TREC-Rio trial: a randomised controlled trial for rapid tranquillisation for agitated patients in emergency psychiatric rooms [ISRCTN44153243]

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of haloperidol plus promethazine plus chlorpromazine versus haloperidol plus promethazine for rapid tranquilisation for agitated psychiatric patients in the emergency setting (TREC-Lebanon)

Background: Agitated and aggressive behaviours are common in the psychiatric setting and rapid tranquilisation is sometimes unavoidable. A survey of Lebanese practice has shown that an intramuscular haloperidol, promethazine and chlorpromazine combination is a preferred form of treatment but there are no randomised trials of this triple therapy. Methods: This is a pragmatic randomised trial. Setting - the psychiatric wards of the Psychiatric Hospital of the Cross, Jal Eddib, Lebanon. Participants - any adult patient in the hospital who displays an aggressive episode for whom rapid tranquilisation is unavoidable, who has not been randomised before, for whom there are no known contraindications. Randomisation - stratified (by ward) randomisation and concealed in closed opaque envelope by independent parties. Procedure - if the clinical situation arises requiring rapid tranquilisation, medical residents overseeing the patient will open a TREC-Lebanon envelope in which will be notification of which group of treatments should be preferred [Haloperidol + Promethazine + Chlorpromazine (HPC) or Haloperidol + Promethazine (HP)], along with forms for primary, secondary and serious adverse effects. Treatment is not given blindly. Outcome - primary outcome is calm or tranquil at 20 minutes post intervention. Secondary outcomes are calm/tranquil at 40, 60 and 120 minutes post intervention, asleep, adverse effects, use of straitjacket and leaving the ward. Follow-up will be up to two weeks post randomisation. Discussion: Findings from this study will compare the HPC versus HP combination used in Lebanon's psychiatry emergency routine practice. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03639558. Registration date, August 21, 2018.

Comparison of Haloperidol, Promethazine, Trifluoperazine, and Chlorpromazine in Terms of Velocity and Durability of the Sedation among Acute Aggressive Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background:

Knowledge and skill about sedation of aggressive patients is necessary for each psychiatrist. The purpose of this study was comparing the velocity and durability of sedation induced by the haloperidol, trifluoperazine, promethazine, and chlorpromazine in aggressive patients.

Materials and Methods:

This randomized clinical trial was done on 76 aggressive patients referred to Psychiatry Emergency Service of Noor Hospital of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences that were randomly divided into four groups of haloperidol, promethazine, chlorpromazine, and trifluoperazine. Patients were evaluated at 30 min intervals for aggressive symptoms, and if they did not respond to intervention after the first 30 min or if they showed aggression again, a same dose of the injected drug was prescribed. The length of sedation time was recorded for each patient.

Results:

Seventy-six patients with the mean age of 31.89 ± 8.73 years were participated and 63.2% of them were male. Response to intervention after the first injection was seen in 40.8% and 59.2% needed the second injection. The mean time needed for obtaining sedation was 17.38 ± 8.23 and 19.66 ± 4.64 min after the first and second injection, respectively. The mean times of sedation induction were not significantly related to age, gender, type of substance used, type of aggression, and type of psychiatric disorder. Considering the type of drugs, there was no significant difference between velocity and durability effect of sedation after the first and second injection.

Conclusion:

Comparing the velocity and durability of sedative effect of the four studied drugs on acute aggressive patients, did not show any significant difference between them.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Rapid tranquillisation: practice in Zambia, before and after training

The evidence base for rapid tranquillisation is small in higher-income countries but is even smaller in sub-Saharan Africa. We initiated the first ever survey on the use of rapid tranquillisation in Zambia in 2009; a further survey was then done in 2010, after a programme of teaching and training. It demonstrated an overall improvement in clinical practice, safety, awareness and use of medications within therapeutic doses. It also led to a reduction in inappropriate use of medications. These improvements in practice occurred within a short time span and with minimal effort. Further international collaborative partnerships are required to build stronger mental health infrastructure in Zambia.

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.

