Benzodiazepines combined with neuroleptics for management of severe disruptive behavior

Analytic Reviews : Rapid Tranquilization of the Agitated Intensive Care Unit Patient

Agitation in intensive care unit patients is a problem that is often ignored or undertreated. The presence of agita tion warrants a thorough investigation for underlying causes (e.g., metabolic and systemic abnormalities, drug intoxication or withdrawal, hypoxia, and pain) so that the precipitating disturbances can be identified and cor rected. When these conservative measures fail to con trol a patient's agitation, it may be necessary to resort to mechanical restraint and sedating medication. The au thors present guidelines for the pharmacological man agement of agitation and the risks and benefits associ ated with the use of specific agents.

Comparison of intramuscular olanzapine, orally disintegrating olanzapine tablets, oral risperidone solution, and intramuscular haloperidol in the management of acute agitation in an acute care psychiatric ward in Taiwan

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to compare efficacy and safety among intramuscular olanzapine, intramuscular haloperidol, orally disintegrating olanzapine tablets, and oral risperidone solution for agitated patients with psychosis during the first 24 hours of treatment in an acute care psychiatric ward.

METHODS

Forty-two inpatients from an acute care psychiatric ward of a medical center in central Taiwan were enrolled. They were randomly assigned to 1 of the 4 treatment groups (10-mg intramuscular olanzapine, 10-mg olanzapine oral disintegrating tablet, 3-mg oral risperidone solution, or 7.5-mg intramuscular haloperidol). Agitation was measured by using the excited component of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS-EC), the Agitation-Calmness Evaluation Scale, and the Clinical Global Impression--Severity Scale during the first 24 hours.

RESULTS

There were significant differences in the PANSS-EC total scores for the 4 intervention groups at 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90 minutes after the initiation of treatment. More significant differences were found early in the treatment. In the post hoc analysis, the patients who received intramuscular olanzapine or orally disintegrating olanzapine tablets showed significantly greater improvement in PANSS-EC scores than did patients who received intramuscular haloperidol at points 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90 minutes after injection.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that intramuscular olanzapine, orally disintegrating olanzapine tablets, and oral risperidone solution are as effective treatments as intramuscular haloperidol for patients with acute agitation. Intramuscular olanzapine and disintegrating olanzapine tablets are more effective than intramuscular haloperidol in the early phase of the intervention. There is no significant difference in effectiveness among intramuscular olanzapine, orally disintegrating olanzapine tablets, and oral risperidone solution.

The 2009 schizophrenia PORT psychopharmacological treatment recommendations and summary statements

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

Benzodiazepines for delirium

BACKGROUND

Delirium occurs in 30% of hospitalised patients and is associated with prolonged hospital stay and increased morbidity and mortality. The results of uncontrolled studies have been unclear, with some suggesting that benzodiazepines may be useful in controlling non-alcohol related delirium.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and incidence of adverse effects of benzodiazapines in the treatment of non-alcohol withdrawal related delirium.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The trials were identified from a search of the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group on 26 February 2008 using the search terms: (deliri* or confusion) and (benzo* or lorazepam," or "alprazolam" or "ativan" or diazepam or valium or chlordiazepam).The CDCIG Specialized Register contains records from major health databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, LILACS) as well as many ongoing trial databases and grey literature sources.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials had to be unconfounded, randomized and with concealed allocation of subjects. Additionally, selected trials had to have assessed patients pre- and post-treatment. Where crossover design was present, only data from the first part of the trial were to be examined.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers extracted data from included trials. Data were pooled where possible, and were to be analysed using appropriate statistical methods. Odd ratios or average differences were to be calculated. Only "intention to treat" data were to be included.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one trial satisfying the selection criteria could be identified. In this trial, comparing the effect of the benzodiazepine, lorazepam, with dexmedetomidine, a selective alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonist, on delirium among mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients, dexmedetomidine treatment was associated with an increased number of delirium- and coma-free days compared with lorazepam treated patients (dexmedetomidine patients, average seven days; lorazepam patients, average three days; P = 0.01). One partially controlled study showed no advantage of a benzodiazepine (alprazolam) compared with neuroleptics in treating agitation associated with delirium, and another partially controlled study showed decreased effectiveness of a benzodiazepine (lorazepam), and increased adverse effects, compared with neuroleptics (haloperidol, chlorpromazine) for the treatment of acute confusion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No adequately controlled trials could be found to support the use of benzodiazepines in the treatment of non-alcohol withdrawal related delirium among hospitalised patients, and at this time benzodiazepines cannot be recommended for the control of this condition. Because of the scarcity of trials with randomization of patients, placebo control, and adequate concealment of allocation of subjects, it is clear that further research is required to determine the role of benzodiazepines in the treatment of non-alcohol withdrawal related delirium.

