Intramuscular aripiprazole or haloperidol and transition to oral therapy in patients with agitation associated with schizophrenia: sub-analysis of a double-blind study

Atypical antipsychotic drugs in dual disorders: current evidence and clinical guidelines

BACKGROUND

Concurrent disorder or dual diagnosis refers to a combination of substance use disorders and mental disorders that occur in the same patient simultaneously. These conditions pose significant clinical and healthcare impacts and are often underdiagnosed, undertreated, and complex to manage.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the quality of current pharmacological recommendations for the management of dual diagnosis, particularly by evaluating the use of second-generation antipsychotics (SGA).

METHOD

A literature search was performed using the PubMed and Scopus databases for publications up to September 21, 2021, without any time restrictions. The following search strings were used: (aripiprazole OR brexpiprazole OR cariprazine OR paliperidone OR risperidone OR quetiapine OR clozapine OR olanzapine) AND (psychosis OR schizophrenia OR schizoaffective) AND ("substance use disorder" OR cocaine OR alcohol OR cannabis OR heroin OR "double diagnosis" OR "dual diagnosis")) NOT (animal OR rat OR mouse) NOT (review or meta-analysis).

RESULTS

The search produced a final set of 41 articles. Most patients were males and were affected by schizophrenia, with cannabis the most abused substance, followed by alcohol. Aripiprazole was the most used drug, either orally or by long-acting formulations, followed by risperidone with oral and long-acting formulations, clozapine, olanzapine, and quetiapine.

CONCLUSION

The findings highlight the use of SGA for the treatment of psychotic symptoms in comorbidity with substance use. Future studies on people with dual diagnosis and focused on long-term evaluations are warranted and need to investigate the efficacy of newly introduced molecules, such as partial D2 agonists and long-acting injectable antipsychotics.

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.

The pharmacological management of agitated and aggressive behaviour: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction:

Non-pharmacological interventions preferably precede pharmacological interventions in acute agitation. Reviews of pharmacological interventions remain descriptive or compare only one compound with several other compounds. The goal of this study is to compute a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect on restoring calmness after a pharmacological intervention, so a more precise recommendation is possible.

Method:

A search in Pubmed and Embase was done to isolate RCT’s considering pharmacological interventions in acute agitation. The outcome is reaching calmness within maximum of 2 h, assessed by the psychometric scales of PANSS-EC, CGI or ACES. Also the percentages of adverse effects was assessed.

Results:

Fifty-three papers were included for a systematic review and meta-analysis. Most frequent studied drug is olanzapine. Changes on PANNS-EC and ACES at 2 h showed the strongest changes for haloperidol plus promethazine, risperidon, olanzapine, droperidol and aripiprazole. However, incomplete data showed that the effect of risperidon is overestimated. Adverse effects are most prominent for haloperidol and haloperidol plus lorazepam.

Conclusion:

Olanzapine, haloperidol plus promethazine or droperidol are most effective and safe for use as rapid tranquilisation. Midazolam sedates most quickly. But due to increased saturation problems, midazolam is restricted to use within an emergency department of a general hospital.

A Comparative Study of Short Term Efficacy of Aripiprazole and Risperidone in Schizophrenia

Objective:

To compare the short term anti-schizophrenic efficacy and side effect profile of aripiprazole with risperidone.

Methodology:

The study was a non-randomized, naturalistic, rater blinded, prospective, 8-12 weeks, comparative trial between the risperidone and aripiprazole in patients with schizophrenia. Patients already getting treatment with aripiprazole (10 to 30 mg/day) or risperidone (3 to 8mg/day) were recruited. Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) Plus, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS), Simpson Angus Scale (SAS), Udvalg for Klinske Undersogelser (UKU) Scale, Clinical Global Impression-severity scales were administered by principal investigator on the day of recruitment. Anthropometric measurements (height, weight, BMI, waist, hip, waist circumference) blood pressure and pulse rate were measured on day 1 and during follow up. All tests except MINI plus were administered again after 8-12weeks.

Results:

Both aripiprazole and risperidone treated patients have shown significant improvement on positive and negative symptoms but there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Mean improvement in patient rated improvement scale score showed a trend towards significance favoring aripiprazole. Common adverse events (seen in ≥ 5% of patients) as assessed by the UKU Scale occurred more frequently in the risperidone group than in the aripiprazole group. Drug induced extra pyramidal symptoms were more common in risperidone treated patients. Aripiprazole showed less treatment emerged weight gain.