Haloperidol plus promethazine for psychosis-induced aggression

BACKGROUND

Health services often manage agitated or violent people, and such behaviour is particularly prevalent in emergency psychiatric services (10%). The drugs used in such situations should ensure that the person becomes calm swiftly and safely.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether haloperidol plus promethazine is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression.

SEARCH METHODS

On 6 May 2015 we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of Trials, which is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, BIOSIS, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised clinical trials with useable data focusing on haloperidol plus promethazine for psychosis-induced aggression.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We found two new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the 2015 update searching. The review now includes six studies, randomising 1367 participants and presenting data relevant to six comparisons.When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with haloperidol alone for psychosis-induced aggression for the outcome not tranquil or asleep at 30 minutes, the combination treatment was clearly more effective (n=316, 1 RCT, RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.87, high-quality evidence). There were 10 occurrences of acute dystonia in the haloperidol alone arm and none in the combination group. The trial was stopped early as haloperidol alone was considered to be too toxic.When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with olanzapine, high-quality data showed both approaches to be tranquillising. It was suggested that the combination of haloperidol plus promethazine was more effective, but the difference between the two approaches did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance (n=300, 1 RCT, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.61, high-quality evidence). Lower-quality data suggested that the risk of unwanted excessive sedation was less with the combination approach (n=116, 2 RCTs, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.84).When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with ziprasidone all data were of lesser quality. We identified no binary data for the outcome tranquil or asleep. The average sedation score (Ramsay Sedation Scale) was lower for the combination approach but not to conventional levels of statistical significance (n=60, 1 RCT, MD -0.1, 95% CI - 0.58 to 0.38). These data were of low quality and it is unclear what they mean in clinical terms. The haloperidol plus promethazine combination appeared to cause less excessive sedation but again the difference did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance (n=111, 2 RCTs, RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.43).We found few data for the comparison of haloperidol plus promethazine versus haloperidol plus midazolam. Average Ramsay Sedation Scale scores suggest the combination of haloperidol plus midazolam to be the most sedating (n=60, 1 RCT, MD - 0.6, 95% CI -1.13 to -0.07, low-quality evidence). The risk of excessive sedation was considerably less with haloperidol plus promethazine (n=117, 2 RCTs, RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.49, low-quality evidence). Haloperidol plus promethazine seemed to decrease the risk of needing restraints by around 12 hours (n=60, 1 RCT, RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.55, low-quality evidence). It may be that use of midazolam with haloperidol sedates swiftly, but this effect does not last long.When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with lorazepam, haloperidol plus promethazine seemed to more effectively cause sedation or tranquillisation by 30 minutes (n=200, 1 RCT, RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.68, high-quality evidence). The secondary outcome of needing restraints or seclusion by 12 hours was not clearly different between groups, with about 10% in each group needing this intrusive intervention (moderate-quality evidence). Sedation data were not reported, however, the combination group did have less 'any serious adverse event' in 24-hour follow-up, but there were not clear differences between the groups and we are unsure exactly what the adverse effect was. There were no deaths.When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with midazolam, there was clear evidence that midazolam is more swiftly tranquillising of an aggressive situation than haloperidol plus promethazine (n=301, 1 RCT, RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.75 to 4.8, high-quality evidence). On its own, midazolam seems to be swift and effective in tranquillising people who are aggressive due to psychosis. There was no difference in risk of serious adverse event overall (n=301, 1 RCT, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.95, high-quality evidence). However, 1 in 150 participants allocated haloperidol plus promethazine had a swiftly reversed seizure, and 1 in 151 given midazolam had swiftly reversed respiratory arrest.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Haloperidol plus promethazine is effective and safe, and its use is based on good evidence. Benzodiazepines work, with midazolam being particularly swift, but both midazolam and lorazepam cause respiratory depression. Olanzapine intramuscular and ziprasidone intramuscular do seem to be viable options and their action is swift, but resumption of aggression with subsequent need to re-inject was more likely than with haloperidol plus promethazine. Haloperidol used on its own without something to offset its frequent and serious adverse effects does seem difficult to justify.