Use of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines in patients with psychiatric emergencies: results of an observational trial

BACKGROUND

Conventional antipsychotics augmented with benzodiazepines have been the standard acute treatment for psychiatric emergencies for more than 50 years. The inability of patients to give informed consent limits randomised, controlled studies. This observational study on immediate therapy for aggression and impulse control in acutely agitated patients (IMPULSE) evaluated the short-term effectiveness and tolerability of atypical and typical antipsychotic medications (AP) in a non-interventional setting.

METHODS

This was a comparative, non-randomised, prospective, open-label, observational study. Treatment over the first 5 days was classified according to whether any olanzapine, risperidone, or haloperidol was included or not. Documentations (PANSS-excited component, CGI-aggression, CGI-suicidality, tranquilisation score) were at baseline (day 1) and days 2-6 after start of AP.

RESULTS

During the short treatment-period, PANSS-EC and CGI-aggression scores improved in all cohorts. 68.7% of patients treated with olanzapine, 72.2% of patients treated with risperidone, and 83.3% of patients treated with haloperidol received concomitant benzodiazepines (haloperidol vs. non-haloperidol: p < 0.001). More patients treated with olanzapine (73.8%) were fully alert according to a tranquilisation score and active at day 2 than patients treated with risperidone (57.1%) or haloperidol (58.0%).

CONCLUSION

Current medication practices for immediate aggression control are effective with positive results present within a few days. In this study, concomitant benzodiazepine use was significantly more frequent in patients receiving haloperidol.

The expert consensus guideline series. Treatment of behavioral emergencies 2005

OBJECTIVES

Due to inherent dangers and barriers to research in emergency settings, few data are available to guide clinicians about how best to manage behavioral emergencies. Key constructs such as agitation are poorly defined. This lack of empirical data led us to undertake a survey of expert opinion, results of which were published in the 2001 Expert Consensus Guidelines on the Treatment of Behavioral Emergencies. Several second-generation (atypical) antipsychotics (SGAs) are now available in new formulations for treating behavioral emergencies (e.g., intramuscular [i.m.] olanzapine and ziprasidone; rapidly dissolving tablets of olanzapine and risperidone). Critical questions face the field. The SGAs are significantly different from the FGAs and from each other and have not been studied in unselected patients as were the FGAs. Can the SGAs can be thought of as a class, do all antipsychotics have similar anti-agitation effects in different conditions, and, if equally effective, what limits might their safety profiles impose? Should antipsychotics be used more specifically to treat psychotic conditions, while benzodiazepines (BNZs) alone are used nonspecifically? Few data are available concerning combinations of SGAs and BNZs, and findings concerning the traditional combination of haloperidol plus a BNZ may not be relevant to combinations with SGAs. The culture is also evolving with more emphasis on patient involvement in treatment decisions. An international consensus has been developing that calming rather than sedation is the appropriate endpoint of behavioral emergency interventions. We undertook a new survey of expert opinion to update recommendations from the earlier survey.

METHOD

A written survey of 61 questions (1,020 options) was mailed to 50 experts in the field, 48 (96%) of whom completed it. The survey sought to define level of agitation at which emergency interventions are appropriate, scope of assessment depending on urgency and patients' ability to cooperate, guiding principles for selecting interventions, and appropriate physical and medication strategies at different levels of diagnostic confidence for a variety of provisional diagnoses and complicating conditions. A modified version of the RAND Corporation's 9-point scale for rating appropriateness of medical decisions was used to score most options. Consensus was defined as a non-random distribution of scores by chi-square "goodness-of-fit" test. We assigned a categorical rank (first line/preferred, second line/alternate, third line/usually inappropriate) to each option based on the 95% confidence interval around the mean. Ratings were used to develop guidelines for preferred strategies in key clinical situations. This study received financial support from multiple sponsors, with the panel kept blind to sponsorship to reduce possible bias. Medication ratings were based on responses of only those respondents with direct experience with each drug. In reporting practice patterns, the panel was asked to respond based on actual data rather than estimates.

