Haloperidol plus promethazine for psychosis induced aggression

Haloperidol for long-term aggression in psychosis

BACKGROUND

Psychotic disorders can lead some people to become agitated. Characterised by restlessness, excitability and irritability, this can result in verbal and physically aggressive behaviour - and both can be prolonged. Aggression within the psychiatric setting imposes a significant challenge to clinicians and risk to service users; it is a frequent cause for admission to inpatient facilities. If people continue to be aggressive it can lengthen hospitalisation. Haloperidol is used to treat people with long-term aggression.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether haloperidol alone, administered orally, intramuscularly or intravenously, is an effective treatment for long-term/persistent aggression in psychosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (July 2011 and April 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) or double blind trials (implying randomisation) with useable data comparing haloperidol with another drug or placebo for people with psychosis and long-term/persistent aggression.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author (AK) extracted data. For dichotomous data, one review author (AK) calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a fixed-effect model. One review author (AK) assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We have no good-quality evidence of the absolute effectiveness of haloperidol for people with long-term aggression. One study randomising 110 chronically aggressive people to three different antipsychotic drugs met the inclusion criteria. When haloperidol was compared with olanzapine or clozapine, skewed data (n=83) at high risk of bias suggested some advantage in terms of scale scores of unclear clinical meaning for olanzapine/clozapine for 'total aggression'. Data were available for only one other outcome, leaving the study early. When compared with other antipsychotic drugs, people allocated to haloperidol were no more likely to leave the study (1 RCT, n=110, RR 1.37, CI 0.84 to 2.24, low-quality evidence). Although there were some data for the outcomes listed above, there were no data on most of the binary outcomes and none on service outcomes (use of hospital/police), satisfaction with treatment, acceptance of treatment, quality of life or economics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Only one study could be included and most data were heavily skewed, almost impossible to interpret and oflow quality. There were also some limitations in the study design with unclear description of allocation concealment and high risk of bias for selective reporting, so no firm conclusions can be made. This review shows how trials in this group of people are possible - albeit difficult. Further relevant trials are needed to evaluate use of haloperidol in treatment of long-term/persistent aggression in people living with psychosis.

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.

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.

A Role for Oxytocin in the Etiology and Treatment of Schizophrenia

Schizophrenia is a chronic debilitating neuropsychiatric disorder estimated to affect 51 million people worldwide. Several symptom domains characterize schizophrenia, including negative symptoms, such as social withdrawal and anhedonia, cognitive impairments, such as disorganized thinking and impaired memory, and positive symptoms, such as hallucinations and delusions. While schizophrenia is a complex neuropsychiatric disorder with no single "cause," there is evidence that the oxytocin (Oxt) system may be dysregulated in some individuals. Further, treatment with intranasal Oxt reduces some of the heterogeneous symptoms associated with schizophrenia. Since Oxt is known for its modulatory effects on a variety of social and non-social behaviors, it is perhaps not surprising that it may contribute to some aspects of schizophrenia and could also be a useful therapeutic agent. In this review, we highlight what is known about Oxt's contributions to schizophrenia and schizophrenia-related behaviors and discuss its potential as a therapeutic agent.

Aggression in Psychoses

Most individuals diagnosed with a mental illness are not violent, but some mentally ill patients commit violent acts. PubMed database was searched for articles published between 1980 and November 2013 using the combination of key words “schizophrenia” or “bipolar disorder” with “aggression” or “violence.” In comparison with the general population, there is approximately a twofold increase of risk of violence in schizophrenia without substance abuse comorbidity and ninefold with such comorbidity. The risk in bipolar disorder is at least as high as in schizophrenia. Most of the violence in bipolar disorder occurs during the manic phase. Violence among adults with schizophrenia may follow two distinct pathways: one associated with antisocial conduct and another associated with the acute psychopathology, particularly anger and delusions. Clozapine is the most effective treatment of aggressive behavior in schizophrenia. Emerging evidence suggests that olanzapine may be the second most effective treatment. Treatment nonadherence greatly increases the risk of violent behavior, and poor insight as well as hostility is associated with nonadherence. Nonpharmacological methods of treatment of aggression in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are increasingly important. Cognitive behavioral approaches appear to be effective in cases where pharmacotherapy alone is not sufficient.