Assessment and management of agitation in psychiatry: Expert consensus

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Prescribing preferences in rapid tranquillisation: a survey in Belgian psychiatrists and emergency physicians

Background

The pharmacotherapeutic management of agitation is a common clinical challenge. Pharmacotherapy is frequently used, the use of published guidelines is not known. The purpose of this study was twofold; to describe the prescribing patterns of psychiatrists and emergency physicians and to evaluate to which extent guidelines are used.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey in the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium is carried out in 39 psychiatric hospitals, 11 psychiatric wards of a general hospital and 61 emergency departments. All physicians are asked for demographic information, their prescribing preferences, their use of guidelines and the type of monitoring (effectiveness, safety). For the basic demographic data and prescription preferences descriptive statistics are given. For comparing prescribing preferences of the drug between groups Chi square tests (or in case of low numbers Fisher’s exact test) were performed. Mc Nemar test for binomial proportions for matched-pair data was performed to see if the prescription preferences of the participants differ between secluded and non-secluded patients.

Results

550 psychiatrist and emergency physicians were invited. The overall response rate was 20% (n = 108). The number 1 preferred medication classes were antipsychotics (59.3%) and benzodiazepines (40.7%). In non-secluded patients, olanzapine (22.2%), lorazepam (21.3%) and clotiapine (19.4%) were most frequently picked as number 1 choice drug. In secluded patients, clotiapine (21.3%), olanzapine (21.3%) and droperidol (14.8%) were the three most frequently chosen number 1 preferred drugs. Between-group comparisons show that emergency physicians prefer benzodiazepines significantly more than psychiatrists do. Zuclopenthixol and olanzapine show a particular profile in both groups of physicians. Polypharmacy is more frequently used in secluded patients. Published guidelines and safety or outcome monitoring are rarely used.

Conclusions

Our results show that prescription practice in Flanders (Belgium) in acute agitation shows a complex relationship with published guidelines. Prescription preferences differ accordingly to medical specialty. These findings should be taken into account in future research.

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

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

Rapid tranquilization for agitated patients in emergency psychiatric rooms: a randomized trial of olanzapine, ziprasidone, haloperidol plus promethazine, haloperidol plus midazolam and haloperidol alone

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of intramuscular olanzapine, ziprasidone, haloperidol plus promethazine, haloperidol plus midazolam and haloperidol alone as the first medication(s) used to treat patients with agitation and aggressive behavior. METHOD: One hundred fifty patients with agitation caused by psychotic or bipolar disorder were randomly assigned under double-blind conditions to receive olanzapine, ziprasidone, haloperidol plus midazolam, haloperidol plus promethazine or haloperidol alone. The Overt Agitation Severity Scale, Overt Aggression Scale and Ramsay Sedation Scale were applied within 12 hours after the first dosage. RESULTS: All medications produced a calming effect within one hour of administration, but only olanzapine and haloperidol reduced agitation by less than 10 points, and only olanzapine reduced aggression by less than four points in the first hour. After twelve hours, only patients treated with haloperidol plus midazolam had high levels of agitation and aggression and also more side effects. Ziprasidone, olanzapine and haloperidol alone had more stable results for agitation control, while ziprasidone, haloperidol plus promethazine and olanzapine had stable results for aggression control. CONCLUSION: Olanzapine, ziprasidone, haloperidol plus promethazine, haloperidol plus midazolam and haloperidol were effective in controlling agitation and aggression caused by mental illness over 12 hours. Although all the drugs had advantages and disadvantages, haloperidol plus midazolam was associated with the worst results in all the observed parameters.