RESULTS

The expert panel reached consensus on 78% of the options rated on the 9-point scale. The responses suggest that physicians can make provisional diagnoses with some confidence and that pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions are selected differentially based on diagnosis and other salient demographic and medical features. BNZs are recommended when no data are available, when there is no specific treatment (e.g., personality disorder), or when they may have specific benefits (e.g., intoxication). No single SGA emerges as a nonspecific replacement for haloperidol; instead, different SGAs are preferred in various circumstances consistent with current evidence. To the degree that haloperidol is recommended, it is almost always in combination with a BNZ; haloperidol alone is preferred only in the medically compromised. In contrast, the SGAs are more often recommended for use alone, and the panel would avoid combining BNZs with some SGAs. Oral risperidone alone or combined with a BNZ receives strong support in a variety of situations. Oral olanzapine was rated very similarly to risperidone, with slightly higher ratings than risperidone in situations where it has been studied (e.g., schizophrenia, mania) and slightly lower ratings where it has not been studied or safety may be a concern; there was less support for combining oral olanzapine with a BNZ. For oral treatment of agitation related to schizophrenia or mania, olanzapine alone, risperidone alone or combined with a BNZ, and haloperidol plus a BNZ are first line, with strong support also for combining divalproex with the antipsychotic for presumed mania. Oral ziprasidone and quetiapine generally received similar second-line ratings in most situations. If a parenteral agent is needed, i.m. olanzapine alone received somewhat more support than i.m. ziprasidone alone; however, there was more support for i.m. ziprasidone alone or combined with a BNZ than for i.m. olanzapine plus a BNZ, probably reflecting safety concerns. For example, for a provisional diagnosis of schizophrenia, first-line parenteral options are i.m. olanzapine or ziprasidone alone or i.m. haloperidol or ziprasidone combined with a BNZ. Neither of the new parenteral formulations received as much support as traditional agents (i.m. BNZs, i.m. haloperidol) when no data are available or the diagnosis involves medical comorbidity or intoxication. When initial intervention with risperidone, ziprasidone, or haloperidol is unsuccessful, the panel recommended adding a BZD to the antipsychotic. However, when initial treatment with olanzapine or quetiapine is unsuccessful, increasing the dosage is recommended. Perphenazine was consistently rated second line and droperidol and chlorpromazine received third-line ratings throughout.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limits of expert opinion and with the expectation that future research data will take precedence, these guidelines suggest that the SGAs are now preferred for agitation in the setting of primary psychiatric illnesses but that BNZs are preferred in other situations.

Pharmacological management of acute agitation

Acute agitation occurs in a variety of medical and psychiatric conditions, and when severe can result in behavioural dyscontrol. Rapid tranquillisation is the assertive use of medication to calm severely agitated patients quickly, decrease dangerous behaviour and allow treatment of the underlying condition. Intramuscular injections of typical antipsychotics and benzodiazepines, given alone or in combination, have been the treatment of choice over the past few decades. Haloperidol and lorazepam are the most widely used agents for acute agitation, are effective in a wide diagnostic arena and can be used in medically compromised patients. Haloperidol can cause significant extrapyramidal symptoms, and has rarely been associated with cardiac arrhythmia and sudden death. Lorazepam can cause ataxia, sedation and has additive effects with other CNS depressant drugs.Recently, two fast-acting preparations of atypical antipsychotics, intramuscular ziprasidone and intramuscular olanzapine, have been developed for treatment of acute agitation. Intramuscular ziprasidone has shown significant calming effects emerging 30 minutes after administration for acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia and other nonspecific psychotic conditions. Intramuscular ziprasidone is well tolerated and has gained widespread use in psychiatric emergency services since its introduction in 2002. In comparison with other atypical antipsychotics, ziprasidone has a relatively greater propensity to increase the corrected QT (QTc) interval and, therefore, should not be used in patients with known QTc interval-associated conditions. Intramuscular olanzapine has shown faster onset of action, greater efficacy and fewer adverse effects than haloperidol or lorazepam in the treatment of acute agitation associated with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar mania and dementia. Intramuscular olanzapine has been shown to have distinct calming versus nonspecific sedative effects. The recent reports of adverse events (including eight fatalities) associated with intramuscular olanzapine underscores the need to follow strict prescribing guidelines and avoid simultaneous use with other CNS depressants. Both intramuscular ziprasidone and intramuscular olanzapine have shown ease of transition to same-agent oral therapy once the episode of acute agitation has diminished. No randomised, controlled studies have examined either agent in patients with severe agitation, drug-induced states or significant medical comorbidity. Current clinical experience and one naturalistic study with intramuscular ziprasidone suggest that it is efficacious and can be safely used in such populations. These intramuscular atypical antipsychotics may represent a historical advance in the treatment of acute agitation.

