ('as required', 'prn') with fixed non-discretionary patterns of drug administration of the same drug(s). This was in addition to regular psychotropic medication for the long-term treatment of schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses where prescribed.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected abstracts and papers for inclusion. If trials had been found, we would have extracted data from the papers and quality assessed the data. For dichotomous data we would have calculated the risk ratios (RR), with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). We would have conducted analyses on an intention-to-treat basis. If data were available we would have completed a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We have not been able to identify any randomised trials comparing 'as required' medication regimens to regular regimens of the same drug. Our main outcomes of interest were important changes in (i) mental state, (ii) behaviour, (iii) dose of medication used, (iv) adverse events, (v) satisfaction with care and (iv) cost of care.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence from within randomised trials to support this common practice. Current practice is based on clinical experience and habit rather than high quality evidence.

A double-blind, randomized comparison study of efficacy and safety of intramuscular olanzapine and intramuscular haloperidol in patients with schizophrenia and acute agitated behavior

Studies of intramuscular (IM) olanzapine in Asian and Taiwanese populations are limited. This study examined the efficacy and safety of IM olanzapine in Taiwanese patients with schizophrenia and acute agitated behavior.This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel study comparing the efficacy and safety of 10 mg/d IM olanzapine (n = 25) against 7.5 mg/d haloperidol (n = 24). The primary objective was to assess the change of agitation from baseline to 2 hours after the first IM injection on the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale-Excited Component Scale.The changes of Positive and Negative Symptom Scale-Excited Component Scale score from baseline to 2 hours after the first IM injection did not show statistically significant difference between study groups (olanzapine -9.0 ± 5.7, haloperidol -7.9 ± 4.0, P = 0.254). Both groups reported insomnia as the most common treatment-emergent adverse event, and no serious adverse event was reported.Intramuscular olanzapine and IM haloperidol are similarly effective antipsychotic agents in treating agitated symptoms in Taiwanese patients with schizophrenia. Both IM olanzapine and IM haloperidol were proven to be safe and well tolerated, which also provided alternative options in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia with agitation.

[Psychopharmacotherapy in emergency medicine]

Part two of the CME article Psychotropic agents and psychopharmacotherapy in emergency medicine aims to give an understanding of the pharmacotherapy of psychiatric disorders in emergency medicine. In contrast to somatic emergencies, many emergency physicians are not familiar with the treatment of psychiatric emergencies, although there are guidelines and recommendations. In the following article, treatment recommendations for the 5 most common and relevant syndromes in emergency medicine (i.e., suicide, delirium, agitation, stupor, and syndromes due to psychopharmaceutical use) are described based on the German S2-Guideline Emergency Psychiatry that will be published soon.

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 estimate the effects of benzodiazepines, alone or in combination with antipsychotics, when compared with placebo or antipsychotics, alone or in combination with antihistamines, to control disturbed behaviour and reduce psychotic symptoms.

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical 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 with acute psychotic illnesses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 trials with a total of n = 1968 participants. There was no significant difference for most outcomes in the one trial that compared benzodiazepines with placebo, although there was a higher risk of no improvement in people receiving placebo 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). There was no difference in the number of participants who had not improved in the medium term when benzodiazepines were compared with antipsychotics (n = 308, 5 RCTs, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.42, low quality evidence); however, people receiving benzodiazepines were less likely to experience extrapyramidal effects (EPS) in the medium term (n = 536, 8 RCTs, RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.39, moderate quality of evidence). Data comparing combined benzodiazepines and antipsychotics versus benzodiazepines alone did not yield any significant results. 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 = 155, 3 RCTs, RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.70, very 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). However, more participants receiving combined benzodiazepines and haloperidol had not improved by medium term when compared to participants receiving olanzapine (n = 60,1 RCT, RR 25.00, 95% CI 1.55 to 403.99, very low quality evidence) or ziprasidone (n = 60, 1 RCT, RR 4.00, 95% CI 1.25 to 12.75 very low quality evidence). When haloperidol and midazolam were compared with olanzapine, there was some evidence the combination was superior in terms of improvement, sedation and behaviour.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from trials for the use of benzodiazepines alone is not good. There were relatively little good data and most trials are 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 needed in this area.