[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.

Issues in the management of acute agitation: how much current guidelines consider safety?

Agitated behavior constitutes up to 10% of emergency psychiatric interventions. Pharmacological tranquilization is often used as a valid treatment for agitation but a strong evidence base does not underpin it. Available literature shows different recommendations, supported by research data, theoretical considerations, or clinical experience. Rapid tranquilization (RT) is mainly based on parenteral drug treatment and the few existing guidelines on this topic, when suggesting the use of first generation antipsychotics and benzodiazepines, include drugs with questionable tolerability profile such as chlorpromazine, haloperidol, midazolam, and lorazepam. In order to systematically evaluate safety concerns related to the adoption of such guidelines, we reviewed them independently from principal diagnosis while examining tolerability data for suggested treatments. There is a growing evidence about safety profile of second generation antipsychotics for RT but further controlled studies providing definitive data in this area are urgently needed.

Concomitant medication of psychoses in a lifetime perspective

OBJECTIVE

Patients treated with antipsychotic drugs often receive concomitant psychotropic compounds. Few studies address this issue from a lifetime perspective. Here, an analysis is presented of the prescription pattern of such concomitant medication from the first contact with psychiatry until the last written note in the case history documents, in patients with a diagnosis of psychotic illness.

METHODS

A retrospective descriptive analysis of all case history data of 66 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychotic disorders.

RESULTS

Benzodiazepines and benzodiazepine-related anxiolytic drugs had been prescribed to 95% of the patients, other anxiolytics, sedatives or hypnotic drugs to 61%, anti-parkinsonism drugs to 86%, and antidepressants to 56% of the patients. However, lifetime doses were small and most of the time patients had no concomitant medication. The prescribed lifetime dose of anti-parkinsonism drugs was associated with that of prescribed first-generation but not second-generation antipsychotics.

CONCLUSIONS

Most psychosis patients are sometimes treated with concomitant drugs but mainly over short periods. Lifetime concomitant add-on medication at the individual patient level is variable and complex but not extensive.

Chlorpromazine for psychosis induced aggression or agitation

BACKGROUND

Agitated or violent behaviour constitutes 10% of all emergency psychiatric treatment. Some guidelines do not recommend the use of chlorpromazine for rapid tranquillisation but it is still often used for this purpose.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of oral or intramuscular chlorpromazine for psychosis induced agitation or aggression.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (up to July 2009) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised control trials or double blind trials (implying randomisation) comparing chlorpromazine with another drug or placebo for people who are thought to be acutely aggressive or agitated due to psychotic illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a fixed-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

One study (total n=30) met the inclusion criteria. When compared with haloperidol (Man 1973) (1 RCT, n=30) people allocated chlorpromazine were no more likely to have one additional injection than those allocated haloperidol (RR 3.00 CI 0.13 to 68.26). This remained true for 2-4 injections (RR 0.90 CI 0.52 to 1.55) and for 5 or more injections (RR 0.75 CI 0.20 to 2.79). Two people allocated chlorpromazine had sudden, serious hypotension while no one allocated haloperidol had such an effect (RR 5.00 CI 0.26 to 96.13). No extrapyramidal symptoms were observed. One person allocated chlorpromazine developed status epilepticus (RR 3.00 CI 0.13 to 68.26).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall the quality of evidence is limited, poor and dated. Where drugs that have been better evaluated are available, it may be best to avoid use of chlorpromazine. Where chlorpromazine is used for acute aggression or where choices are limited, relevant trials are possible and urgently needed.

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.