Management of the acutely violent patient

Violence in the work place is a new but growing problem for our profession. It is likely that at some point a psychiatrist will be confronted with a potentially violent patient or need to assess a violent patient. Understanding predictors and associated factors in violence as well as having a clear and well-defined strategy in approaching and dealing with the violent patient, thus, are crucial. Ensuring patient, staff, and personal safety is the most important aspect in the management of a violent patient. All of the staff must be familiar with management strategies and clear guidelines that are implemented and followed when confronted with a violent patient. The more structured the approach to the violent patient, the less likely a bad outcome will occur. Manipulating one's work environment to maximize safety and understanding how to de-escalate potentially mounting violence are two steps in the approach to the violent patient. Restraint, seclusion, and psychopharmacologic interventions also are important and often are necessary components to the management of the violent patient.

Intramuscular Olanzapine in the Management of Acute Agitation

OBJECTIVE

To review the current efficacy and safety evidence for the use of intramuscular olanzapine in the management of acute agitation.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed (all to March 2004) were searched for full-text, English-language publications in humans. Search terms included olanzapine, psychosis, agitation, psychiatric emergency, and intramuscular.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Prospective, randomized, controlled trials that evaluated efficacy or safety endpoints of intramuscular olanzapine in the management of acute agitation were included. All studies were evaluated independently by both authors. For clinical outcomes (efficacy, safety), the definitions as specified by each study were used.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Four prospective trials were included in this review. Intramuscular olanzapine is comparable to haloperidol or lorazepam monotherapy in managing acute agitation associated with schizophrenia and dementia. Intramuscular olanzapine is superior to lorazepam monotherapy in the management of agitation associated with bipolar affective disorder. Preliminary evidence demonstrates that intramuscular olanzapine is associated with fewer adverse movement disorders than monotherapy with intramuscular haloperidol. Interpretation of published evidence is limited by confounding factors of comparator regimens and the patient populations studied.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional studies comparing intramuscular olanzapine with combination antipsychotic/benzodiazepine therapy in more severely ill patients and patients with concomitant medical illnesses are needed to determine the most effective dosing regimen, use of adjunctive medications, and to obtain a comprehensive safety profile.

Pharmacological management of agitation in emergency settings

OBJECTIVE

To review, firstly, published studies comparing classic antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, and/or combination of both; and secondly, available data on the use of atypical antipsychotic medications in controlling agitation and aggressive behaviour seen in psychiatric patients in emergency.

METHOD

In the first review, studies comparing antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, and combination of both; and in the second review, efficacy trials of atypical antipsychotics that include an active and/or inactive comparator for the treatment of acute agitation were identified and reviewed. Data from clinical trials meeting the inclusion criteria were summarised by recording improvement rates, definition of improvement, and timing of defined improvement for individual studies.

RESULTS

In the first review, 11 trials were identified meeting the inclusion criteria, eight with a blind design. The total number of subjects was 701. These studies taken together suggest that combination treatment may be superior to the either agent alone with higher improvement rates and lower incidence of extrapyramidal side effects. In the review of atypical antipsychotic agents as acute antiagitation compounds, five studies were identified, three with a blind design. The total number of subjects was 711, of which 15% (104) was assigned to the placebo arm. This review found atypical antipsychotics to be as effective as the classic ones and more advantageous in many aspects.

CONCLUSION

Atypical antipsychotics such as risperidone, ziprasidone, and olanzapine with or without benzodiazepines should be considered first in the treatment of acute agitation. If these agents are not available the combination of a classic antipsychotic and a benzodiazepine would be a reasonable alternative. An oral treatment should always be offered first for building up an alliance with the patient and suggesting an internal rather than external locus of control.

Treatment of behavioral emergencies: a summary of the expert consensus guidelines

OBJECTIVES

Behavioral emergencies are a common and serious problem for consumers, their communities, and the healthcare settings on which they rely, but there is little research to guide provider responses to this challenge. Key constructs such as agitation have not been adequately operationalized so that the criteria defining a behavioral emergency are vague. A significant number of deaths of patients in restraint has focused government and regulators on these issues, but a consensus about key elements in the management of behavioral emergencies has not yet been articulated by the provider community. The authors assembled a panel of 50 experts to define the following elements: the threshold for emergency interventions, the scope of assessment for varying levels of urgency and cooperation, guiding principles in selecting interventions, and appropriate physical and medication strategies at different levels of diagnostic confidence and for a variety of etiologies and complicating conditions.