Consensus statement on the use of intramuscular aripiprazole for the rapid control of agitation in bipolar mania and schizophrenia

As much as the ideal treatment goal for severe mental illnesses such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia is to prevent or delay the recurrence or relapse of acute episodes, when the patient presents with an acute episode, the goal should be to manage behavioural symptoms, and return to prior levels of symptomatic control. In a serious mental illness, the management of the acutely agitated state may require rapid tranquillisation (RT) to control violent and/or disturbed behaviour when all other methods of de-escalation have failed. Current clinical practice guidelines for emergency interventions in the case of acutely disturbed behaviours favour calming the patient by reducing agitation with mild sedation, but not sleep, to allow continued interaction with the patient, to ensure an accurate diagnosis, and to enable patients to be actively engaged in treatment decisions. Pharmacotherapy is an essential element in RT and the available agents used may be unique and separate from the patient's regular course of treatment, primarily because agents used in RT may not be suitable for long-term treatment due to an unfavourable efficacy and safety profile. Therefore, the choice of pharmacotherapy is essential to achieve an effective RT and a smooth transition to standard care and routine daily life for the patient. Of the available agents for RT, aripiprazole demonstrated a favourable efficacy and safety profile both over the short-term - including in its intramuscular form (IM) - and in the long-term treatment of bipolar I disorder and schizophrenia. The objective of this article is to assess the available clinical data on IM aripiprazole as a treatment option for the rapid control of agitation and disturbed behaviours in these conditions and to provide a consensus statement based on the expertise of UK healthcare practitioners in acute treatment units.

Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) collaborative update of CANMAT guidelines for the management of patients with bipolar disorder: update 2013

The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments published guidelines for the management of bipolar disorder in 2005, with updates in 2007 and 2009. This third update, in conjunction with the International Society for Bipolar Disorders, reviews new evidence and is designed to be used in conjunction with the previous publications.The recommendations for the management of acute mania remain largely unchanged. Lithium, valproate, and several atypical antipsychotic agents continue to be first-line treatments for acute mania. Monotherapy with asenapine, paliperidone extended release (ER), and divalproex ER, as well as adjunctive asenapine, have been added as first-line options.For the management of bipolar depression, lithium, lamotrigine, and quetiapine monotherapy, as well as olanzapine plus selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), and lithium or divalproex plus SSRI/bupropion remain first-line options. Lurasidone monotherapy and the combination of lurasidone or lamotrigine plus lithium or divalproex have been added as a second-line options. Ziprasidone alone or as adjunctive therapy, and adjunctive levetiracetam have been added as not-recommended options for the treatment of bipolar depression. Lithium, lamotrigine, valproate, olanzapine, quetiapine, aripiprazole, risperidone long-acting injection, and adjunctive ziprasidone continue to be first-line options for maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. Asenapine alone or as adjunctive therapy have been added as third-line options.

Amphetamine-induced psychosis--a separate diagnostic entity or primary psychosis triggered in the vulnerable?

Use of amphetamine and methamphetamine is widespread in the general population and common among patients with psychiatric disorders. Amphetamines may induce symptoms of psychosis very similar to those of acute schizophrenia spectrum psychosis. This has been an argument for using amphetamine-induced psychosis as a model for primary psychotic disorders. To distinguish the two types of psychosis on the basis of acute symptoms is difficult. However, acute psychosis induced by amphetamines seems to have a faster recovery and appears to resolve more completely compared to schizophrenic psychosis. The increased vulnerability for acute amphetamine induced psychosis seen among those with schizophrenia, schizotypal personality and, to a certain degree other psychiatric disorders, is also shared by non-psychiatric individuals who previously have experienced amphetamine-induced psychosis. Schizophrenia spectrum disorder and amphetamine-induced psychosis are further linked together by the finding of several susceptibility genes common to both conditions. These genes probably lower the threshold for becoming psychotic and increase the risk for a poorer clinical course of the disease.The complex relationship between amphetamine use and psychosis has received much attention but is still not adequately explored. Our paper reviews the literature in this field and proposes a stress-vulnerability model for understanding the relationship between amphetamine use and psychosis.