Haloperidol mais prometazina para pacientes agitados - uma revisão sistemática

OBJETIVO: A tranquilização farmacológica rápida e segura de episódios de agitação/agressividade é muitas vezes inevitável. Esta revisão investiga a efetividade da combinação haloperidol e prometazina intramuscular, muito utilizada no Brasil. MÉTODO: Através de busca nos registros do Cochrane Schizophrenia Group, foram incluídos todos os ensaios clínicos nos quais a combinação haloperidol e prometazina foi avaliada em pacientes agressivos com psicose. Todos os estudos relevantes foram avaliados quanto à qualidade e tiveram seus dados extraídos de forma confiável. RESULTADOS: Foram identificados quatro estudos relevantes de alta qualidade. A combinação haloperidol e prometazina foi comparada com midazolam, lorazepam, haloperidol isolado e olanzapina, todos administrados por via intramuscular. No Brasil, a combinação foi efetiva, com mais de 2/3 dos pacientes tranquilos em 30 minutos, mas midazolam foi mais rápido. Na Índia, comparado a lorazepam, a combinação haloperidol e prometazina foi mais efetiva. Após as primeiras horas, as diferenças foram negligenciáveis. O uso de haloperidol isolado acarretou maior incidência de efeitos adversos. Olanzapina promove tranquilização tão rapidamente quanto a combinação, mas não tem efeito tão duradouro e mais pessoas necessitaram medicação adicional nas quatro horas subseqüentes. CONCLUSÃO: Todos os medicamentos avaliados são eficazes, mas esta revisão demonstra vantagens no uso da combinação haloperidol e prometazina.

Haloperidol plus promethazine for psychosis-induced aggression

BACKGROUND

Health services often manage agitated or violent people, and for emergency psychiatric services such behaviour is particularly prevalent (10%). The drugs used in this situation should ensure that the person swiftly and safely regains composure.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether haloperidol plus promethazine is an effective treatment for psychosis induced agitation/aggression.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (January 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials involving aggressive people with psychosis for which haloperidol plus promethazine was being used.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected, quality assessed and extracted data from all relevant studies. For binary outcomes we calculated standard estimations of risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where possible we estimated weighted number needed to treat or harm (NNT/H).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four relevant high quality studies. One compared the haloperidol plus promethazine mix with midazolam (n=301), one with lorazepam (n=200), one with haloperidol alone (n=316) and one with olanzapine IM (n=300). In Brazil, haloperidol plus promethazine was an effective means of tranquillisation with over two thirds of people being tranquil or sedated by 30 minutes, but midazolam was more swift (n=301, RR 2.9 CI 1.75 to 4.80, NNH 5 CI 3 to 12). In India, compared with lorazepam, more people were tranquil or sedated by 30 minutes if allocated to the combination treatment (n=200, RR 0.26 CI 0.10 to 0.68, NNT 8 CI 6 to 17). Over the next few hours of treatment reported differences are negligible. One person given midazolam had respiratory depression (0.7%, reversed by flumazenil); one given lorazepam (1%) had respiratory difficulty. About 1% of people given any haloperidol treatment experienced a seizure. By 20 minutes intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine was more tranquillising than intramuscular haloperidol (1 RCT, n=316, RR 0.65 CI 0.49 to 0.87, NNT 7 CI 5 to 17). Haloperidol given without promethazine in this situation causes frequent serious adverse effects (NNH 15 CI 14 to 40). Olanzapine is as rapidly tranquillising as the haloperidol/promethazine combination (1 RCT, n=300, RR tranquil or asleep at 15 mins 0.74 CI 0.38 to 1.41), but did not have an enduring effect and more people needed additional drugs within four hours (1 RCT, n=300, RR 0.48 CI 0.33 to 0.69, NNT 5 CI 4 to 8) and to be re-assessed by the doctor (1 RCT, n=300, RR 0.47 CI 0.30 to 0.73, NNT 6 CI 5 to 12).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All treatments evaluated within the included studies are effective. Benzodiazepines, however, have the potential to cause respiratory depression, probably midazolam more so than lorazepam, and use of this group of drugs outside of services fully confident of observing for and managing the consequences of respiratory distress is difficult to justify. Haloperidol used on its own is at such risk of generating preventable adverse effects that unless it is the only choice, this evidence directs that this sole treatment should be avoided. Olanzapine IM is valuable when compared with haloperidol plus promethazine but its duration of action is short and re-injection is frequently needed. Haloperidol plus promethazine used in two diverse situations in Brazil and India has much evidence to support its swift and safe clinically valuable effects.

Factors associated with the use of physical restraints for agitated patients in psychiatric emergency rooms

OBJECTIVE

To examine factors associated with physical restraint in psychiatric emergency rooms.