Conclusion:

Aripiprazole is equally efficacious and better tolerated than risperidone in patients with schizophrenia over a short-term period of eight weeks. Aripiprazole showed better patient satisfaction and side effect profile.

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.

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.

Efficacy of Atypical Antipsychotics in the Management of Acute Agitation and Aggression in Hospitalized Patients with Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorder: Results from a Systematic Review

Acute agitation and aggression are common symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. In this review, we discuss the prevalence, clinical assessment strategies, treatment options, and current Western and Chinese guidelines for the management of acute agitation and aggression in patients with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. Among available approaches, we discuss in detail recent evidence supporting the use of intramuscular (IM) antipsychotics and some recently approved oral atypical antipsychotics for the management of acute aggression and agitation in hospitalized patients with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia presenting with acute agitation or aggression, highlighting some differences between individual antipsychotic agents.

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.

The psychopharmacology of violence: making sensible decisions

Violent behavior associated with mental disorders is a common reason for admission to a psychiatric inpatient unit. Once hospitalized, patients may continue to be intermittently agitated and have persistent aggressive behaviors, preventing their discharge back into the community. Managing agitation quickly with effective pharmacological agents can avoid further escalation to aggression and violence. In the acute setting, this usually involves the parenteral use of antipsychotics, with or without benzodiazepines. Within the past decade, short-acting intramuscular formulations of second-generation antipsychotics have become available and provide a means to induce calm with a substantially lower risk of acute dystonia or akathisia compared with haloperidol. New alternative formulations that avoid injections include inhalation and sublingual administration. Longer-term management of persistent aggressive behavior by reducing the frequency and intensity of future episodes of agitation is more complex. In contrast to agitation associated with schizophrenia or bipolar mania, no agents have yet been approved by regulatory agencies for the treatment of persistent aggressive behavior. The strongest evidence supports the use of clozapine as an antihostility agent, followed by olanzapine. Adjunctive strategies with anticonvulsants and beta-adrenergic agents may also be worthwhile to consider.

[Efficacy of aripiprazole for the treatment of schizophrenia: what dose is required?]

OBJECTIVE

Problem of the choice of antipsychotic dose is a key issue in clinical practice. It determines the efficacy and safety of treatment. Aripiprazole is recommended at a dose of between 10 and 15 mg/day in the treatment of schizophrenia, with a dose range considered to be effective, between 10 and 30 mg/day. This wide therapeutic range prompted us to investigate the existence of a possible dose-effect relationship for aripiprazole in the treatment of schizophrenia.

METHOD

We conducted a literature review from PubMed and EMBASE database, with the keywords: aripiprazole, schizophrenia. We limited it to studies published in English and French, with the main objective to assess the efficacy of aripiprazole in patients with schizophrenia. We selected only randomized clinical trials, double-blind, controlled against placebo or against an active comparator. Studies in which aripiprazole was studied added to another antipsychotic were not retained.

RESULTS

Twenty-two randomized, double-blind, controlled studies were selected. Three studies assessed the efficacy of aripiprazole on agitation symptoms in patients with schizophrenia and for which a dose of aripiprazole between 1 and 15mg showed significant efficacy compared to placebo. Seven clinical trials focused on the effect of aripiprazole short term (less than 12weeks). For the primary endpoint (PANSS scores), aripiprazole was superior to placebo or equivalent to active comparators (risperidone, olanzapine or haloperidol). These short-term studies revealed a range of effective doses from 10 mg/day to 20 mg/day. Five studies, lasting between 16 and 52 weeks, with a primary endpoint being the time to discontinuation for any cause for two studies, the time before relapse in one study, and the improvement in PANSS scores for the two other studies. On these different endpoints, aripiprazole was effective at average doses between 15 and 28.1 mg/day. The safety of aripiprazole was particularly favourable in these trials. Finally, we listed seven post-hoc analyses. In support of these long-term analyses on different endpoints, aripiprazole showed significant efficacy at higher doses (20 and 30 mg/day) than those used in the agitation treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

No study was designed to compare aripiprazole doses in schizophrenia. Nevertheless, efficacy on agitation and hostility components had been observed for doses of 10mg/day, or lower; whereas the antipsychotic effect in acute or maintenance phase appeared optimal for doses ranging from 10 to 25 mg/day. Only one study retained a minimum effective dose of 10mg/day on the PANSS scores. This literature review reveals an effective dose range between 10 and 25 mg/day for aripiprazole in schizophrenia. Less than 10 mg/day did not show significant efficacy on symptoms of schizophrenia, apart from a specific short-term effect on agitation, at very low doses (starting at 1mg). Optimization of treatment, at doses above 25 mg/day, cannot be the subject of evidence-based recommendations.