Behavioural antecedents to pro re nata psychotropic medication administration on acute psychiatric wards

This study examined the antecedents to administration of pro re nata (PRN) psychotropic medication on acute psychiatric wards, with a particular focus on its use in response to patient aggression and other conflict behaviours. A sample of 522 adult in-patients was recruited from 84 acute psychiatric wards in England. Data were collected from nursing and medical records for the first 2  weeks of admission. Two-thirds of patients received PRN medication during this period, but only 30% of administrations were preceded by patient conflict (usually aggression). Instead, it was typically administered to prevent escalation of patient behaviour and to help patients sleep. Overall, no conflict behaviours or further staff intervention occurred after 61% of PRN administrations. However, a successful outcome was less likely when medication was administered in response to patient aggression. The study concludes that improved monitoring, review procedures, training for nursing staff, and guidelines for the administration of PRN medications are needed.

Benzodiazepines for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Because of the high number of people with schizophrenia not responding adequately to monotherapy with antipsychotic agents, the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of additional medication was examined in a number of clinical trials. One approach to this research question was the use of benzodiazepines, as monotherapy as well as in combination with antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of benzodiazepines in people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2011, we updated the literature search of the previous version of this systematic review (last search March 2005). We searched the trial register of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group (containing methodical searches of BIOSIS, CINAHL, Dissertation abstracts, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, PSYNDEX, PsycINFO, RUSSMED, Sociofile, supplemented with hand searching of relevant journals and numerous conference proceedings). Additionally, we inspected references of all identified studies for further relevant studies and contacted authors of relevant publications in order to obtain missing data from existing trials. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials comparing benzodiazepines (as monotherapy or as adjunctive agent) with antipsychotic drugs or placebo for the pharmacological management of schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors (MD and CL) analysed independently the new references of the update-search referring to the inclusion criteria. MD and CL extracted all data from the included trials. For dichotomous outcomes we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data by using mean differences (MD) and their 95% CI. We assessed each pre-selected outcome from the included trials with the risk of bias tool.

MAIN RESULTS

The 2011 update search yielded three further randomised controlled trials. The review currently includes 34 studies with 2657 participants. Most studies were characterised by a small sample size, short duration, and incomplete outcome data reporting.Benzodiazepine monotherapy is compared with placebo in eight trials. The proportion of participants with no clinically important response did not significantly differ between those given benzodiazepines or placebo (N = 382, 6 RCTs, RR 0.67 CI 0.44 to 1.02). The results from the various rating scales applied to assess global and mental state were inconsistent.Fourteen studies examined benzodiazepine monotherapy in comparison with antipsychotic monotherapy. Clinically important treatment response assessment revealed no statistically significant difference between the study groups (30 minutes: N = 44, 1 RCT, RR 0.91 CI 0.58 to 1.43; 60 minutes: N = 44,1 RCT, RR 0.61 CI 0.20 to 1.86; 12 hours: N = 66, 1 RCT, RR 0.75 CI 0.44 to 1.30; pooled short-term studies: N = 112, 2 RCTs, RR 1.48 CI 0.64 to 3.46). Desired sedation occurred significantly more often among participants in the benzodiazepine group than in the antipsychotic group at 20 and 40 minutes. No significant between-group differences could be identified for global and mental state or occurrence of adverse effects.Twenty trials compared benzodiazepine augmentation of antipsychotics with antipsychotic monotherapy. Referring to clinically important response, statistically significant improvement could be demonstrated only for the first 30 minutes of augmentation treatment (30 minutes: 1 RCT, N = 45, RR 0.38 CI 0.18 to 0.80; 60 minutes: N = 45,1 RCT, RR 0.07 CI 0.00 to 1.13; 12 hour: N = 67,1 RCT, RR 0.85 CI 0.51 to 1.41; pooled short-term studies: N = 511, 6 RCTs, RR 0.87 CI 0.49 to 1.54). Analyses of the global and mental state yielded no between-group differences except for desired sedation at 30 as well as 60 minutes (30 minutes: N = 45, 1 RCT, RR 2.25 CI 1.18 to 4.30; 60 minutes: N = 45, 1 RCT, RR 1.39 CI 1.06 to 1.83).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no convincing evidence to confirm or refute the practise of administering benzodiazepines as monotherapy or in combination with antipsychotics for the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis. Low-quality evidence suggests that benzodiazepines are effective for very short-term sedation and could be considered for calming acutely agitated people with schizophrenia. Measured by the overall attrition rate, the acceptability of benzodiazepine treatment appears to be adequate. Adverse effects were generally poorly reported. High-quality future research projects with large sample sizes are required to clarify the evidence of benzodiazepine treatment in schizophrenia, especially regarding long-term augmentation strategies.