METHOD

A written survey with 808 decision points was completed by 50 experts. A modified version of the RAND Corporation 9-point scale for rating appropriateness of medical decisions was used to score options. Consensus on each option was defined as a non-random distribution of scores by chi-square "goodness-of-fit" test. We assigned a categorical rank (first line/preferred choice, second line/ alternate choice, third line/usually inappropriate) to each option based on the 95% confidence interval around the mean rating. Guideline tables were constructed describing the preferred strategies in key clinical situations.

RESULTS

The expert panel reached consensus on 83% of the options. The relative appropriateness of emergency interventions was ascertained for a continuum of behaviors. When asked about the frequency with which emergency interventions (parenteral medication, restraint, seclusion) were required in their services, 47% of the experts reported that such interventions were necessary for 1%-5% of patients seen in their services and 32% for 6%-20%. In general, the consensus of this panel lends support to many elements of recent regulations from the Health Care Financing Administration (now the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services), including the timing of clinician assessment and reassessment and the intensity of nursing care. However, the panel did not endorse the concept of "chemical restraint," instead favoring the idea that medications are treatments for target behaviors in behavioral emergencies even when the causes of these behaviors are not well understood. Control of aggressive behavior emerged as the highest priority during the emergency; however, preserving the physician-patient relationship was rated a close second and became the top priority in the long term. Oral medications, particularly concentrates, were clearly preferred if it is possible to use them. Benzodiazepines alone were top rated in 6 of 12 situations. High-potency conventional antipsychotics used alone never received higher ratings than benzodiazepines used alone. A combination of a benzodiazepine and an antipsychotic was preferred for patients with suspected schizophrenia, mania, or psychotic depression. There was equal support for high-potency conventional or atypical antipsychotics (particularly liquids) in oral combinations with benzodiazepines. Droperidol emerged in fourth place in some situations requiring an injection.

CONCLUSIONS

To evaluate many of the treatment options in this survey, the experts had to extrapolate beyond controlled data. Within the limits of expert opinion and with the expectation that future research data will take precedence, these guidelines provide some direction for addressing common clinical dilemmas in the management of psychiatric emergencies and can be used to inform clinicians in acute care settings regarding the relative merits of various strategies.

Augmentation strategies in the treatment of schizophrenia

Use of augmenting agents in schizophrenia is a common practice in response to resistant symptoms or comorbid illness. Increasingly, clinicians are combining more than one antipsychotic agent, despite a lack of evidence from controlled studies to support this approach. A rationale can be made for adding higher-potency agents to clozapine in an attempt to optimize D2 dopamine receptor blockade, but this strategy requires further study before it should be adopted in clinical practice. Older reports have explored the use of antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and anxiolytics as augmenting agents. These agents appear to improve comorbid affective or anxiety symptoms, but earlier evidence of improvement in psychotic or negative symptoms has not been replicated consistently. Glutamatergic agents acting at the glycine coagonist site of the N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor, including glycine, d-cycloserine, and d-serine, have demonstrated impressive therapeutic effects for negative symptoms when added to conventional neuroleptic agents, but do not appear to enhance clozapine efficacy. Given the high rates of symptom persistence and disability associated with schizophrenia, the need for augmentation strategies is great, but no approach has clearly emerged as effective for a substantial portion of patients. Although certain approaches may prove helpful for individual patients, augmentation should not be used unless monotherapy has been optimized, and should not be continued long-term unless benefits are clear.

Substance dependence and the use of pro re nata anxiolytic/hypnotic drugs in a hospital setting

Patients hospitalized for treatment of psychiatric illness commonly receive pro re nata (p.r.n.) anti-anxiety and hypnotic agents. The relationship between illicit drug use and p.r.n. anti-anxiety/hypnotic drug use in hospitalized psychiatric patients has not been extensively examined. The purpose of the present study was to examine this relationship. A retrospective review of 99 randomly selected hospitalized patients abstracted information regarding the utilization of p.r.n. anxiolytic and hypnotic medications. Seventy percent of the patients surveyed evidenced substance dependence. The substance users utilized p.r.n. anxiolytics (t = 2.29, df = 81, p < .05) and bedtime hypnotics (t = 4.23, df = 90, p < .0001) more frequently than the nonusers. Hospitalized substance abusers appear to continue their substance abuse in the hospital, substituting prescription preparations for illicit drugs. Nevertheless, cumulative literature now suggests that p.r.n. anxiolytic and hypnotic agents play a critical role in the management of aggressive behavior and insomnia in patients hospitalized with psychiatric illness.