Haloperidol versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol was developed in the late 1950s for use in the field of anaesthesia. Research subsequently demonstrated effects on hallucinations, delusions, aggressiveness, impulsiveness and states of excitement and led to the introduction of haloperidol as an antipsychotic.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effects of haloperidol for the management of schizophrenia and other similar serious mental illnesses compared with placebo.

SEARCH METHODS

Initially, we electronically searched the databases of Biological Abstracts (1985-1998), CINAHL (1982-1998), The Cochrane Library (1998, Issue 4), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (December 1998), EMBASE (1980-1998), MEDLINE (1966-1998), PsycLIT (1974-1998), and SCISEARCH. We also checked references of all identified studies for further trial citations and contacted the authors of trials and pharmaceutical companies for further information and archive material.For the 2012 update, on 15 May 2012, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all relevant randomised controlled trials comparing the use of haloperidol (any oral dose) with placebo for those with schizophrenia or other similar serious, non-affective psychotic illnesses (however diagnosed). Our main outcomes of interest were death, loss to follow-up, clinical and social response, relapse and severity of adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We evaluated data independently and extracted, re-inspected and quality assessed the data. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and calculated their 95% confidence intervals (CI). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD). We excluded continuous data if loss to follow-up was greater than 50% and inspected data for heterogeneity. We used a fixed-effect model for all analyses. For the 2012 update, we assessed risk of bias of included studies and used the GRADE approach to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five trials randomising 4651 people are now included in this review. We chose seven main outcomes of interest for the 'Summary of findings' table. More people allocated haloperidol improved in the first six weeks of treatment than those given placebo (4 RCTs n = 472, RR 0.67 CI 0.56 to 0.80, moderate quality evidence). A further eight trials also found a difference favouring haloperidol across the six weeks to six months period (8 RCTs n = 307 RR 0.67 CI 0.58 to 0.78, moderate quality evidence). Relapse data from two trials favoured haloperidol at < 52 weeks but the evidence was very low quality (2 RCTs n = 70, RR 0.69 CI 0.55 to 0.86). Moderate quality evidence showed about half of those entering studies failed to complete the short trials (six weeks to six months), although, at up to six weeks, 16 studies found a difference that marginally favoured haloperidol (n = 1812, RR 0.87 CI 0.80 to 0.95). Adverse effect data does, nevertheless, support clinical impression that haloperidol is a potent cause of movement disorders, at least in the short term. Moderate quality evidence indicates that haloperidol caused parkinsonism (5 RCTs n = 485, RR 5.48 CI 2.68 to 11.22), akathisia (6 RCTs n = 695, RR 3.66 CI 2.24 to 5.97, and acute dystonia (5 RCTs n = 471, RR 11.49 CI 3.23 to 10.85). Discharge from hospital was equivocal between groups (1 RCT n = 33, RR 0.85 CI 0.47 to 1.52, very low quality evidence). Data were not reported for death and patient satisfaction.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Haloperidol is a potent antipsychotic drug but has a high propensity to cause adverse effects. Where there is no treatment option, use of haloperidol to counter the damaging and potentially dangerous consequences of untreated schizophrenia is justified. However, where a choice of drug is available, people with schizophrenia and clinicians may wish to prescribe an alternative antipsychotic with less likelihood of adverse effects such as parkinsonism, akathisia and acute dystonias. Haloperidol should be less favoured as a control drug for randomised trials of new antipsychotics.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled  trials (RCTs) involving people exhibiting agitation or aggression (or both) thought to be due to psychosis, allocated rapid use of haloperidol alone (by any route), compared with any other treatment. Outcomes included tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes, repeated need for rapid tranquillisation within 24 hours, specific behaviours (threat or injury to others/self), adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

If no other alternative exists, sole use of intramuscular haloperidol could be life-saving. Where additional drugs to offset the adverse effects are available, sole use of haloperidol for the extreme emergency, in situations of coercion, could be considered unethical. Addition of the sedating promethazine has support from better-grade evidence from within randomised trials. Use of an alternative antipsychotic drug is only partially supported by fragmented and poor-grade evidence. Evidence for use of newer generation antipsychotic alternatives is no stronger than that for older drugs. Adding a benzodiazepine to haloperidol does not have strong evidence of benefit and carries a risk of additional harm.After six decades of use for emergency rapid tranquillisation, this is still an area in need of good independent trials relevant to real world practice.

