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

Incidence of drug-related adverse events related to the use of high-alert drugs: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Background

High-alert medication (HAM) is more predictable to cause significant harm to the patient, even when used as intended. The damage related to the HAM lead not only suffering to the patient, but also raise the additional costs associated with care.

Objective

Evaluate the incidence of drug-related adverse events related to the use of high-alert medications.

Methods

It was conducted an active search for information through COCHRANE databases, LILACS, SciELO, SCOPUS, PubMed/MEDLINE and WEB OF SCIENCE. The search strategy included the following terms: "Patient safety", "Medication errors" and "Hospital" and "High Alert Medications" or "Dangerous Drugs" in different combinations. Then two reviewers independently conducted a preliminary evaluation of relevant titles, abstracts and finally full-text. Studies quality was evaluated according to PRISMA declaration.

Results

The systematic review evaluated seven articles, which showed that only 11 HAM identified in the literature could have serious events. The most frequently cited were warfarin (22.2%) which progressed from deep vein thrombosis to gangrene, suggesting lower initial doses, followed by cyclophosphamide (22.2%) and cyclosporine (22.2%) which presented invasive fungal infection and death. In addition to these, morphine was compared with its active metabolite (M6G), with M6G causing fewer serious clinical events related to nausea and vomiting, reducing the need for concomitant use of antiemetics.

Conclusions

The most reported drug classes in the articles included that were related to incidence of drug-related adverse events in use of high-alert medications: morphine, M6G-glucuronide, haloperidol, promethazine, ivabradine, digoxin, warfarin, ximelagatran, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, and ATG. The formulate protocols for the use of these medications, with importance placed on evaluating, among the classes, the medication that causes the least harm.

Improving the pharmacotherapeutic treatment of agitation associated with bipolar disorder

INTRODUCTION

Agitation is commonly encountered in people with bipolar disorder, particularly when experiencing a manic episode. The number of approved pharmacological agents to manage acute episodes of agitation in this population is limited.

AREAS COVERED

A search was conducted using the US National Library of Medicine PubMed.gov resource for English-language papers of clinical trials and reviews/meta-analyses, using the text words 'bipolar disorder' AND 'agitation,' as well as any papers with both two text words in the title, without any date restrictions.

EXPERT OPINION

Existing pharmacologic options approved by regulatory authorities for the treatment of acute episodes of agitation associated with bipolar disorder have similar degrees of efficacy but differ in their tolerability profiles and ease of use, giving clinicians an opportunity to individualize treatment. The goal is to treat mild-moderate agitation before it evolves into severe agitation, encouraging noninvasive pharmacologic treatment options. Inhaled loxapine and sublingual dexmedetomidine are newer options with rapid onset of action and may be preferable for patients willing to cooperate with treatment.

Safety and effectiveness of benzodiazepines and antipsychotics for agitation in older adults in the emergency department

PURPOSE

To examine the safety and effectiveness of benzodiazepines (BZD) as compared to antipsychotics for the management of acute agitation in older adults in the emergency department (ED).

BASIC PROCEDURES

Retrospective observational cohort study of 21 EDs across four states in the US, including adults ≥60 years old who received either BZD or antipsychotics for acute agitation in the ED and subsequently were admitted to the hospital. Safety was measured as presence of adverse events: respiratory depression, cardiovascular effects, extrapyramidal side effects, or a fall during hospitalization. Effectiveness was measured as indicators of treatment failure: need for additional medication, one-to-one observation, or physical restraints following initial medication administration. Proportions and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were used to assess the association between potential risk factors and for efficacy and safety endpoints.

MAIN FINDINGS

A total of 684 patients were included (63.9% received a BZD and 36.1% an antipsychotic). There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events between groups (20.6% vs 14.6%, difference 6.0%, 95% CI -0.2% to 11.8%), but there was a higher intubation rate in the BZD group (2.7% vs 0.4%, difference 2.3%). There were more treatment failures in the antipsychotic group for the composite primary efficacy endpoint (94.3% vs 87.6%, difference 6.7%, 95% CI 2.5% to 10.9%). This appears to have been driven by the need for 1:1 observation; sensitivity analysis excluding 1:1 observation in the composite outcome demonstrated no significant difference with a failure rate of 38.5% in the antipsychotic group and 35.2% in the benzodiazepine group.

PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS

Overall there are high rates of treatment failure among agitated older adults receiving pharmacological treatment for agitation in the emergency department. The optimal selection of pharmacological treatment for agitation in older adults should be made considering patient-specific factors that could increase the risk of adverse effects or treatment failure.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Haloperidol Versus Ziprasidone With Concomitant Medications and Other Predictors of Physical Restraint Duration in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe agitation are frequently encountered in the emergency department (ED). At times, these patients are physically restrained and given calming medications; however, little is known about the effects of medications and other predictors on restraint duration.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to compare restraint duration when haloperidol or ziprasidone was used as the primary antipsychotic with or without concomitant medications, and to identify predictors of restraint duration.

METHODS

We performed a review of a retrospective cohort of physically restrained ED patients between January 1, 2013 and November 30, 2017. An unadjusted analysis and adjusted linear regression model were used to evaluate the effect of antipsychotic choice on restraint duration, controlling for sex, age, race, homelessness, arrival in restraints, re-restraint during visit, concomitant medications (i.e., benzodiazepines or anticholinergics), additional medications given during restraint, time of day, and patient disposition.

RESULTS

In 386 patients (319 haloperidol, 67 ziprasidone), the average restraint duration was 2.4 h (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.2 to 2.6 h). There were no differences in physical restraint times between ziprasidone and haloperidol groups in the unadjusted (mean difference 0.12 h; 95% CI -0.42 to 0.66 h) or adjusted analyses (-12.7%; 95% CI -33.9% to 8.6%). Haloperidol given with diphenhydramine alone was associated with decreased restraint duration (-30.8%; 95% CI -50.6% to -11.1%) The largest association with restraint duration was administration of additional sedating medications during restraint, prolonging restraint by 62% (95% CI 27.1% to 96.9%). In addition, compared with White patients, Black patients spent significantly more time restrained (mean difference 33.9%; 95% CI 9.0% to 58.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Restraint duration of agitated ED patients was similar when haloperidol or ziprasidone was used as the primary antipsychotic. However, race and additional medications given during restraint were significantly associated with restraint duration.