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

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol, used alone is recommended to help calm situations of aggression with people with psychosis. This drug is widely accessible and may be the only antipsychotic medication available in areas where resources are limited.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether haloperidol alone, administered orally, intramuscularly or intravenously, is effective treatment for psychosis-induced agitation or aggression.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (1st June 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled  trials (RCTs) involving people exhibiting agitation or aggression (or both) thought to be due to psychosis, allocated rapid use of haloperidol alone (by any route), compared with any other treatment. Outcomes 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.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently selected and assessed studies for methodological quality and extracted data. 'Summary of findings' tables were produced for each comparison grading the evidence and calculating, where possible and appropriate, a range of absolute effects.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 studies comparing haloperidol with 18 other treatments. Few studies were undertaken in circumstances that reflect real world practice, and, with notable exceptions, most were small and carried considerable risk of bias.Compared with placebo, more people in the haloperidol group were asleep at two hours (2 RCTs, n = 220, risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.95). Dystonia was common (2 RCTs, n = 207, RR 7.49, CI 0.93 to 60.21). Compared with aripiprazole, people in the haloperidol group required fewer injections than those in the aripiprazole group (2 RCTs, n = 473, RR 0.78, CI 0.62 to 0.99). More people in the haloperidol group experienced dystonia (2 RCTs, n = 477, RR 6.63, CI 1.52 to 28.86).Despite three larger trials with ziprasidone (total n = 739), data remain patchy, largely because of poor design and reporting. Compared with zuclopenthixol acetate, more people who received haloperidol required more than three injections (1 RCT, n = 70, RR 2.54, CI 1.19 to 5.46).Three trials (n = 205) compared haloperidol with lorazepam. There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to the number of participants asleep at one hour (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 1.05, CI 0.76 to 1.44). However, by three hours, significantly more people were asleep in the lorazepam group compared with the haloperidol group (1 RCT, n = 66, RR 1.93, CI 1.14 to 3.27). There were no differences in numbers requiring more than one injection (1 RCT, n = 66, RR 1.14, CI 0.91 to 1.43).Haloperidol's adverse effects were not offset by addition of lorazepam (e.g. dystonia 1 RCT, n = 67, RR 8.25, CI 0.46 to 147.45; required antiparkinson medication RR 2.74, CI 0.81 to 9.25). Addition of promethazine was investigated in one larger and better graded trial (n = 316). More people in the haloperidol group were not tranquil or asleep by 20 minutes (RR 1.60, CI 1.18 to 2.16). Significantly more people in the haloperidol alone group experienced one or more adverse effects (RR 11.28, CI 1.47 to 86.35). Acute dystonia for those allocated haloperidol alone was too common for the trial to continue beyond the interim analysis (RR 19.48, CI 1.14 to 331.92).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

If no other alternative exists, sole use of intramuscular haloperidol could be life-saving. Where additional drugs to offset the adverse effects are available, sole use of haloperidol for the extreme emergency, in situations of coercion, 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. Evidence for use of newer generation antipsychotic alternatives is no stronger than that for older drugs. Adding a benzodiazepine to haloperidol does not have strong evidence of benefit and carries a 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.