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

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

The psychopharmacology of aggressive behavior: a translational approach: part 2: clinical studies using atypical antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, and lithium

Patients experiencing mental disorders are at an elevated risk for developing aggressive behavior. In the past 10 years, the psychopharmacological treatment of aggression has changed dramatically owing to the introduction of atypical antipsychotics on the market and the increased use of anticonvulsants and lithium in the treatment of aggressive patients.This review (second of 2 parts) uses a translational medicine approach to examine the neurobiology of aggression, discussing the major neurotransmitter systems implicated in its pathogenesis (serotonin, glutamate, norepinephrine, dopamine, and γ-aminobutyric acid) and the neuropharmacological rationale for using atypical antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, and lithium in the therapeutics of aggressive behavior. A critical review of all clinical trials using atypical antipsychotics (aripiprazole, clozapine, loxapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, ziprasidone, and amisulpride), anticonvulsants (topiramate, valproate, lamotrigine, and gabapentin), and lithium are presented. Given the complex, multifaceted nature of aggression, a multifunctional combined therapy, targeting different receptors, seems to be the best strategy for treating aggressive behavior. This therapeutic strategy is supported by translational studies and a few human studies, even if additional randomized, double-blind, clinical trials are needed to confirm the clinical efficacy of this framework.

Aripiprazole: a review of its use in the management of schizophrenia in adults

Oral aripiprazole (Abilify®) is an atypical antipsychotic agent that is approved worldwide for use in adult patients with schizophrenia. It is a quinolinone derivative that has a unique receptor binding profile as it exhibits both partial agonist activity at dopamine D(2) receptors and serotonin 5-HT(1A) receptors and antagonist activity at 5-HT(2A) receptors. In several well designed, randomized, clinical trials of 4-6 weeks duration, aripiprazole provided symptomatic control for patients with acute, relapsing schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Furthermore, following 26 weeks' treatment, the time to relapse was significantly longer for patients with chronic, stabilized schizophrenia receiving aripiprazole compared with those receiving placebo. Using a variety of efficacy outcomes, aripiprazole showed a mixed response when evaluated against other antipsychotic agents in randomized clinical trials. Longer-term data showed that improvements in remission rates and response rates favoured aripiprazole over haloperidol, although, the time to failure to maintain a response was not significantly different between the treatment arms. On the other hand, improvements in positive and negative symptom scores mostly favoured olanzapine over aripiprazole, although, the time to all-cause treatment discontinuation was not significantly different between the two treatments. Several open-label, switching trials showed that aripiprazole provided continued control of symptoms in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Using a variety of efficacy outcomes or quality-of-life scores, longer-term treatment generally favoured patients switched to receive aripiprazole compared with standard-of-care oral antipsychotics. Aripiprazole was generally well tolerated in patients with schizophrenia. In particular, its use seems to be associated with a lower incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms than haloperidol and fewer weight-gain issues than olanzapine. Aripiprazole also showed a favourable cardiovascular tolerability profile and its use was associated with a reduced risk of metabolic syndrome than placebo or olanzapine. As a consequence, aripiprazole may provide a more cost-effective treatment option compared with other atypical antipsychotics. In conclusion, oral aripiprazole provides an effective and well tolerated treatment alternative for the acute and long-term management of patients with schizophrenia.

A pharmacoeconomic analysis of sertindole in the treatment of schizophrenia in Sweden

BACKGROUND

Atypical antipsychotics have similar clinical efficacy in the treatment of schizophrenia; variability in their tolerability represents the discerning factor in treatment choices. Sertindole has a relatively good tolerability profile that favours long-term patient adherence and, therefore, is associated with lower rates of relapse and rehospitalization.

AIM

A model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of a 5-year treatment strategy starting with sertindole versus olanzapine, risperidone, aripiprazole or the typical antipsychotic agent, haloperidol.

METHODS

The model was based on published trials and local clinical practice, and considered costs from the perspective of the Swedish National Health Insurance Board.

RESULTS

All atypical agents were clinically superior and more cost-effective than haloperidol with a cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of approximately 490,000 Swedish kroner. Sertindole was associated with the lowest direct and indirect medical costs, driven by its tolerability profile.