Psychopharmacology of agitation in acute psychotic and manic episodes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide updated guidance for the medication treatment of acute agitation in the setting of psychosis or mania on inpatient psychiatric units.

RECENT FINDINGS

This topic presented challenges: studies are sparse, tend to be under-powered, and are difficult to compare. Though there have been few recent studies, there have been several recent meta-analyses, Cochrane reviews, and published guidelines that sift through the primarily older evidence as well as more recent trials. The reviewers often do not agree on what seems to have the best evidence for efficacy and safety.

SUMMARY

We conclude that the best approach is to summarize in some detail the evidence for each possible treatment and the interpretations published recently on each of those treatments, and then present recommendations for medication management in tiered rankings, based on the authors' qualitative review of the data and opinions. For oral treatment, the first-tier options are (alphabetically) haloperidol with lorazepam, lorazepam alone, and olanzapine. The second tier includes haloperidol with promethazine, loxapine inhaler, and risperidone alone. Tier 3 includes asenapine and quetiapine. For intramuscular treatment, the first-tier includes haloperidol plus promethazine, and olanzapine alone, and the second-tier includes haloperidol with lorazepam, and lorazepam alone.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

FUNDING

Research Grants Council, Hong Kong.

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

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

Intramuscular medication for treatment of agitation in the emergency department: A systematic review of controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Severely agitated patients in the emergency department (ED) are often sedated with intramuscularly-administered medications. The evidence base underlying particular medication choices is surprisingly sparse, as existing reviews either have methodological limitations or have included data collected outside of emergent settings.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to examine all controlled trials in emergent settings that have used standardized scales to measure the effectiveness of intramuscular medication for the treatment of acute agitation.

METHODS

This review was registered in Prospero as CRD42018105745. PubMed, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for prospective controlled trials investigating intramuscular antipsychotics for agitation. Articles were assessed for bias across five domains using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.

RESULTS

Eight studies were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review, none of which had a low risk of bias. Five studies had a moderate risk of bias with heterogenous designs, populations, and treatments. These studies seemed to suggest that second generation antipsychotics (SGAs) likely reduce agitation as effectively as first generation antipsychotics (FGAs) plus an adjunctive medication with similar or lower risk of side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing trials on the use of intramuscular antipsychotics in the ED/psychiatric ED setting were small, heterogenous, and at a moderate or high risk of bias. Given the clinical importance of this topic, further prospective investigations are desperately needed but are currently unfeasible under Food and Drug Administration Exception From Informed Consent regulations.

Safety and effectiveness of olanzapine and droperidol for chemical restraint for non-consenting adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chemical restraint (CR) is emergency drug management for acute behavioural disturbances in people with mental illness, provided with the aim of rapid calming and de-escalating potentially dangerous situations.

AIMS

To describe a systematic review of Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) reporting on short-term safety and effectiveness of drugs used for CR, administered to non-consenting adults with mental health conditions, who require emergency management of acute behavioural disturbances. A meta-analysis was conducted of those RCTs with comparable interventions, outcome measures and measurement timeframes.

METHOD

Academic databases were searched for RCTs published between 1 January 1996 and 20th April 2020. Relevant RCTs were critically appraised using the 13-item JBI checklist. All RCTs were described, and step-wise filters were applied to identify studies suitable for meta-analysis. For these, forest and funnel plots were constructed, and Q and I² statistics guided interpretation of pooled findings, tested using MedCalc Version 19.1.

RESULTS

Of 23 relevant RCTs, 18 (78.2% total) had excellent methodological quality scores (at least 90%). Eight RCTs were potentially relevant for meta-analysis (six of excellent quality), reporting 20 drug arms in total. Adverse events for 6-36% patients were reported in all 20 drug arms. Four drug arms from two homogenous studies of N = 697 people were meta-analysed. These RCTs tested two antipsychotic drugs (droperidol, olanzapine) delivered intravenously in either 5 mgs or 10 mg doses, with outcomes of time to calm, percentage calm within five or 10 min, and adverse events. There were no significant differences between drug arms for either measure of calm. However, 5 mg olanzapine incurred significantly lower risk of adverse events than 10 mg olanzapine (OR 0.4 (95%CI 0.2-0.8)), although no dose differences were found for droperidol.

CONCLUSION

5 mg intravenous olanzapine is recommended for quick, safe emergency management of people with acute behavioural disturbances associated with mental illness.

How to treat mania

OBJECTIVE

In this paper, we aimed at reviewing evidence-based treatment options for bipolar mania and proposed tentative evidence-based clinical suggestions regarding the management of a manic episode, especially regarding the choice of the proper mood stabilizer and antipsychotic medication.

METHOD

A narrative review was undertaken addressing 'treatment of bipolar mania'. Findings have been synthesized and incorporated with clinical experience into a model to support different treatment choices.

RESULTS

To date, there is solid evidence supporting the use of several medications, such as lithium, divalproex, and carbamazepine, and antipsychotics, such as chlorpromazine, haloperidol, risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, aripiprazole, inhaled loxapine, asenapine, and cariprazine in acute mania, and some evidence supporting the use of clozapine or electroconvulsive therapy in treatment-refractory cases. However, in clinical practice, when making decisions about treatment, personalized treatment is needed, according to the different clinical presentations and more complex clinical situations within the manic episode and considering a long-term view and with the objective of not only a symptomatic but also functional recovery. After remission from acute mania, psychoeducation strategies are useful to ensure adherence.

DISCUSSION

Despite the evidence forefficacy of many currently available treatments for mania, the majority of RCTs provide little direction for the clinician as to what steps might be optimal in different presentations of mania as well as in the presence of specific patient characteristics. Manic episodes should be managed on a personalized basis considering the clinical course and patient criteria and with the expectation of maintaining that treatment in the long-term.