Acute mania: haloperidol dose and augmentation with lithium or lorazepam

Antipsychotic dosing for acute mania has not been well studied. Combined treatment with lithium and an antipsychotic is the most common treatment, but additional antimanic efficacy of a lithium-antipsychotic combination beyond that of an antipsychotic alone has not been well demonstrated. Furthermore, the possibility that lithium could affect antipsychotic dose requirement is believed to have never been studied. In this study, 63 acutely psychotic bipolar manic inpatients were randomly assigned to receive double-blind treatment with 1 of 2 haloperidol doses, 25 mg/day or 5 mg/day, for 21 days. In addition to haloperidol, subjects were randomly assigned to receive concomitant treatment with placebo, standard lithium, or lorazepam 4 mg/day. The high haloperidol dose produced greater improvement and more side effects than did the low dose. Lithium added to the low dose produced a markedly greater clinical response than did the low dose alone. Lorazepam did not improve the outcome for the patients receiving low-dose haloperidol. The clinical response produced by high-dose haloperidol was not enhanced by adding either lithium or lorazepam. All treatment effects emerged by the fourth day of treatment and persisted. Used alone, a haloperidol dose of 5 mg/day is too low for most manic patients, but concomitant lithium produces a dose-dependent enhancement of haloperidol response. Lorazepam 4 mg/day was insufficient to produce an advantage when added to low-dose haloperidol.

Acute disturbed or violent behaviour: principles of treatment

Acute disturbed or violent behaviour has a number of organic, iatrogenic and psychological precipitants and is commonly encountered. Various models have been used to define such behaviour and to suggest non-pharmacological treatments. However, drugs are frequently used and a wide variety of regimens are employed. Robust research into the use of drugs in acute, disturbed behaviour is scant. Nevertheless a treatment protocol is presented based on primary research, review articles and clinical experience.

Haloperidol, lorazepam, or both for psychotic agitation? A multicenter, prospective, double-blind, emergency department study

Rapid tranquilization is a routinely practiced method of calming agitated psychotic patients by use of neuroleptics, benzodiazepines, or both in combination. Although several studies have examined the efficacy of the three approaches, none have compared these treatments in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial. Ninety-eight psychotic, agitated, and aggressive patients (73 men and 25 women) were prospectively enrolled during an 18-month period in emergency departments in five university or general hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned to receive intramuscular injections of lorazepam (2 mg), haloperidol (5 mg), or both in combination. Patients in each treatment group received 1 to 6 injections of the same study drug within 12 hours, based on clinical need. They were evaluated hourly after the first injection until at least 12 hours after the last. Efficacy was assessed on the Agitated Behavior Scale (ABS), a modified Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (MBPRS), Clinical Global impressions (CGI) scale, and an Alertness Scale. Effective symptom reduction was achieved in each treatment group with significant (P < .01) mean decreases from baseline at every hourly ABS evaluation. Significant (P < .05) mean differences on the ABS (hour 1) and MBPRS (hours 2 and 3) suggest that tranquilization was most rapid in patients receiving the combination treatment. Study event incidence (side effects) did not differ significantly between treatment groups, although patients receiving haloperidol alone tended to have more extrapyramidal system symptoms. The superior results produced by the combination treatment support the use of lorazepam plus haloperidol as the treatment of choice for acute psychotic agitation.

Clinically significant interactions of psychotropic agents with antipsychotic drugs

Various psychotropic drugs are commonly combined with antipsychotic agents. Such combinations can induce pharmacodynamically based, presumably additive, beneficial (e.g. sedative or mood-altering) effects or adverse autonomic, cardiac depressant and CNS intoxicating effects. Clinically significant interactions also arise through competition with or induction of hepatic microsomal cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes, particularly the CYP1A2 and CYP2D6 isozymes by which most antipsychotics are oxidised. Such pharmacokinetic interactions can elevate circulating concentrations of antipsychotics (both typical agents and the atypical antipsychotic clozapine) to potentially toxic ranges, which may lead to increased risks of adverse effects. Such interactions occur particularly with serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5-HT) reuptake inhibitor antidepressants. Metabolic interactions that lead to lesser increases in antipsychotic concentrations may arise in combining these drugs with other antidepressants, benzodiazepines or propranolol. In contrast, most anticonvulsants, except valproic acid (sodium valproate), induce the oxidative metabolism of antipsychotics and can lower their plasma concentrations to potentially subtherapeutic levels, with unpredictable increases after their discontinuation. Since simultaneous use of multiple psychotropic agents is increasingly common, special caution is required to avoid untoward consequences of interactive adverse effects due to drug interactions, which can sometimes be severe or life-threatening.