CONCLUSIONS

Sertindole represents a useful alternative to the current treatment options available in Sweden.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The relatively good tolerability profile of sertindole translates into lower costs of schizophrenia management, primarily driven by substantially lower direct and indirect costs. Sertindole appears to be a clinically and cost-effective alternative in the management of patients with schizophrenia in Sweden.

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.

Practical guidance for prescribing with aripiprazole in bipolar disorder

BACKGROUND

Aripiprazole differs from other atypical antipsychotics in its pharmacological and clinical profile.

SCOPE

As aripiprazole has been available in the USA for bipolar mania since 2004, clinical experience-sharing from clinical and research use of this agent can assist with initiation and administration in practice. The clinical experience-guided recommendations provided herein are based on clinical practice of the author (intended as clinical opinions and general suggestions of the author and/or hypotheses to be scientifically tested) and a review of the literature (based on a PubMed search and limited to double-blind, randomised, controlled clinical trials) to provide the most current aripiprazole studies in bipolar mania. This article is designed to share the experience gained over time by the author on the prescribing of aripiprazole, how best to approach initiation of and switching to aripiprazole, and how and when to use adjunctive medications.

FINDINGS

In the treatment of a manic episode, aripiprazole may be initiated at 15 mg/day and adjusted as required (down to 5-10 mg/day or up to 30 mg/day). When switching to aripiprazole, it is frequently advisable to maintain the therapeutic dose of current medication, add aripiprazole 5, 10 or 15 mg/day, and adjust between 10 and 30 mg/day depending on response and tolerability. Only once an effective aripiprazole dose is reached can the prior medication be gradually discontinued. A tolerability profile different from other atypical antipsychotics should be expected. Side-effects, if they occur, are usually manageable and frequently resolve soon after initiation.

CONCLUSIONS

Practical guidance for prescribing aripiprazole in bipolar mania is provided to assist clinicians using aripiprazole for the treatment of bipolar mania in real-world practice; for example, with dose selection, for the switching strategies and for the management of side-effects.

Aripiprazole versus typical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Aripiprazole is a relatively new antipsychotic drug, said to be the prototype of a new third generation of antipsychotics; the so-called dopamine-serotonin system stabilisers. In this review we examine how the efficacy and tolerability of aripiprazole differs from that of typical antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of aripiprazole compared with other typical antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (November 2007) which is based on regular searches of BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. We inspected references of all identified studies for further trials. We contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies, drug approval agencies and authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials comparing aripiprazole with typical antipsychotics in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis.

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 random effects model. We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) again based on a random effects model. We have contacted representatives of Bristol Myers Squibb pharmaceuticals (UK) for additional data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine randomised trials involving 3122 people comparing aripiprazole with typical antipsychotic drugs. None of the studies reported on relapse - our primary outcome of interest. Attrition from studies was high and data reporting poor. Participants given aripiprazole were comparable to those receiving typical drugs in improving global state and mental state. Aripiprazole provided a significant advantage over typical antipsychotics in terms of fewer occurrences of extra-pyramidal symptom (n=968, 3 RCT, RR 0.46 CI 0.3 to 0.9, NNT 13 CI 17 to 10), and particularly akathisia (n=897, 3 RCT, RR 0.39 CI 0.3 to 0.6, NNT 11 CI 14 to 9). Fewer participants given aripiprazole developed hyperprolactinaemia (n=300, 1 RCT, RR 0.07 CI 0.03 to 0.2, NNT 2 CI 3 to 1). Aripiprazole presented a lesser risk of sinus tachycardia (n=289, 1 RCT, RR 0.09 CI 0.01 to 0.8, NNT 22 CI 63 to 13) and blurred vision (n=308, 1 RCT, RR 0.19 CI 0.1 to 0.7, NNT 14 CI 25 to 10); but enhanced risk of occurrence of dizziness (n=957, 3 RCT, RR 1.88 CI 1.1 to 3.2, NNH 20 CI 33 to 14) and nausea (n=957, 3 RCT, RR 3.03 CI 1.5 to 6.1, NNH 17 CI 25 to 13). Attrition rates were high in both groups, although significantly more participants in the aripiprazole group completed the study in the long term (n=1294, 1 RCT, RR 0.81 CI 0.8 to 0.9 NNT 8 CI 5 to 14).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Aripiprazole differs little from typical antipsychotic drugs with respect to efficacy, however it presents significant advantages in terms of tolerability. Clearly reported pragmatic short, medium and long term randomised controlled trials are required to replicate and validate these findings and determine the position of aripiprazole in everyday clinical practice.