The Use of Rapid Tranquilization in Aggressive Behavior

BACKGROUND

Psychomotor agitation and aggressiveness in the context of mental illnessare medical emergencies. In a survey of six German psychiatric hospitals, 1.7 to 5 aggressive attacks per patient-year were reported. If talking to the patient has no calming effect, intervention with drugs is required. In this article, we review the evidence on tranquilizing drugs and discuss clinically relevant ethical and practical questions, e.g., with respect to involuntary medication.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent articles retrieved by a selective search in MEDLINE, supplemented by a reference search.

RESULTS

The evidence for the treatment of psychomotor agitation with antipsychotic drugs and benzodiazepines is relatively good. Randomized, controlled trials and a number of Cochrane reviews are available. These publications, however, contain data only on patients who were able to give informed consent. Their findings are often not applicable to real-life emergencies, e.g., when the patient is intoxicated with alcohol or suffers from a pre-existing disease. Haloperidol has a relatively weak effect on aggression when given alone and can also cause side effects such as early dyskinesia and epileptic seizures. It should, therefore, no longer be used as monotherapy. On the other hand, haloperidol combined with benzodiazepines or promethazine and monotherapy with lorazepam, olanzapine, ziprasidone, or aripiprazole intramuscular are effective options for the treatment of aggressive psychomotor agitation.

CONCLUSION

All of these drugs, if accepted by the patient, can also have an additional, beneficial placebo effect, with the patient calming down more rapidly than could be explained on pharmacological grounds alone. It is, therefore, important in emergencies (as at other times) for the patient to be involved in treatment decisions to the greatest possible extent.

International research into 22 years of use of chemical restraint: An evidence overview

BACKGROUND

Chemical restraint (CR) (also known as rapid tranquilisation) is the forced (non-consenting) administration of medications to manage uncontrolled aggression, anxiety, or violence in people who are likely to cause harm to themselves or others. Our population of interest was adults with mental health disorders (with/without substance abuse). There has been a growing international movement over the past 22 years towards reducing/eliminating restrictive practices such as CR. It is appropriate to summarise the research that has been published over this time, identify trends and gaps in knowledge, and highlight areas for new research to inform practice.

AIMS

To undertake a comprehensive systematic search to identify, and describe, the volume and nature of primary international research into CR published since 1995.

METHODS

This paper reports the processes and overall findings of a systematic search for all available primary research on CR published between 1 January 1996 and 31 July 2018. It describes the current evidence base by hierarchy of evidence, country (ies) producing the research, CR definitions, study purpose, and outcome measures.

RESULTS

This review identified 311 relevant primary studies (21 RCTs; 46 non-controlled experimental or prospective observational studies; 77 cross-sectional studies; 69 retrospective studies; 67 opinion pieces, position or policy statements; and 31 qualitative studies). The USA, UK, and Australia contributed over half the research, whilst cross-country collaborations comprised 6% of it. The most common research settings comprised acute psychiatric wards (23.3%), general psychiatric wards (21.6%), and general hospital emergency departments (19.0%).

DISCUSSION

A key lesson learnt whilst compiling this database of research into CR was to ensure that all papers described non-consenting administration of medications to manage adults with uncontrolled aggression, anxiety, or violence. There were tensions in the literature between using effective CR without producing adverse events, and how to decide when CR was needed (compared with choosing non-chemical intervention for behavioural emergencies), respecting patients' dignity whilst safeguarding their safety, and preserving safe workplaces for staff, and care environments for other patients. The range of outcome measures suggests opportunities to standardise future research.

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 effectiveness of chemical restraint in managing acute agitation and aggression: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

One approach to manage people with behaviours of concern including agitated or aggressive behaviours in health care settings is through the use of fast-acting medication, called chemical restraint. Such management often needs to be delivered in crisis situations to patients who are at risk of harm to themselves or others. This paper summarizes the available evidence on the effectiveness and safety of chemical restraint from 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 3788 patients. The RCTs were of moderate to high quality and were conducted in pre-hospital, hospital emergency department, or ward settings. Drugs used in chemical restraint included olanzapine, haloperidol, droperidol, risperidol, flunitrazepam, midazolam, promethazine, ziprasidone, sodium valproate, or lorazepam. There was limited comparability between studies in drug choice, combination, dose, method of administration (oral, intramuscular, or intravenous drip), or timing of repeat administrations. There were 31 outcome measures, which were inconsistently reported. They included subjective measures of behaviours, direct measures of treatment effect (time to calm; time to sleep), indirect measures of agitation (staff or patient injuries, duration of agitative or aggressive episodes, subsequent violent episodes), and adverse events. The most common were time to calm and adverse events. There was little clarity about the superiority of any chemical method of managing behaviours of concern exhibited by patients in Emergency Departments or acute mental health settings. Not only is more targeted research essential, but best practice recommendations for such situations requires integrating expert input into the current evidence base.

Treatment Options for Acute Agitation in Psychiatric Patients: Theoretical and Empirical Evidence

Acute agitation is a common presenting symptom in the emergency ward and is also dealt with on a routine basis in psychiatry. Usually a symptom of an underlying mental illness, it is considered urgent and immediate treatment is indicated. The practice of treating agitation on an acute care basis is also referred to as rapid tranquilization. A variety of psychotropic drugs and combinations thereof can be used. The decision is usually made based on availability and the clinician's experience, with the typical antipsychotic haloperidol (alone or in combination with antihistaminergic and anticholinergic drugs such as promethazine), the benzodiazepines lorazepam, diazepam and midazolam as well as a variety of atypical antipsychotics being used for this purpose. Haloperidol is associated with extrapyramidal symptoms (which can be controlled by co-administration of promethazine) and may control agitation without inducing sedation, while benzodiazepines have a more pronounced sedating activity. The atypical antipsychotics aripiprazole and ziprasidone are better tolerated, while olanzapine is also a powerful sedative. Clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of different treatment options have been conducted but they are extremely heterogenous and most have numerous methodological flaws, leading to a poor overall quality of evidence upon which guidelines for the appropriate treatment could be based. The combination of haloperidol and promethazine, which combines the sedative properties of the antihistamine with the more selective calming action of haloperidol (with a reduced risk of extrapyramidal effects compared to haloperidol alone because of the anticholinergic properties of promethazine) may be the best choice based on empirical evidence.