The use of chloral hydrate and sodium amytal during clozapine initiation

Sedative hypnotics are frequently a necessary adjunctive to neuroleptic treatment. The recently released antipsychotic agent clozapine poses a challenge in this regard since the manufacturer advises caution when using clozapine with patients receiving benzodiazepines. The effectiveness of alternate agents sodium amytal and chloral hydrate when initiating clozapine was evaluated in a group of 15 patients suffering from schizophrenia. These medications were observed to be both safe and effective.

Treatment approaches for acute mania

Drug treatment of mania is conceptually divided into mood stabilizers and tranquilizers. Indications for each are defined and a graphical decision tree for treatment of acute mania is presented. The anticonvulsants carbamazepine and valproic acid have an efficacy comparable to that of lithium and work in many lithium-refractory patients. They have not, however, been sufficiently studied in maintenance treatment. Guidelines are presented for the selection of a mood stabilizing agent as well as for combining two mood stabilizers. Lithium-refractoriness, a key concept in determining drug choice, is poorly defined in the literature and requires refinement. Among tranquilizers, neuroleptics are used most frequently, but their use should be minimized. Neuroleptic dosing of manic patients is probably too high and exposes patients to an unnecessary risk of side effects including tardive dyskinesia. In patients with no history of substance abuse, benzodiazepines can be used instead of neuroleptics or in augmentation of neuroleptics which can then be used at lower doses.

Benzodiazepines: abuse and new use

Both abuse and new uses for benzodiazepines are reviewed. The pharmacology of benzodiazepines is summarized and statistics regarding their general use are given. The question of benzodiazepine abuse is reviewed in some detail and the question of rebound, recurrence of symptoms and physiological withdrawal is differentiated. Benzodiazepines are regarded as a very safe class of drugs and the abuse potential is felt to be negligible provided that they are prescribed for appropriate conditions and monitored carefully. The dangers of alternatives to benzodiazepines such as alcohol or barbiturates is emphasized. New uses for benzodiazepines are reviewed including the use of benzodiazepines in panic disorder, as well as an adjunct in the therapy of mania and some psychotic states. Rational prescribing of benzodiazepines is encouraged and the attitude that these are dangerous and addictive drugs is discouraged and put into perspective.

Rapid tranquilization of the violent patient

Agitated, psychotic patients with the potential for violence pose significant management problems for emergency department staff. With the advent of rapid tranquilization (RT), clinicians were offered a safe, effective method for controlling such patients, eliminating the need for restraints or seclusion rooms. While RT is regarded as a major treatment innovation in psychiatry, nonpsychiatrists are reluctant or unaware of the uses of antipsychotic medication as it pertains to RT. This article provides a brief overview of the pharmacokinetics of antipsychotic medication and reviews the following aspects of RT: route of administration, dosing, time intervals between doses, side effects, and alternative medications for RT. The authors also offer practical guidelines for RT use in the emergency department.

Treatment guidelines for psychotropic drug use in pregnancy

Despite the apparent risks of psychotropic drug exposure in pregnancy, many pregnant women receive psychotropics. The major concerns associated with the use of antipsychotics, antidepressants, benzodiazepines, and lithium carbonate in pregnancy are reviewed, with clinical approaches for assessing the relative risks and benefits of treatment of psychiatrically ill pregnant patients and for choosing and instituting therapy with these agents.

Pharmacotherapy of schizophrenia

Numerous advances in our understanding of schizophrenia and its pharmacotherapy have occurred over the last forty years, reflected in basic research endeavours exploring the pathophysiology of schizophrenia, as well as efforts to establish new medications with a more selective psychotropic action and fewer side effects. Ongoing clinical research has, at the same time, provided valuable information regarding the applicability of the various agents, appropriate dosing, symptom response patterns and side effect profiles. This growth in knowledge also has served to underscore the limitations and drawbacks of currently available drugs, leading to a more cautious approach in their use. Newer technologies, such as positron emission tomography, hold considerable promise in our efforts to further clarify the precise mechanisms mediating schizophrenia, and to establish treatment alternatives.

Depression in schizophrenia: current guidelines to treatment

Depressive symptoms and syndromes in schizophrenia are common but heterogeneous with respect to etiology, presentation, course, and treatment. Based on a comprehensive differential diagnosis that identifies ten clinical subgroups, the authors review relevant treatment studies and offer current treatment guidelines. The clinical recommendations focus on addressing underlying problems such as medication side effects and substance abuse, attempting to identify and treat medication-responsive syndromes, and preventing suicide. The categories and treatments presented here are expected to evolve as researchers continue to elucidate clinically meaningful syndromes and to develop specific treatments. Nevertheless, current knowledge suggests that many schizophrenics with depression and depression-like symptoms can be treated effectively.