A meta-analysis of the risk of acute extrapyramidal symptoms with intramuscular antipsychotics for the treatment of agitation

OBJECTIVE

We examined the evidence for a decreased risk of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) with intramuscular second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) versus intramuscular haloperidol alone or in combination with an anticholinergic agent.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE (1950 to the present), and EMBASE and the Cochrane Database through January 16, 2008, for studies published in English of intramuscular SGAs and intramuscular haloperidol alone or in combination with an anticholinergic agent using the following drug names: ziprasidone, Geodon, olanzapine, Zyprexa, aripiprazole, Abilify, haloperidol, and Haldol. We then searched this pool of studies for trials with the terms intramuscular, IM, or injectable. Initially, we included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To obtain more data comparing SGAs to the combination of haloperidol and an anticholinergic, we conducted a second analysis including studies of any methodology.

STUDY SELECTION

Seven RCTs that compared intramuscular SGAs to intramuscular haloperidol alone were identified. However, we found only one RCT of haloperidol plus an anticholinergic. In the second analysis, we identified 18 studies, including 4 using haloperidol combined with promethazine (an antihistamine with anticholinergic properties).

DATA EXTRACTION

The primary outcome measure was acute dystonia; secondary outcome measures included akathisia, parkinsonism, or the need for additional anticholinergic medication. For RCTs, risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each outcome. When all studies were included in the second analysis, we calculated the risk of acute dystonia.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Among RCTs (N = 2032), SGAs were associated with a significantly lower risk of acute dystonia (RR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.10 to 0.39), akathisia (RR = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.14 to 0.44), and anticholinergic use (RR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.09 to 0.43) compared with haloperidol alone. When all trials were considered (N = 3425), rates of acute dystonia were higher for haloperidol alone (4.7%) than for SGAs (0.6%) or for haloperidol plus promethazine (0.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Intramuscular SGAs have a significantly lower risk of acute EPS compared to haloperidol alone. However, intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine has a risk of acute dystonia comparable to intramuscular SGAs. The decision to use SGAs should consider other factors in addition to the reduction of EPS, which can be prevented by the use of an anticholinergic agent.

Rapid tranquillisation in psychiatric emergency settings in Brazil: pragmatic randomised controlled trial of intramuscular haloperidol versus intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether haloperidol alone results in swifter and safer tranquillisation and sedation than haloperidol plus promethazine.

DESIGN

Pragmatic randomised open trial (January-July 2004).

SETTING

Psychiatric emergency room, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

PARTICIPANTS

316 patients who needed urgent intramuscular sedation because of agitation, dangerous behaviour, or both.

INTERVENTIONS

Open treatment with intramuscular haloperidol 5-10 mg or intramuscular haloperidol 5-10 mg plus intramuscular promethazine up to 50 mg; doses were at the discretion of the prescribing clinician.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was proportion tranquil or asleep by 20 minutes. Secondary outcomes were asleep by 20 minutes; tranquil or asleep by 40, 60, and 120 minutes; physically restrained or given additional drugs within 2 hours; severe adverse events; another episode of agitation or aggression; additional visit from the doctor during the subsequent 24 hours; overall antipsychotic load in the first 24 hours; and still in hospital after 2 weeks.

RESULTS

Primary outcome data were available for 311 (98.4%) people, 77% of whom were thought to have a psychotic illness. Patients allocated haloperidol plus promethazine were more likely to be tranquil or asleep by 20 minutes than those who received intramuscular haloperidol alone (relative risk 1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.10 to 1.55; number needed to treat 6, 95% confidence interval 4 to 16; P=0.002). No differences were found after 20 minutes. However, 10 cases of acute dystonia occurred, all in the haloperidol alone group.

CONCLUSIONS

Haloperidol plus promethazine is a better option than haloperidol alone in terms of speed of onset of action and safety. Enough data are now available to change guidelines that continue to recommend treatments that leave people exposed to longer periods of aggression than necessary and patients vulnerable to distressing and unsafe adverse effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN83261243 [controlled-trials.com].