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

Background:

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

Materials and Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

Management of Violence and Aggression in Emergency Environment; a Narrative Review of 200 Related Articles

Context:

The aim of this study is to reviewing various approaches for dealing with agitated patients in emergency department (ED) including of chemical and physical restraint methods.

Evidence acquisition:

This review was conducted by searching “Violence,” “Aggression,” and “workplace violence” keywords in these databases: PubMed, Scopus, EmBase, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Database, and Google Scholar. In addition to using keywords for finding the papers, the related article capability was used to find more papers. From the found papers, published papers from 2005 to 2018 were chosen to enter the paper pool for further review.

Results:

Ultimately, 200 papers were used in this paper to conduct a comprehensive review regarding violence management in ED. The results were categorized as prevention, verbal methods, pharmacological interventions and physical restraint.

Conclusion:

In this study various methods of chemical and physical restraint methods were reviewed so an emergency medicine physician be aware of various available choices in different clinical situations for agitated patients.

The pharmacological management of acute behavioural disturbance: Data from a clinical audit conducted in UK mental health services

BACKGROUND

A quality improvement programme addressing prescribing practice for acutely disturbed behaviour was initiated by the Prescribing Observatory for Mental Health.

METHOD

This study analysed data from a baseline clinical audit conducted in inpatient mental health services in member trusts.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight mental health services submitted data on 2172 episodes of acutely disturbed behaviour. A benzodiazepine alone was administered in 60% of the 1091 episodes where oral medication only was used and in 39% of the 1081 episodes where parenteral medication (rapid tranquillisation) was used. Haloperidol was combined with lorazepam in 22% of rapid tranquillisation episodes and with promethazine in 3%. Physical violence towards others was strongly associated with receiving rapid tranquillisation in men (odds ratio 1.74, 1.25-2.44; p<0.001) as was actual or attempted self-harm in women (odds ratio 1.87, 1.19-2.94; p=0.007). Where physical violence towards others was exhibited, a benzodiazepine and antipsychotic was more likely to be prescribed than a benzodiazepine alone (odds ratio 1.39, 1.00-1.92; p=0.05). The data suggested that 25% of patients were at least 'extremely or continuously active' in the hour after rapid tranquillisation was administered.

CONCLUSION

The current management of acutely disturbed behaviour with parenteral medication may fail to achieve a calming effect in up to a quarter of episodes. The most common rapid tranquillisation combination used was lorazepam and haloperidol, for which the randomised controlled trial evidence is very limited. Rapid tranquillisation prescribing practice was not wholly consistent with the relevant National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline, which recommends intramuscular lorazepam on its own or intramuscular haloperidol combined with intramuscular promethazine. Clinical factors prompting the use of rapid tranquillisation rather than oral medication may differ between the genders.

Brazilian guidelines for the management of psychomotor agitation. Part 2. Pharmacological approach

Objective:

To present the essential guidelines for pharmacological management of patients with psychomotor agitation in Brazil.

Methods:

This is a systematic review of articles retrieved from the MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and SciELO databases published from 1997 to 2017. Other relevant articles in the literature were also used to develop these guidelines. The search strategy used structured questions formulated using the PICO model, as recommended by the Guidelines Project of the Brazilian Medical Association. Recommendations were summarized according to their level of evidence, which was determined using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine system and critical appraisal tools.

Results:

Of 5,362 articles retrieved, 1,731 abstracts were selected for further reading. The final sample included 74 articles that met all inclusion criteria. The evidence shows that pharmacologic treatment is indicated only after non-pharmacologic approaches have failed. The cause of the agitation, side effects of the medications, and contraindications must guide the medication choice. The oral route should be preferred for drug administration; IV administration must be avoided. All subjects must be monitored before and after medication administration.

Conclusion:

If non-pharmacological strategies fail, medications are needed to control agitation and violent behavior. Once medicated, the patient should be monitored until a tranquil state is possible without excessive sedation.

Systematic review registry number:

CRD42017054440.

Rescue Sedation When Treating Acute Agitation in the Emergency Department With Intramuscular Antipsychotics

BACKGROUND

Rapid treatment of agitation in the emergency department (ED) is critical to avoid injury to patients and providers. Treatment with intramuscular antipsychotics is often utilized, but there is a paucity of comparative effectiveness evidence available.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this investigation was to compare the effectiveness of droperidol, olanzapine, and haloperidol for treating agitation in the ED.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study of adult patients who received intramuscular medication to treat agitation. Patients were classified based on the initial antipsychotic they received. The primary effectiveness outcome was the rate of additional sedation administered (rescue medication) within 1 h. Secondary outcomes included rescue sedation for the entire encounter and adverse events.

RESULTS

There were 15,918 patients included (median age 37 years, 75% male). Rescue rates at 1 h were: 547/4947 for droperidol (11%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 10-12%), 988/8825 olanzapine (11%, 95% CI 10-12%), and 390/2146 for haloperidol (18%, 95% CI 17-20%). Rescue rates for the entire ED encounter were: 832/4947 for droperidol (17%, 95% CI 16-18%), 1665/8825 for olanzapine (19%, 95% CI 18-20%), and 560/2146 for haloperidol (26%, 95% CI 24-28%). Adverse events were uncommon: intubation (49, 0.3%), akathisia (7, 0.04%), dystonia (5, 0.03%), respiratory arrest (1, 0.006%), and torsades de pointes (0), with no significant differences between drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Olanzapine and droperidol lead to lower rates of rescue sedation at 1 h and overall, compared with haloperidol. There were no significant differences in major adverse events.

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.

Brazilian guidelines for the management of psychomotor agitation. Part 1. Non-pharmacological approach

Objective:

To present the essential guidelines for non-pharmacological management of patients with psychomotor agitation in Brazil.