World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) Guidelines for Biological Treatment of Schizophrenia, part 1: update 2012 on the acute treatment of schizophrenia and the management of treatment resistance

These updated guidelines are based on a first edition of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry Guidelines for Biological Treatment of Schizophrenia published in 2005. For this 2012 revision, all available publications pertaining to the biological treatment of schizophrenia were reviewed systematically to allow for an evidence-based update. These guidelines provide evidence-based practice recommendations that are clinically and scientifically meaningful and these guidelines are intended to be used by all physicians diagnosing and treating people suffering from schizophrenia. Based on the first version of these guidelines, a systematic review of the MEDLINE/PUBMED database and the Cochrane Library, in addition to data extraction from national treatment guidelines, has been performed for this update. The identified literature was evaluated with respect to the strength of evidence for its efficacy and then categorised into six levels of evidence (A-F; Bandelow et al. 2008b, World J Biol Psychiatry 9:242). This first part of the updated guidelines covers the general descriptions of antipsychotics and their side effects, the biological treatment of acute schizophrenia and the management of treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

Modulation of ion channels in clinical psychopharmacology: adults and younger people

This review focuses on the use of Na(+), Ca(2+) and Cl(-) channel modulators in psychiatric disease. Drugs that modulate ion channels have been used in psychiatry for more than a century, and in this review we critically evaluate clinical research that reports the therapeutic effects of drugs acting on GABA(A), voltage-gated Na(+) and voltage-gated Ca(2+) channels in pediatric and adult patients. As in other fields, the evidence underpinning the use of medicines in younger people is far less robust than for adults. In addition, we discuss some current developments and highlight clinical disorders in which current molecules could be further tested. Notable success stories, such as benzodiazepines (in sleep and anxiety disorders) and antiepileptics (in bipolar disorder), have been the result of serendipitous discoveries or refinements of serendipitous discoveries, as in all other major treatments in psychiatry. Genomic, high-throughput screening and molecular pharmacology discoveries may, however, guide further developments in the future. This could include increased research in promising targets that have been perceived as commercially risky, such as selective α-subunit GABA(A) receptors.

The use of amisulpride in the treatment of acute psychosis

The management of acute episodes in schizophrenia is frequently initiated in the psychiatric emergency department and requires rapid intervention to relieve distress and psychiatric symptoms. Both non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions are needed to calm the patient and prevent potential harm to the patient or others. Treatment is a step-by-step process including management of behavioral symptomatology, diagnosis of potential organic causes, and evaluation of potential substance abuse. Better care is delivered if predefined standard operating procedures are adopted systematically. The ultimate goal of treatment is to establish a therapeutic alliance with the patient. Atypical antipsychotics given orally are recommended as a first-line treatment. As the treatment endpoint is calmness rather than sleep, a non-sedative antipsychotic agent is usually preferred. Drug tolerance is a major issue for the patient. Amisulpride is an effective atypical antipsychotic agent in this context. The optimal dose is 800 mg/day, which is effective on positive and negative symptoms and can be given from the first day with a low risk of extrapyramidal symptoms. Since drug-drug interactions are limited, agitation and anxiety may be controlled by short-term adjunctive therapy with benzodiazepines. In conclusion, amisulpride is an appropriate first-line treatment for the management of acute psychosis.