Olanzapine IM or velotab for acutely disturbed/agitated people with suspected serious mental illnesses

BACKGROUND

People presenting with agitated or violent behaviour thought to be due to severe mental illness may require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation. Several preparations of olanzapine, an antipsychotic drug, are now being used for management of such agitation.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effects of intramuscular, oral-velotab, or standard oral olanzapine compared with other treatments for controlling aggressive behaviour or agitation thought to be due to severe mental illness.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 1, 2002), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (November 2004) and reference lists. We contacted authors of trials and the manufacturers of olanzapine.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing oral-velotab or intramuscular, or standard oral olanzapine to any treatment, for agitated or aggressive people with severe mental illnesses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected, quality assessed and data extracted studies. For binary outcomes we calculated a fixed effects Risk Ratio (RR) and its 95% Confidence Interval (CI) with a weighted Number Needed to Treat/Harm statistic (NNT/H). For continuous outcomes, we preferred endpoint data to change data and synthesised non-skewed data from valid scales using a weighted mean difference (WMD).

MAIN RESULTS

Four trials compared olanzapine IM with IM placebo (total n=769, 217 allocated to placebo). Fewer people given olanzapine IM had 'no important response' by 2 hours compared with placebo (4 RCTs, n=769, RR 0.49 CI 0.42 to 0.59, NNT 4 CI 3 to 5) and olanzapine IM was as acceptable as placebo (2 RCTs, n=354, RR leaving the study early 0.31 CI 0.06 to 1.55). When compared with placebo, people given olanzapine IM required substantially fewer additional injections following the initial dose (4 RCTs, n=774, RR 0.48 CI 0.40 to 0.58, NNT 4 CI 4 to 5). Olanzapine IM did not seem associated with extrapyramidal effects (4 RCT, n=570, RR experiencing any adverse event requiring anticholinergic medication in first 24 hours 1.27 CI 0.49 to 3.26). Two trials compared olanzapine IM with haloperidol IM (total n=482, 166 allocated to haloperidol). Studies found no differences between olanzapine IM and haloperidol by 2 hours for the outcome of 'no important clinical response' (2 RCTs, n= 482, RR 1.00 CI 0.73 to 1.38) neither was there a difference for needing repeat IM injections (2 RCTs, n=482, RR 0.99 CI 0.71 to 1.38). More people on haloperidol experienced akathisia over the five day oral period compared with olanzapine IM (1 RCT, n=257, RR 0.51 CI 0.32 to 0.80, NNT 6 CI 5 to 15) and fewer people allocated to olanzapine IM required anticholinergic medication by 24 hours compared with those given haloperidol IM (2 RCTs, n= 432, RR 0.20 CI 0.09 to 0.44, NNT 8 CI 7 to 11). Two trials compared olanzapine IM with lorazepam IM (total n=355, 119 allocated to lorazepam). For the outcome of 'no important clinical response' , there was no difference between people given olanzapine IM and those allocated to lorazepam at 2 hours (2 RCTs, n=355, RR 92 CI 0.66 to 1.30) but fewer people allocated to olanzapine IM required additional injections by 24 hours compared with those on lorazepam IM (2 RCTs, n=355, RR 0.68 CI 0.49 to 0.95, NNT 10 CI 6 to 59). People receiving IM olanzapine were less likely to experience any treatment emergent adverse events, than those on lorazepam (1 RCT, n=150, RR at 24 hours 0.62 CI 0.43 to 0.89, NNT 5 CI 4 to 17) and over the same time period there were no clear differences in the use of anticholinergic medication between groups (1 RCT, n=150, RR 1.16 CI 0.38 to 3.58).No studies reported outcomes related to hospital and service use. Nor did any report on issues of satisfaction with care or suicide, self-harm or harm to others. No studies evaluated the oro-dispersable form of olanzapine.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Data relevant to the effects of olanzapine IM are taken from some studies that may not be considered ethical in many places, all are funded by a company with a pecuniary interest in the result. These studies often poorly report outcomes that are difficult to interpret for routine care. Other important outcomes are not recorded at all. Nevertheless, olanzapine IM probably has some value in helping manage acute aggression or agitation, especially where it is necessary to avoid some of the older, better, known treatments. Olanzapine causes fewer movement disorders than haloperidol and more than lorazepam. The value of the oro-dipersable velotab preparation is untested in trials. There is a need for well designed, conducted and reported randomised studies in this area. Such studies are possible and, we argue, should be designed with the patient groups and clinicians in mind. They should report outcomes of relevance to the management of people at this difficult point in their illness.

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.