Methods:

These guidelines were developed based on a systematic review of articles published from 1997 to 2017, retrieved from MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, and SciELO. Other relevant articles identified by searching the reference lists of included studies were also used to develop these guidelines. The search strategy used structured questions formulated using the PICO model, as recommended by the Guidelines Project of the Brazilian Medical Association. Recommendations were summarized according to their level of evidence, which was determined using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine system and critical appraisal tools.

Results:

We initially selected 1,731 abstracts among 5,362 articles. The final sample included 104 articles that fulfilled all the inclusion criteria. The management of agitated patients should always start with the least coercive approach. The initial non-pharmacological measures include a verbal strategy and referral of the patient to the appropriate setting, preferably a facility designed for the care of psychiatric patients with controlled noise, lighting, and safety aspects. Verbal de-escalation techniques have been shown to decrease agitation and reduce the potential for associated violence in the emergency setting. The possibility of underlying medical etiologies must be considered first and foremost. Particular attention should be paid to the patient’s appearance and behavior, physical signs, and mental state. If agitation is severe, rapid tranquilization with medications is recommended. Finally, if verbal measures fail to contain the patient, physical restraint should be performed as the ultimate measure for patient protection, and always be accompanied by rapid tranquilization. Healthcare teams must be thoroughly trained to use these techniques and overcome difficulties if the verbal approach fails. It is important that healthcare professionals be trained in non-pharmacological management of patients with psychomotor agitation as part of the requirements for a degree and graduate degree.

Conclusion:

The non-pharmacological management of agitated patients should follow the hierarchy of less invasive to more invasive and coercive measures, starting with referral of the patient to an appropriate environment, management by a trained team, use of verbal techniques, performance of physical and mental assessment, use of medications, and, if unavoidable, use of the mechanical restraint.

Systematic review registry number:

CRD42017054440.

Radiation-Induced Neuropsychiatric Manifestations in a Patient with Brain Metastasis: A Diagnostic and Therapeutic Challenges for Consultation-Liaison Psychiatrist

The aim of this case report is to highlight diagnostic and therapeutic challenges for consultation-liaison psychiatrist in the case of radiation-induced neuropsychiatric syndrome. We report the case of a 61-year-old man presented with neurological and psychiatric manifestations following the radiation therapy for non-small cell lung carcinoma with brain metastasis. We have briefly reviewed and discussed the risk factors, clinical features, diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive aspect of radiation-induced neuropsychiatric manifestations.

Joint BAP NAPICU evidence-based consensus guidelines for the clinical management of acute disturbance: De-escalation and rapid tranquillisation

The British Association for Psychopharmacology and the National Association of Psychiatric Intensive Care and Low Secure Units developed this joint evidence-based consensus guideline for the clinical management of acute disturbance. It includes recommendations for clinical practice and an algorithm to guide treatment by healthcare professionals with various options outlined according to their route of administration and category of evidence. Fundamental overarching principles are included and highlight the importance of treating the underlying disorder. There is a focus on three key interventions: de-escalation, pharmacological interventions pre-rapid tranquillisation and rapid tranquillisation (intramuscular and intravenous). Most of the evidence reviewed relates to emergency psychiatric care or acute psychiatric adult inpatient care, although we also sought evidence relevant to other common clinical settings including the general acute hospital and forensic psychiatry. We conclude that the variety of options available for the management of acute disturbance goes beyond the standard choices of lorazepam, haloperidol and promethazine and includes oral-inhaled loxapine, buccal midazolam, as well as a number of oral antipsychotics in addition to parenteral options of intramuscular aripiprazole, intramuscular droperidol and intramuscular olanzapine. Intravenous options, for settings where resuscitation equipment and trained staff are available to manage medical emergencies, are also included.

A prospective naturalistic multicenter study on choice of parenteral medication in psychiatric emergency settings in Japan

Aim

To provide information about psychiatric emergency situations in Japan, we examined psychiatrists’ preference among parenteral medication since intramuscular (IM)‐olanzapine became available and clinical characteristics in patients given IM‐olanzapine compared to those given other parenteral medication.

Methods

We conducted a naturalistic study proceeding over a 1‐year period in 9 psychiatric emergency departments.

Results

Among 197 patients, the distribution of IM‐injections (n = 89) was as follows: IM‐olanzapine, 66 patients (74.2%), IM‐levomepromazine, 17 patients (19.1%), IM‐haloperidol, 5 patients (5.6%), and IM‐diazepam, 1 patient (1.1%). The distribution of intravenous (IV)‐injections (n = 108) was as follows: IV‐haloperidol, 78 patients (72.2%), and IV‐benzodiazepines (diazepam, flunitrazepam, or midazolam), 30 patients (27.8%). Advantages of IM‐olanzapine over other parenteral medications in efficacy were found as follows: less frequent needs of an additional injection despite no difference in duration until a patient became cooperative for oral administration, and less frequent needs of restraint after the injection. Furthermore, advantages of IM‐olanzapine over other injections in safety were found as follows: less frequent appearance of extrapyramidal symptoms, no occurrence of ECG abnormality and other serious adverse events except a fall, less frequent needs of an adjunctive anticholinergic drug, and less frequent needs of another kind of drug additionally injected.

Conclusions

Olanzapine has rapidly become the first choice of intramuscular medication in psychiatric emergency situations since it became available in Japan, probably due to the advantages in both efficacy and safety. This study reflecting psychiatric emergency practice in Japan may contribute to periodic international comparison of psychiatric emergency practice.

Effectiveness and safety of pharmacological sedation for aggressive or agitated adult patients in a prehospital emergency situation: a systematic review protocol

REVIEW QUESTION/OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review is to identify, evaluate and synthesize evidence on the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological sedation for aggressive or agitated adult patients in a prehospital emergency situation.

Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) 2018 guidelines for the management of patients with bipolar disorder

The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) previously published treatment guidelines for bipolar disorder in 2005, along with international commentaries and subsequent updates in 2007, 2009, and 2013. The last two updates were published in collaboration with the International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD). These 2018 CANMAT and ISBD Bipolar Treatment Guidelines represent the significant advances in the field since the last full edition was published in 2005, including updates to diagnosis and management as well as new research into pharmacological and psychological treatments. These advances have been translated into clear and easy to use recommendations for first, second, and third- line treatments, with consideration given to levels of evidence for efficacy, clinical support based on experience, and consensus ratings of safety, tolerability, and treatment-emergent switch risk. New to these guidelines, hierarchical rankings were created for first and second- line treatments recommended for acute mania, acute depression, and maintenance treatment in bipolar I disorder. Created by considering the impact of each treatment across all phases of illness, this hierarchy will further assist clinicians in making evidence-based treatment decisions. Lithium, quetiapine, divalproex, asenapine, aripiprazole, paliperidone, risperidone, and cariprazine alone or in combination are recommended as first-line treatments for acute mania. First-line options for bipolar I depression include quetiapine, lurasidone plus lithium or divalproex, lithium, lamotrigine, lurasidone, or adjunctive lamotrigine. While medications that have been shown to be effective for the acute phase should generally be continued for the maintenance phase in bipolar I disorder, there are some exceptions (such as with antidepressants); and available data suggest that lithium, quetiapine, divalproex, lamotrigine, asenapine, and aripiprazole monotherapy or combination treatments should be considered first-line for those initiating or switching treatment during the maintenance phase. In addition to addressing issues in bipolar I disorder, these guidelines also provide an overview of, and recommendations for, clinical management of bipolar II disorder, as well as advice on specific populations, such as women at various stages of the reproductive cycle, children and adolescents, and older adults. There are also discussions on the impact of specific psychiatric and medical comorbidities such as substance use, anxiety, and metabolic disorders. Finally, an overview of issues related to safety and monitoring is provided. The CANMAT and ISBD groups hope that these guidelines become a valuable tool for practitioners across the globe.

Benzodiazepines for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation

BACKGROUND

Acute psychotic illness, especially when associated with agitated or violent behaviour, can require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. In several countries, clinicians often use benzodiazepines (either alone or in combination with antipsychotics) for this outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether benzodiazepines, alone or in combination with other pharmacological agents, is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation when compared with placebo, other pharmacological agents (alone or in combination) or non-pharmacological approaches.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (January 2012, 20 August 2015 and 3 August 2016), inspected reference lists of included and excluded studies, and contacted authors of relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing benzodiazepines alone or in combination with any antipsychotics, versus antipsychotics alone or in combination with any other antipsychotics, benzodiazepines or antihistamines, for people who were aggressive or agitated due to psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected studies, quality assessed them and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) between groups. If there was heterogeneity, this was explored using a random-effects model. We assessed risk of bias and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty trials including 695 participants are now included in the review. The trials compared benzodiazepines or benzodiazepines plus an antipsychotic with placebo, antipsychotics, antihistamines, or a combination of these. The quality of evidence for the main outcomes was low or very low due to very small sample size of included studies and serious risk of bias (randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding were not well conducted in the included trials, 30% of trials (six out of 20) were supported by pharmaceutical institutes). There was no clear effect for most outcomes.Benzodiazepines versus placeboOne trial compared benzodiazepines with placebo. There was no difference in the number of participants sedated at 24 hours (very low quality evidence). However, for the outcome of global state, clearly more people receiving placebo showed no improvement in the medium term (one to 48 hours) (n = 102, 1 RCT, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.97, very low quality evidence). Benzodiazepines versus antipsychoticsWhen compared with haloperidol, there was no observed effect for benzodiazepines for sedation by 16 hours (n = 434, 8 RCTs, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.54, low quality evidence). There was no difference in the number of participants who had not improved in the medium term (n = 188, 5 RCTs, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.11, low quality evidence). However, one small study found fewer participants improved when receiving benzodiazepines compared with olanzapine (n = 150, 1 RCT, RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.18, very low quality evidence). People receiving benzodiazepines were less likely to experience extrapyramidal effects in the medium term compared to people receiving haloperidol (n = 233, 6 RCTs, RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.41, low quality evidence).Benzodiazepines versus combined antipsychotics/antihistaminesWhen benzodiazepine was compared with combined antipsychotics/antihistamines (haloperidol plus promethazine), there was a higher risk of no improvement in people receiving benzodiazepines in the medium term (n = 200, 1 RCT, RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.05, low quality evidence). However, for sedation, the results were controversial between two groups: lorazepam may lead to lower risk of sedation than combined antipsychotics/antihistamines (n = 200, 1 RCT, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.98, low quality evidence); while, midazolam may lead to higher risk of sedation than combined antipsychotics/antihistamines (n = 200, 1 RCT, RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.23, low quality evidence).Other combinationsData comparing benzodiazepines plus antipsychotics versus benzodiazepines alone did not yield any results with clear differences; all were very low quality evidence. When comparing combined benzodiazepines/antipsychotics (all studies compared haloperidol) with the same antipsychotics alone (haloperidol), there was no difference between groups in improvement in the medium term (n = 185, 4 RCTs, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.46, low quality evidence), but sedation was more likely in people who received the combination therapy (n = 172, 3 RCTs, RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.67,very low quality evidence). Only one study compared combined benzodiazepine/antipsychotics with antipsychotics; however, this study did not report our primary outcomes. One small study compared combined benzodiazepines/antipsychotics with combined antihistamines/antipsychotics. Results showed a higher risk of no clinical improvement (n = 60, 1 RCT, RR 25.00, 95% CI 1.55 to 403.99, very low quality evidence) and sedation status (n = 60, 1 RCT, RR 12.00, 95% CI 1.66 to 86.59, very low quality evidence) in the combined benzodiazepines/antipsychotics group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from RCTs for the use of benzodiazepines alone is not good. There were relatively few good data. Most trials were too small to highlight differences in either positive or negative effects. Adding a benzodiazepine to other drugs does not seem to confer clear advantage and has potential for adding unnecessary adverse effects. Sole use of older antipsychotics unaccompanied by anticholinergic drugs seems difficult to justify. Much more high-quality research is still needed in this area.