METHOD

We extracted variables likely to predict use of physical restraints from a large randomised trial undertaken in three psychiatric emergency rooms in Rio de Janeiro. We fitted a Bayesian binary multivariate model using only variables clearly preceding the restraints.

RESULTS

Of 301 agitated, aggressive people admitted to emergency rooms, 73 (24%) were restrained during the first 2 h of admission. In Rio, younger people (OR=1.03 for each year younger), exhibiting intense (OR=2.53) or extreme agitation (OR=7.71), thought to result from substance misuse (OR=1.75) or diagnoses other than psychosis (OR=1.88), arriving in the morning (OR=1.64) were at greater risk of physical restraints than older, less severely aggressive or agitated people, arriving at the hospital during the afternoon or night. Hospital, gender, first admission to hospital and medication were not associated with risk of being restrained.

CONCLUSION

Restraint practices in Rio are predictable and based on a limited clinical assessment. Predictive factors for physical restraint may vary worldwide, but should be monitored and studied to assist training, and to establish programs to evaluate and refine this controversial practice.

Containment strategies for people with serious mental illness

BACKGROUND

The management of acutely disturbed people during periods of psychiatric crisis poses a particular challenge for mental health professionals. The challenge is to maintain safety while providing a safe and therapeutic environment. Non-pharmaceutical methods currently used to accomplish this include special observations, de-escalation, behavioural contracts and locking doors.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of various strategies used to contain acutely disturbed people during periods of psychiatric crisis (excluding seclusion and restraint and the use of 'as prescribed medication).

SEARCH STRATEGY

For the 2006 update of this review, we searched the Ovid interface of CINAHL, CENTRAL and The Schizophrenia Groups register, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Relevant randomised controlled trials involving people hospitalised with serious mental illness, comparing any non-pharmacological interventions aimed at containing people who were at risk of harming themselves or others, (such as those approaches that change observation levels, lock wards, manage staff patient ratios, use de-escalation techniques or behavioural contracts).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trials would have been reliably quality assessed and data extracted. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) would have been calculated with a random effects model. Where possible, numbers needed to treat and harm (NNT, NNH) would have been estimated.

MAIN RESULTS

The initial 1999 search identified over 2000 reports and the update search of 2006, an additional 2808 reports. Of these, only six seemed to have the potential to be relevant, but once they were obtained it was clear they could not be included. None focused upon non-pharmacological methods for containment of violence or self harm in people with serious mental illness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current non-pharmacological approaches to containment of disturbed or violent behaviour are not supported by evidence from controlled studies. Clinical practice is based on evidence that is not derived from trials and continued practice entirely outside of well designed, conducted and reported randomised studies is difficult to justify.

Haloperidol plus promethazine for psychosis induced aggression

BACKGROUND

Health services often manage agitated or violent people and for emergency psychiatric services such behaviour is particularly prevalent (10%). The drugs used in this situation should ensure that the person swiftly and safely becomes calm.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether haloperidol plus promethazine is an effective treatment for psychosis induced agitation/aggression.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (July 2004).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials involving aggressive people with psychosis for which haloperidol plus promethazine was being used.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected, quality assessed and extracted data from all relevant studies. For binary outcomes we calculated standard estimations of risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where possible we estimated weighted number needed to treat or harm (NNT/H).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two relevant high quality studies. One compared the haloperidol plus promethazine mix with midazolam (n=301) and one with lorazepam (n=200). The combined results were largely heterogeneous. In Brazil, haloperidol plus promethazine was an effective means of tranquillisation with over two thirds of people being tranquil or sedated by 30 minutes, but midazolam was more swift (n=301, RR 2.9 CI 1.75 to 4.80, NNH 5 CI 3 to 12). In India, however, 95% of people were tranquil or sedated by 30 minutes if allocated to the combination treatment (vs lorazepam, n=200, RR 0.26 CI 0.10 to 0.68, NNT 8 CI 6 to 17). Over the next few hours of treatment reported differences are negligible. One person given midazolam had respiratory depression (reversed by flumazenil), one given lorazepam had respiratory difficulty. A single person given haloperidol plus promethazine had an epileptic fit. Once the initial tranquillisation was administered, few needed additional medications for continued agitation (n=501, 2 RCTs, RR needing additional tranquillising drugs by four hours 1.67 CI 0.62 to 4.54, 4% vs 2%, I squared 50%) and there were no differences in the low levels of use of restraints. About 28% of people in Brazil in both groups had another episode of aggression in the first day after the initial injection (n=301, RR 0.89 CI 0.62 to 1.29). About half of all people in the Indian study were discharged by four hours (n=200, RR 1.13 CI 0.85 to 1.50) and a similar proportion in Brazil by 15 days (n=301, RR 1.05 CI 0.84 to 1.29). Both studies attained 99% follow up for their primary outcomes. Even by two weeks only 4% of people could not be accounted for (n=501, 2 RCTs, RR 0.91 CI 0.38 to 2.17).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that both benzodiazepines work, but that midazolam has a faster onset and thereby reduces the risk of exposure to violence. Both benzodiazepines have the potential to cause respiratory depression, probably midazolam more so than lorazepam, and we would question the use of this group of drugs outside of those services fully confident of observing for and managing the consequences of respiratory distress. Most evidence, however, exists for the haloperidol plus promethazine mix, with currently more than 400 people randomised to the combination. The onset of action is swift and faster than lorazepam. The combination also seems safe with no clear longer term consequences. We would expect policy makers recommending other drug managements to have equally compelling evidence to support their guidance and hope that this would not be founded in conjecture or consensus, which may be more difficult to defend than evidence from high quality studies.