The 2009 schizophrenia PORT psychopharmacological treatment recommendations and summary statements

In light of the large number of studies published since the 2004 update of Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team psychopharmacological treatment recommendations, we conducted an extensive literature review to determine whether the current psychopharmacological treatment recommendations required revision and whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant new treatment recommendations for prespecified outcomes of interest. We reviewed over 400 articles, which resulted in 16 treatment recommendations: the revision of 11 previous treatment recommendations and 5 new treatment recommendations. Three previous treatment recommendations were eliminated. There were 13 interventions and/or outcomes for which there was insufficient evidence for a treatment recommendation, and a statement was written to summarize the current level of evidence and identify important gaps in our knowledge that need to be addressed. In general, there was considerable consensus among the Psychopharmacology Evidence Review Group and the expert consultants. Two major areas of contention concerned whether there was sufficient evidence to recommend specific dosage ranges for the acute and maintenance treatment of first-episode and multi-episode schizophrenia and to endorse the practice of switching antipsychotics for the treatment of antipsychotic-related weight gain. Finally, there continue to be major gaps in our knowledge, including limited information on (1) the use of adjunctive pharmacological agents for the treatment of persistent positive symptoms or other symptom domains of psychopathology, including anxiety, cognitive impairments, depressive symptoms, and persistent negative symptoms and (2) the treatment of co-occurring substance or medical disorders that occur frequently in individuals with schizophrenia.

Pharmacological control of acute agitation: focus on intramuscular preparations

Acute agitation in the psychiatric emergency setting is a common presentation, which can endanger the patient, caregivers and professional staff. Rapid and effective treatment, followed by ongoing evaluation and maintenance treatment where appropriate, is key to circumvent negative outcomes. Nonpharmacological measures are the first step in treating the acutely agitated patient, and include verbal intervention and physical restraint. Pharmacological treatment is often required to ensure the safety of the patient, caregivers and the treatment team. The need for drug delivery in uncooperative patients favours the use of intramuscular preparations for the acutely agitated patient. Intramuscular treatment options include benzodiazepines, conventional antipsychotics and atypical antipsychotics. Each of these medications offers a unique pharmacological profile that must be considered when treating acutely agitated patients, who may be unwilling or unable to accurately communicate their co-morbid conditions and concomitant medications.

Heightened aggression after chronic flunitrazepam in male rats: potential links to cortical and caudate-putamen-binding sites

RATIONALE

Higher doses of benzodiazepines induce sedation. However, in low to moderate doses, benzodiazepines can increase aggressive behavior both after acute and chronic administration. The determinants for increasing aggression after chronic intake of flunitrazepam, a so-called date rape drug, in violence-prone individuals are incompletely understood.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to assess the effects of acute and chronic treatment with flunitrazepam on male aggression in resident rats. We also examined possible changes in binding to benzodiazepine receptors throughout the brain of rats that display aggressive behavior after repeated flunitrazepam treatment using quantitative receptor autoradiography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The behaviors of the male Wistar resident rats (n = 35) toward a male intruder were recorded for 10 min twice a week. The salient aggressive and non-aggressive elements in the resident rat's behavior were analyzed. Initially, the dose-dependent effects of flunitrazepam (0.01, 0.03, 0.1, 0.18, and 0.3 mg/kg) or vehicle were determined in all rats; subsequently, 0.3 mg/kg per day flunitrazepam was administered for 42 days (n = 15), and a parallel group was treated with vehicle (n = 20). After the chronic treatment, the flunitrazepam (0, 0.01, 0.03, 0.1, 0.18, and 0.3 mg/kg) effects were again assessed.

RESULTS

The most significant finding is the escalation of aggression after chronic treatment with flunitrazepam. A previously sedative 0.3 mg/kg dose of flunitrazepam engendered very high levels of attack bites, sideways threats, and aggressive postures (total aggression) after 6 weeks of daily administration. Individual differences emerged, and these were associated with decreased binding to benzodiazepine receptors, mainly in the limbic structures such as the cingulate cortex (cingulate areas 1 and 2) and caudate-putamen (posterior part) of aggressive animals, suggesting that these areas are pivotal in the control of emotional and aggressive behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

Chronic flunitrazepam produces changes in receptor binding in discrete areas of the cingulate cortex and caudate-putamen that are proposed to be part of the mechanisms for increased expression of aggressive behavior.