Rapid Tranquilization for Psychiatric Patients with Psychomotor Agitation: What is Known About it?

Rapid tranquilization is an intervention used in control of agitation or aggression in patients with mental disorders. This study synthesized the available evidence regarding efficacy and safety of drugs used for rapid tranquilization in psychiatric patients with psychomotor agitation. It is an overview study of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) identified in the database MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and LILACS until April 2015. A team of reviewers, in pairs and independently, identified eligible studies and assessed methodological quality using AMSTAR. Data were extracted from four studies (61 RCT, 8021 participants). The association of haloperidol with promethazine (H + P) promoted tranquilization and presented better safety profile, with moderate quality evidence. Olanzapine demonstrated benefit towards tranquilization and good safety profile, but needed additional administration to keep tranquilization. There was no benefit in the use of haloperidol alone or associated to another psychotropic to most outcomes evaluated. The evidence was of low quality to most of the interventions. H + P was considered a good option for rapid tranquilization, however, more RCT are necessary to confirm the efficacy and safety of the available interventions.

Persistent oromandibular dystonia and angioedema secondary to haloperidol

We report a case in a young man who developed acute, persistent and painful tongue protrusion followed by swelling for more than 24 hours. He had relapse symptoms of schizophrenia and had recently received a single dose of parenteral haloperidol to manage his agitation. His record showed history of similar event and he has been taking atypical antipsychotic for maintenance. Mental state examination on admission revealed an agitated man with disorganised speech, restricted affect, auditory hallucination and persecutory delusion. His dystonia and oedema improved after 3 days. His mental status also recovered with the maintenance of low-potency antipsychotic and anticholinergic antiparkinsonian medications.

Pharmacological management of acute severe behavioural disturbance: a survey of current protocols

OBJECTIVES

The investigators reviewed protocols for the pharmacological management of acute severe behavioural disturbance (ASBD) used in Australasian psychiatric settings. Relevant literature was also examined, with a focus on Australian research.

METHODS

All Fellows of the RANZCP were emailed on two occasions in 2014 requesting a copy of the guidelines for pharmacological management of the ASBD patient used in their workplace. A literature search was also undertaken.

RESULTS

Thirty-six pharmacological management protocols for the ASBD patient were received. Twenty-six of these referred to patients aged 18-65 years and were selected for analysis. A number of recent publications provided new evidence in relation to the safe and effective management of patients with ASBD.

CONCLUSIONS

ASBD is a heterogeneous, transnosological set of presentations requiring careful assessment and rational clinical decision making. Treatment protocols arising from an evolving evidence base provide safe and effective pathways for the majority of patients. However, sound clinical knowledge and a careful assessment of each presentation is required to enable the clinician to tailor treatment individually.

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

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol used alone is recommended to help calm situations of aggression or agitation for people with psychosis. It is widely accessible and may be the only antipsychotic medication available in limited-resource areas.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether haloperidol alone is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation, wherein clinicians are required to intervene to prevent harm to self and others.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (26th May 2016). This register is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including AMED, BIOSIS CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings, with no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected all citations from searches, identified relevant abstracts, and independently extracted data from all included studies. For binary data we calculated risk ratio (RR), for continuous data we calculated mean difference (MD), and for cognitive outcomes we derived standardised mean difference (SMD) effect sizes, all with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and using a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and used the GRADE approach to produce 'Summary of findings' tables which included our pre-specified main outcomes of interest.

MAIN RESULTS

We found nine new RCTs from the 2016 update search, giving a total of 41 included studies and 24 comparisons. Few studies were undertaken in circumstances that reflect real-world practice, and, with notable exceptions, most were small and carried considerable risk of bias. Due to the large number of comparisons, we can only present a summary of main results.Compared with placebo, more people in the haloperidol group were asleep at two hours (2 RCTs, n=220, RR 0.88, 95%CI 0.82 to 0.95, very low-quality evidence) and experienced dystonia (2 RCTs, n=207, RR 7.49, 95%CI 0.93 to 60.21, very low-quality evidence).Compared with aripiprazole, people in the haloperidol group required fewer injections than those in the aripiprazole group (2 RCTs, n=473, RR 0.78, 95%CI 0.62 to 0.99, low-quality evidence). More people in the haloperidol group experienced dystonia (2 RCTs, n=477, RR 6.63, 95%CI 1.52 to 28.86, very low-quality evidence).Four trials (n=207) compared haloperidol with lorazepam with no significant differences with regard to number of participants asleep at one hour (1 RCT, n=60, RR 1.05, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.44, very low-quality of evidence) or those requiring additional injections (1 RCT, n=66, RR 1.14, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.43, very low-quality of evidence).Haloperidol's adverse effects were not offset by addition of lorazepam (e.g. dystonia 1 RCT, n=67, RR 8.25, 95%CI 0.46 to 147.45, very low-quality of evidence).Addition of promethazine was investigated in two trials (n=376). More people in the haloperidol group were not tranquil or asleep by 20 minutes (1 RCT, n=316, RR 1.60, 95%CI 1.18 to 2.16, moderate-quality evidence). Acute dystonia was too common in the haloperidol alone group for the trial to continue beyond the interim analysis (1 RCT, n=316, RR 19.48, 95%CI 1.14 to 331.92, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Additional data from new studies does not alter previous conclusions of this review. If no other alternative exists, sole use of intramuscular haloperidol could be life-saving. Where additional drugs are available, sole use of haloperidol for extreme emergency could be considered unethical. Addition of the sedating promethazine has support from better-grade evidence from within randomised trials. Use of an alternative antipsychotic drug is only partially supported by fragmented and poor-grade evidence. Adding a benzodiazepine to haloperidol does not have strong evidence of benefit and carries risk of additional harm.After six decades of use for emergency rapid tranquillisation, this is still an area in need of good independent trials relevant to real-world practice.