Pharmacotherapy of the hospitalized young adult schizophrenic patient

The authors surveyed pharmacotherapy in a group of hospitalized 18 to 35-year-old young adult patients (N = 286) with a DSM-III diagnosis of schizophrenia. Drug use comparisons were made between patients with a 180 day or less hospitalization (short-stay, N = 226) and those with a 366+ day hospitalization (long-stay, N = 60). Psychotropic drug usage during the initial 180 and most-recent 180 days of treatment of the long-stay group was compared with the total episode of the short-stay group. Antiepileptic, antidepressant, lithium and anxiolytic/sedative/hypnotic agents, were used in significantly more of the long-stay than short-stay patients. This increase was not observed between the two groups for the initial 180 days of the long-stay group but was observed during the most recent 180 days of treatment. Antipsychotic mean daily doses and patterns of use in the two length of stay groups were similar. Chlorpromazine (CPZ) dosage was significantly increased in long-stay patients compared with short-stay patients (P less than .05).

Neuroleptic drugs in the treatment of acute psychosis: how much do we really know?

The efficacy of neuroleptic antipsychotic drugs has been well demonstrated and neuroleptics are the standard treatment of acute psychosis. However, important aspects of neuroleptic treatment, including course of response, optimal doses, and mechanism of action, remain poorly studied or controversial. Placebo-controlled studies of the onset of the response of acute psychosis to neuroleptics are few and yield conflicting results. Studies of the relationship of doses and blood levels to the therapeutic effects of neuroleptics suggest that the optimal range of doses and levels is narrow and that commonly used doses are too high. Finally, studies of the mechanism of action of neuroleptics suggest that the dopamine hypothesis is based on unsupported assumptions concerning drug effects, drug distribution, and effective doses of drug. Alternative hypotheses, that the antipsychotic effects of the neuroleptics are mediated, at least in part, through alpha 1-adrenergic or serotonin 5-HT2 receptor antagonism, are reviewed. The evidence regarding these issues and controversies is discussed, and specific approaches to increase our understanding and enhance our use of the neuroleptics are suggested.

A "new" drug for treating agitation and psychosis in the general hospital: chlorpromazine

Psychiatric residents on a consultation-liaison service consistently avoid chlorpromazine in favor of haloperidol for the treatment of psychotic, agitated patients. The residents' fears of chlorpromazine as a dangerous medication are presented and the literature about chlorpromazine's side effects is reviewed. Evidence was not found to support the contention that chlorpromazine is too dangerous to use in the medical setting. Case material illustrating the benefits of chlorpromazine is presented. A theoretical explanation for the observed prescribing practices is suggested.

Emergency psychopharmacology: a review and update

The emergency area is a difficult site for the practice of careful psychopharmacology. The detailed history taking and collaborative treatment relationship often found in the consultant's office is rarely present. Instead, rapid decisions are made under a variety of pressures, with patients who may be uncooperative and unwilling to be treated. Many emergency patients are concurrently in treatment with a psychotherapist or psychopharmacologist who is available for consultation to the emergency service. When this is possible it is of great potential value, both in arriving more quickly at an appropriate treatment and in preventing a harmful opposition of the patient's treatment resources. For patients who are not currently in another treatment, additional helpful information often may be obtained from friends or family members. This is especially useful in treating patients who are acutely psychotic, unable to communicate, or uncooperative with the emergency interview. Although psychopharmacological approaches properly chosen often yield rapid results, medications are only a part of most emergency treatment plans. Medications are ineffective in a variety of crises and cannot replace careful interviewing of patients and others aimed at understanding the exogenous stress, change in interpersonal relationships, intrapsychic conflict, or biological disorder that precipitated an emergency visit. Furthermore, the decision to treat with medications must include a consideration of the adverse effects that may occur. With these limitations in mind, the area of emergency psychopharmacology can provide powerful assistance to emergency clinicians.

Alcohol withdrawal and carbamazepine

The use of pharmacologic intervention in the management of alcohol withdrawal syndrome is briefly presented. The use of carbamazepine, a tricyclic anticonvulsant with clinical efficacy in depressive illness, in alcohol withdrawal treatment is reviewed. A comparative analysis between carbamazepine and major drugs used in alcohol withdrawal syndrome is made. This includes the evaluation of both clinical advantages and disadvantages in addition to identification of drug adverse reaction and interaction with alcohol. The mechanism of action of carbamazepine is also examined. Carbamazepine appears to possess a useful pharmacotherapeutic potential in the management of acute alcohol withdrawal syndrome, and its use in long-term treatment is suggested.