'As required' medication regimens for seriously mentally ill people in hospital

BACKGROUND

Drugs used to treat psychotic illnesses may take weeks to be effective. In the interim, additional 'as required' doses of medication can be used to calm patients in psychiatric wards. The practice is widespread with 20% - 50% of people on acute psychiatric wards receiving at least one 'as required' dose of psychotropic medication during their admission.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of 'as required' medication regimens with regular regimens of medication for the treatment of psychotic symptoms or behavioural disturbance, thought to be secondary to psychotic illness.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For this 2006 update, we searched The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register of trials (March 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all relevant randomised control trials involving hospital inpatients with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses, comparing any regimen of medication administered for the short term relief of behavioural disturbance, or psychotic symptoms, to be given at the discretion of ward staff ('as required', 'prn') with fixed non-discretionary patterns of drug administration of the same drug(s). This was in addition to regular psychotropic medication for the long-term treatment of schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses where prescribed.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected abstracts, extracted data from the papers and quality assessed the data. For dichotomous data we would have calculated the relative risks (RR), with the 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the number needed to treat statistic (NNT). Analyses would have been conducted on an intention-to-treat basis.

MAIN RESULTS

We didn't identify any randomised trials comparing 'as required' medication regimens to regular regimens of the same drug.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from within randomised trials to support this common current practices. Current practice is based on clinical experience and habit rather than high quality evidence.

Management of acute agitation in patients with bipolar disorder: efficacy and safety of intramuscular aripiprazole

To investigate the efficacy and safety of intramuscular (IM) aripiprazole for the treatment of agitation in patients with bipolar I disorder, manic or mixed episodes. In total, 301 patients experiencing acute agitation were randomized to IM aripiprazole 9.75 mg per injection (n = 78), IM aripiprazole 15 mg per injection (n = 78), IM lorazepam 2 mg per injection (n = 70), or IM placebo (n = 75) in this double-blind multicenter study. Patients could receive up to 3 injections over 24 hours. Primary efficacy measure was mean change in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale Excited Component score from baseline at 2 hours after first injection. Mean improvements in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale Excited Component score at 2 hours were significantly greater with IM aripiprazole (9.75 mg, -8.7; 15 mg, -8.7) and IM lorazepam (-9.6) versus IM placebo (-5.8; P <or= 0.001). For all other efficacy measures, all 3 active treatments showed significantly greater improvements over IM placebo at 2 hours (P < 0.05), with similar improvements across the active treatments. Significant differences over IM placebo were seen by 45 to 60 minutes for several efficacy parameters. Both IM aripiprazole doses were well tolerated; the safety profile was similar to oral aripiprazole. Oversedation (Agitation-Calmness Evaluation Scale score of 8 or 9) during 2 hours after first injection was less frequent with IM aripiprazole 9.75 mg (6.7%) and IM placebo (6.8%) versus IM aripiprazole 15 mg (17.3%) and IM lorazepam (19.1%). IM aripiprazole 9.75 and 15 mg are effective and well tolerated for acute agitation in bipolar disorder, although the low incidence of oversedation suggests a risk-benefit profile for IM aripiprazole 9.75 mg.

Benzodiazepines for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response with ordinary antipsychotic drug treatment. In these cases, various add-on medications are used, among them benzodiazepines.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of benzodiazepines for the treatment of schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The reviewers searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (last search March 2005). This register is compiled by methodical searches of BIOSIS, CINAHL, Dissertation abstracts, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, PSYNDEX, PsycINFO, RUSSMED, Sociofile, supplemented with hand searching of relevant journals and numerous conference proceedings. We also contacted authors of relevant studies in order to obtain missing data from existing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing benzodiazepine to antipsychotics or to placebo (or no intervention), whether as sole treatment or as an adjunct to antipsychotic medication for the treatment of schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected abstracts, selected studies and re-inspected and quality assessed the full reports. We independently extracted relevant outcomes. Dichotomous data were analysed using relative risks (RR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). Continuous data were analysed using weighted mean differences. Where possible the number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to harm (NNH) statistics were calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