Clotiapine for acute psychotic illnesses

BACKGROUND

Acute psychotic illnesses, especially when associated with agitated or violent behaviour, require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. Clotiapine, a dibenzothiazepine neuroleptic, is being used for this purpose in several countries.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effects of clotiapine when compared to other 'standard' or 'non-standard' treatments for acute psychotic illnesses in controlling disturbed behaviour and reducing psychotic symptoms.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We updated previous searches by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (April 2004)

SELECTION CRITERIA

The review included randomised clinical trials comparing clotiapine with any other treatment for people with acute psychotic illnesses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Relevant studies were selected for inclusion, their quality was assessed and data extracted. Data were excluded where more than 50% of participants in any group were lost to follow up. For binary outcomes we calculated a standard estimation of the risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, endpoint data were preferred to change data. Non-skewed data from valid scales were summated using a weighted mean difference (WMD).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five relevant trials. None compared clotiapine with placebo, but control drugs were either antipsychotics (chlorpromazine, perphenazine, trifluoperazine and zuclopenthixol acetate) or benzodiazepines (lorazepam). Versus the antipsychotics, the results for 'no important global improvement' did not suggest clotiapine to be superior, or inferior, to chlorpromazine, perphenazine, or trifluoperazine (n = 83, 3 RCTs, RR 0.82 CI 0.22 to 3.05, I-squared 58%). Use of clotiapine when compared with chlorpromazine did change the proportion of people ready for hospital discharge by the end of the study (n = 49, 1 RCT, RR 1.04 95%CI 0.96 to 2.12). Overall, attrition rates were low. No significant difference was found for those allocated to clotiapine compared with people randomised to other antipsychotics (n = 121, RR 2.26 95%CI 0.40 to 13). Weak data suggests that clotiapine may result in less need for antiparkinsonian treatment compared with zuclopenthixol acetate (n = 38, RR 0.43 95%CI 0.02 to 0.98). Compared with lorazepam, clotiapine, when used to control aggressive/violent outbursts for people already treated with haloperidol, did not significantly improve mental state (WMD -3.36 95%CI -8.09 to 1.37). We could not pool much data due to skew or inadequate presentation of results. Economic outcomes and satisfaction with care were not addressed.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence to support the use of clotiapine in preference to other 'standard' or 'non-standard' treatments for management of people with acute psychotic illness. All trials in this review have important methodological problems. We do not wish to discourage clinicians from using clotiapine in the psychiatric emergency, but well-designed, conducted and reported trials are needed to properly determine the efficacy of this drug.

Stressors associated with dyspnea in childhood: patients' insights and a case report

OBJECTIVE

To highlight the concept that stress can be associated with dyspnea in children.

