Management of acute agitation in Hong Kong and comparisons with Australasia

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A retrospective study on the safety and effectiveness of olanzapine versus midazolam for pre-hospital management of excited delirium syndrome

Objective:

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of olanzapine compared to midazolam for the pre-hospital management of excited delirium syndrome.

Methods:

A retrospective review of patients who were treated by ambulance crew for excited delirium syndrome from 2016 to 2019 was performed. The drug of choice was given per Fire Service Department’s paramedic protocol (intramuscular midazolam January 2016 to October 2018 and intramuscular olanzapine October 2018 to December 2019). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients experienced at least one adverse event. The secondary outcome was the successful sedation rate.

Results:

A total of 201 patients were included in the study. Ninety-nine patients had pre-hospital midazolam and 102 received olanzapine. Thirty-one patients experienced adverse event after arrival to A&E, including a drop of Glasgow Coma Scale score to below 8 (90%), hypotension (6%), and airway obstruction (3%): 17 (17% patients; 1 airway obstruction and 16 Glasgow Coma Scale score below 8) in midazolam group and 14 (14% patients; 2 hypotension and 12 Glasgow Coma Scale score below 8) in olanzapine group (p = 0.41). Sixty-eight patients (69%) in midazolam group achieved successful sedation, compared with 79 (77%) in olanzapine group (p = 0.20). More adverse events were seen with midazolam than olanzapine in alcohol intoxication subgroup with statistical significance (12 vs 2, p = 0.03).

Conclusion:

Both midazolam and olanzapine can achieve a satisfactory success rate of sedation. More adverse events are associated with midazolam use in patients with acute alcohol intoxication, especially over-sedation and airway compromise. Olanzapine would be a safer choice in the pre-hospital setting where the resource is limited, and differentiation of underlying causes is not always possible.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

FUNDING

Research Grants Council, Hong Kong.

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

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

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.

Prescription practices in the treatment of agitation in newly hospitalized Chinese schizophrenia patients: data from a non-interventional naturalistic study

BACKGROUND

Data on the pharmacological management of acute agitation in schizophrenia are scarce. The aim of this study is to investigate the prescription practices in the treatment of agitation in Chinese patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS

We conducted a large, multicenter, observational study in 14 psychiatry hospitals in China. Newly hospitalized schizophrenia patients with the PANSS-EC total score ≥ 14 and a value ≥4 on at least one of its five items were included in the study. Their drug treatments of the first 2 weeks in hospital were recorded by the researchers.

RESULTS

Eight hundred and 53 patients enrolled in and 847 (99.30%) completed the study. All participants were prescribed antipsychotics, 40 (4.72%) were prescribed benzodiazepine in conjunction with antipsychotics and 81 were treated with modified electric convulsive therapy (MECT). Four hundred and 12 (48.64%) patients were prescribed only one antipsychotic, in the order of olanzapine (120 patients, 29.13%), followed by risperidone (101 patients, 24.51%) and clozapine (41 patients, 9.95%). About 435 (51.36%) participants received antipsychotic polypharmacy, mostly haloperidol + risperidone (23.45%), haloperidol+ olanzapine (17.01%), olanzapine+ ziprasidone (5.30%), haloperidol + clozapine (4.37%) and haloperidol + quetiapine (3.90%). Binary logistic regression analysis suggests that a high BARS score (OR 2.091, 95%CI 1.140-3.124), severe agitation (OR 1.846, 95%CL 1.266-2.693), unemployment or retirement (OR 1.614, 95%CL 1.189-2.190) and aggressiveness on baseline (OR 1.469, 95%CL 1.032-2.091) were related to an increased antipsychotic polypharmacy odds. Male sex (OR 0.592, 95%CL 0.436-0.803) and schizophrenia in older persons (age ≥ 55 years, OR 0.466, 95%CL 0.240-0.902) were less likely to be associated with antipsychotic polypharmacy.

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrates that monotherapy and polypharmacy display equally common patterns of antipsychotic usage in managing agitation associated with schizophrenia in China. The extent and behavioral activities of agitation and several other factors were associated with polypharmacy.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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