The review currently includes 31 studies with over 2000 participants. Most studies were small, of short duration - one to 13 weeks - and inconsistently and incompletely reported. Eight studies compared benzodiazepines as a sole agent with placebo. More participants receiving benzodiazepines showed a clinically significant response (n=222, 4 RCTs, RR 0.54 CI 0.3 to 1.0, NNT 3 CI 2 to 17). Only one small study found a significant group difference in favour of benzodiazepines regarding the improvement in overall BPRS mental state. Different rating scales were used to assess general mental state, and therefore many outcomes could not be pooled and no overall direction of effect emerged. Some adverse events observed in these studies suggested that benzodiazepines were more harmful than placebos but again the data were incompletely reported and without overall effect. Thirteen studies examined the effects of benzodiazepines in comparison to antipsychotics as a sole treatment. Trials that reported on clinical response found no advantage for any treatment group concerning improvement of the participants' global state, except of one small study that analysed the mean CGI severity score at one hour. This comparison is highly limited by the low numbers of studies reporting on global function and the short trial duration. Two studies showed a statistically significant superiority of antipsychotics in terms of relapse prevention at one year. Desired sedation occurred significantly more often among participants in the benzodiazepine group than among participants in the antipsychotic treatment group at 20 (n=301, 1 RCT, RR 1.32 CI 1.2 -1.5, NNT 5, CI 3 to 8) and 40 minutes(n= 301, 1 RCT, RR 1.13 CI 1.0 to 1.2, NNT 9 CI 6 to 33), but not at 30, 60 or 12 minutes. Other outcomes relating to the general or specific mental state revealed no significant differences between groups. As far as adverse events were reported there were no results in favour of any group. Sixteen studies examined whether the augmentation of antipsychotics with benzodiazepines is more effective than antipsychotics as a sole treatment. During the first hour of treatment the combination treatment group benefited from the additional benzodiazepine in terms of the participants global state. This benefit diminished over time and was not reproducible at 2 hours or longer. No superior efficacy of benzodiazepine augmentation could be found regarding the general mental state. Specific aspects of the mental state showed no group difference except for desired sedation at 30 and 60 minutes. Somnolence affected the combination treatment group significantly more than the control group (n=118, 2 RCTs, RR 3.30 CI 1.0 to 10.4, NNH 8 CI 5 to 50). We found use of antiparkinson medication to be less frequently used in the combination treatment group (n=282, RR 0.68 CI 0.5 to 1.0, NNT 9 CI 6 to 48). Adverse events were poorly reported and the results were based on very little data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Randomised trial-derived evidence is currently too poor to recommend benzodiazepines neither as a sole nor as an adjunctive agent in schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses. The only significant effects were seen in terms of short-term sedation, at best. The evidence available on augmentation of antipsychotics with benzodiazepines is inconclusive and justifies large, simple and well-designed future trials focusing on clinical response, mental state, aggressive behaviour and adverse events.

Managing the aggressive and violent patient in the psychiatric emergency

Throughout history most societies have assumed a link between mental disorders and violence. Although the majority of users of mental health services are not violent, it is clear that a small yet significant minority are violent in inpatient settings and in the community. The assessment of a violent patient may be very difficult due to the lack of a full medical and psychiatric history and the non-cooperativeness of the patient. Thus a full assessment is important for the early decisions that the clinician has to take in a very quick and effective way. The primary task and the short term outcome in a behavioral emergency is to act as soon as possible to stop the violence from escalating and to find the quickest way to keep the patient's agitation and violence under control with the maximum of safety for everybody and using the less severe effective intervention. The pharmacological treatment of acute, persisting and repetitive aggression is a serious problem for other patients and staff members. Currently, there is no medication approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of aggression. Based on rather limited evidence, a wide variety of medications for the pharmacological treatment of acute aggression has been recommended: typical and atypical antipsychotics and benzodiazepines.