Pharmacological control of acute agitation: focus on intramuscular preparations

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

Management of agitation in the acute psychotic patient--efficacy without excessive sedation

Rapid-acting intramuscular (IM) formulations of atypical antipsychotics offer a significant advance over IM haloperidol in the short-term management of acute schizophrenic episodes. Several short-term open-label randomised studies, typically enrolling two- to three-hundred patients, have compared an atypical antipsychotic with haloperidol. These studies show that IM ziprasidone, IM olanzapine and IM aripiprazole are at least as effective and better tolerated than IM haloperidol, with lower extrapyramidal side effects. Successful transitions from an IM to oral formulation of the same agent have been performed in double-blind randomised trials assessing haloperidol, olanzapine, ziprasidone and aripiprazole. Avoiding over-sedation is now recognised as important, and randomised clinical trial data indicate that oral ziprasone, quetiapine, and IM olanzapine have high dose-related sedative potential while oral risperidone and IM aripiprazole have low sedative potential. In summary, IM formulations of atypical antipsychotics are recommended as first-line treatment of acute agitation with subsequent transition to an oral formulation of the same agent for ongoing management.

Haloperidol versus placebo for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol was developed in the late 1950s for use in the field of anaesthesia. Research subsequently demonstrated effects on hallucinations, delusions, aggressiveness, impulsiveness and states of excitement and led to the introduction of haloperidol as an antipsychotic.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effects of haloperidol for the management of schizophrenia and other similar serious mental illnesses compared to placebo.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We initially electronically searched the databases of Biological Abstracts (1985-1998), CINAHL (1982-1998), The Cochrane Library (1998, Issue 4), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (December 1998), EMBASE (1980-1998), MEDLINE (1966-1998), PsycLIT (1974-1998), and SCISEARCH. We also checked references of all identified studies for further trial citations and contacted the authors of trials and pharmaceutical companies for further information and archive material. For the 2005 update we searched The Cochrane Library (2005, Issue 6).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all relevant randomised controlled trials comparing the use of haloperidol (any oral dose) with placebo for those with schizophrenia or other similar serious, non-affective psychotic illnesses (however diagnosed). Our main outcomes of interest were death, loss to follow up, clinical and social response, relapse and severity of adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We evaluated data independently and analysed on an intention-to-treat basis, assuming that people who left the study early, or were lost to follow-up, had no improvement. Where possible and appropriate, we analysed dichotomous data using Relative Risk (RR) and calculated their 95% confidence intervals (CI). If appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to harm (NNH) was estimated. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences. We excluded continuous data if loss to follow up was greater than 50% and inspected data for heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-one trials randomising 1519 people are now included in this review. One new trial, Kane 2002 (n=414) has been added but it did not affect the overall results. More people allocated haloperidol improved in the first six weeks of treatment than those given placebo (3RCTs n=159, RR failing to produce a marked improvement 0.44 CI 0.3 to 0.6, NNT 3 CI 2 to 5). A further eight trials also found a difference favouring haloperidol across the 6-24 week period (8 RCTs n=308 RR no marked global improvement 0.68 CI 0.6 to 0.8 NNT 3 CI 2.5 to 5) but this may be an over estimate of effect as small negative studies were not identified. About half of those entering studies failed to complete the short trials, although, at 0-6 weeks, 11 studies found a difference that marginally favoured haloperidol (11 RCTs n=898, RR 0.8 CI 0.7 to 0.9, NNT 59 CI 38 to 200). Adverse effect data does, nevertheless, support clinical impression, that haloperidol is a potent cause of movement disorders, at least in the short term. Haloperidol promotes acute dystonia (3 RCTs n=93, RR 4.7 CI 1.7 to 44, NNH 5 CI 3 to 9), akathisia (4 RCTs n=333, RR 2.6 CI 1.4 to 4.8, NNH 7 CI 3 to 25) and parkinsonism (4 RCTs n=163, RR 11.7 CI 2.9 to 47, NNH 3 CI 2 to 5).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Haloperidol is a potent antipsychotic drug but has a high propensity to cause adverse effects. Where there is no treatment option, use of haloperidol to counter the damaging and potentially dangerous consequences of untreated schizophrenia is justified. However, where a choice of drug is available, people with schizophrenia and clinicians may wish to prescribe an alternative antipsychotic with less likelihood of adverse effects such as parkinsonism, akathisia and acute dystonias. Haloperidol should not be a control drug of choice for randomised trials of new antipsychotics.