METHODS

A chart review identified 22 patients (age range, 9-17 years) referred to a pediatric pulmonologist, who were offered instruction in self-hypnosis for treatment of dyspnea that persisted despite medical therapy. Patients were offered the opportunity to use hypnosis to gain insight into the causes of their dyspnea.

RESULTS

The dyspnea resolved in 18 of the 22 patients within 1 month of instruction in self-hypnosis for relaxation and symptom reduction. Eight of the 22 patients (age range, 11-16 years) chose to use hypnosis for insight. Using automatic word processing, they explained that their dyspnea was associated with stressful situations, or that it reduced the chances of having to experience an uncomfortable situation. For example, a girl with dyspnea resulting from vocal cord dysfunction realized during hypnosis that she developed her symptom in order to prevent herself from talking about information that might cause discomfort were it disclosed. As soon as the patient decided that she could trust herself to handle the information appropriately, her symptom resolved.

CONCLUSIONS

Dyspnea may provide patients with a way of expressing their reactions to perceived or anticipated stress. Thus, stress reduction interventions may prove very helpful in resolving this symptom. However, in some cases gaining an insight into the potential cause of the dyspnea may increase the effectiveness of therapy.

Rapid tranquillisation of violent or agitated patients in a psychiatric emergency setting. Pragmatic randomised trial of intramuscular lorazepam v. haloperidol plus promethazine

BACKGROUND

The pharmacological management of violence in people with psychiatric disorders is under-researched.

AIMS

To compare interventions commonly used for controlling agitation or violence in people with serious psychiatric disorders.

METHOD

We randomised 200 people to receive intramuscular lorazepam (4 mg) or intramuscular haloperidol (10 mg) plus promethazine (25-50 mg mix).

RESULTS

At blinded assessments 4 h later (99.5% follow-up), equal numbers in both groups (96%) were tranquil or asleep. However, 76% given the haloperidol-promethazine mix were asleep compared with 45% of those allocated lorazepam (RR=2.29,95% CI 1.59-3.39; NNT=3.2,95% CI 2.3-5.4). The haloperidol-promethazine mix produced a faster onset of tranquillisation/sedation and more clinical improvement over the first 2 h. Neither intervention differed significantly in the need for additional intervention or physical restraints, numbers absconding, or adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Both interventions are effective for controlling violent/agitated behaviour. If speed of sedation is required, the haloperidol-promethazine combination has advantages over lorazepam.

Rapid tranquillisation for agitated patients in emergency psychiatric rooms: a randomised trial of midazolam versus haloperidol plus promethazine

OBJECTIVE

To compare two widely used drug treatments for people with aggression or agitation due to mental illness.

DESIGN

Pragmatic, randomised clinical trial.

SETTING

Three psychiatric emergency rooms in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

SUBJECTS

301 aggressive or agitated people.

INTERVENTIONS

Open treatment with intramuscular midazolam or intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patients tranquil or sedated at 20 minutes.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

patients tranquil or asleep by 40, 60, and 120 minutes; restrained or given extra drugs within 2 hours; severe adverse events; another episode of agitation or aggression; needing extra visits from doctor during first 24 hours; overall antipsychotic load in first 24 hours; and not discharged by two weeks.

RESULTS

151 patients were randomised to midazolam, and 150 to haloperidol-promethazine mix. Follow up for the primary outcome was available for 298 (99%): 134/151 (89%) of patients given midazolam were tranquil or asleep after 20 minutes compared with 101/150 (67%) of those given haloperidol plus promethazine (relative risk 1.32 (95% confidence interval 1.16 to 1.49)). By 40 minutes, midazolam still had a statistically and clinically significant 13% relative advantage (1.13 (1.01 to 1.26)). After 1 hour, about 90% of both groups were tranquil or asleep. One important adverse event occurred in each group: a patient given midazolam had transient respiratory depression, and one given haloperidol-promethazine had a grande mal seizure.

CONCLUSIONS

Both treatments were effective. Midazolam was more rapidly sedating than haloperidol-promethazine, reducing the time people are exposed to aggression. Adverse effects and resources to deal with them should be considered in the choice of the treatment.