Haloperidol plus promethazine for psychosis-induced aggression

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

[Pharmacotherapy of psychiatric acute and emergency situations: General principles]

The pharmacotherapy of psychiatric emergencies is essentially determined by the acuteness, the scene of the emergency, the diagnostic assessment and the special pharmacological profile of the drug used. As there are no specific drugs, syndromic treatment is carried out. For this, primarily antipsychotic drugs and benzodiazepines are available. This article gives an overview of the current state of treatment options for major psychiatric emergency syndromes, namely agitation, delirium, stupor and catatonia, anxiety and panic, as well as drug-induced emergencies.

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.

Rapid tranquillisation of acutely disturbed and violent patients: a retrospective cohort examination of 24 patients on a psychiatric intensive care unit

The prevalence of violent behaviour within acute psychiatric services is about 10%.

Aim

To identify the pharmacological management of acutely disturbed behaviour in patients requiring rapid tranquillisation (RT) on a psychiatric intensive care unit (PICU). Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics were also identified in these patients.

Method and objectives

A retrospective cohort examination was carried out of 24 patients receiving RT, average age of 38.8 years (7 women and 17 men), admitted to the PICU between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2011. Patient records and hospital incident reporting system were used to obtain relevant data for analysis.

Results

The majority of patients were detained (95%); suffering from schizophrenia (45.8%); bipolar disorder (25%) and substance misuse disorders (12.5%). Verbal aggression (58.3%) and threatening behaviour (29.2%) were the most common factors leading to RT. Fourteen patients (58.3%) were medicated with a combination of haloperidol and lorazepam; nine (37.5%) with zuclopenthixol acetate only; and one (4.2%) with a combination of zuclopenthixol and promethazine.

Conclusion

Haloperidol in combination with lorazepam was the most common medication utilised for RT. Nevertheless, zuclopenthixol acetate alone, or combined with other drugs, was used in over 40% of cases. This finding is in considerable variation with recommended guidelines.

Intramuscular olanzapine for agitated patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of intramuscular (IM)-olanzapine (OLA-IM) versus controls in agitated patients. The risk ratio, number-needed-to-treat/harm, and standardized mean difference based on a random effects model were calculated. We identified 13 RCTs (19 comparisons) as follows: 7 comparisons with 1059 patients for OLA-IM versus placebo; 5 comparisons with 613 patients for OLA-IM versus haloperidol (HAL)-IM; 2 comparisons with 108 patients for OLA-IM versus ziprasidone (ZIP)-IM; 2 comparisons with 110 patients for OLA-IM versus HAL-IM plus midazolam; and 3 comparisons with 412 patients for OLA-IM versus HAL-IM plus promethazine, 2 comparisons with 355 patients for OLA-IM versus lorazepam-IM (LOR-IM); and 1 comparison with 67 patients for OLA-IM versus HAL-IM plus LOR-IM. OLA-IM was superior to placebo in both Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component (PANSS-EC) and Agitation-Calmness Evaluation Scale (ACES) scores 2 h after first injection, and had a comparable side effect profile, including over sedation, extrapyramidal symptoms, akathisia, and anticholinergic use. While there was no significant difference in PANSS-EC scores after 2 h between OLA-IM and HAL-IM, OLA-IM outperformed HAL-IM in ACES after 2 h. Compared with HAL-IM, OLA-IM was associated with fewer side effects, including anticholinergic use, akathisia, extrapyramidal symptoms, and dystonia, and marginally less QT prolongation compared with HAL-IM. Based on our findings, OLA-IM is preferable to HAL-IM for the treatment of agitated patients. However, comparator data for ZIP-IM, LOR-IM and HAL-IM combination therapy were insufficient.

Inpatient aggression in community hospitals

Physical violence is a frequent occurrence in acute community psychiatry units worldwide. Violent acts by patients cause many direct injuries and significantly degrade quality of care. The most accurate tools for predicting near-term violence on acute units rely on current clinical features rather than demographic risk factors. The efficacy of risk assessment strategies to lower incidence of violence on acute units is unknown. A range of behavioral and psychopharmacologic treatments have been shown to reduce violence among psychiatric inpatients.

Intramuscular Olanzapine in the Management of Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms in Hospitalized Older Adults: A Retrospective Descriptive Study

Background. While behavioral and psychological symptoms are frequent in hospitalized older adults with dementia or delirium, data supporting the off-label use of intramuscular atypical antipsychotics remain scarce. We examined the use of short-acting intramuscular (IM) olanzapine in hospitalized older adults to manage behavioral and psychological symptoms. Methods. A retrospective observational study of inpatients 65 years or older with at least one order for olanzapine IM during admission in urban Ontario Canada was conducted. Patient demographics, prescriptions for olanzapine IM, reason for administration, perceived effectiveness, adverse events, concurrently prescribed psychotropics, comorbidities, and patient discharge destination were recorded. Results. Among 82 patients aged 65-96 years (mean ± SD 79.3 ± 7.7) 85 cases were identified. Cognitive impairment or dementia affected 63.5% and 50.6% had comorbidities. Olanzapine IM was ordered 102 times and 34 patients (41%) received at least one dose. The intended efficacy was achieved in 79.4% of 78 cases of 124 doses given (62.9%). Fourteen (41%) patients who received doses experienced adverse events, with sedation and hypotension being the most common. Conclusions. Olanzapine IM appears effective in hospitalized older adults but is associated with potential adverse events. Structured monitoring and documentation are needed to ensure safe use in this high-risk population.

Safety and efficacy of intravenous combination sedatives in the ED

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study is to determine the safety of intravenously administered combination sedatives in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of alcohol-intoxicated patients in the ED. We examined the incidence of adverse events in agitated patients who received combination sedatives intravenously and compared the efficacy of combination sedatives and single-agent sedatives.

RESULTS

Of 1300 patient visits, there was a single adverse event, a dystonic reaction, in the combination sedative group, for an adverse event rate of less than 1%. Patients who received combination sedatives were less likely to require a second dose of sedative medication than patients who received a single-agent sedative (21% vs 44%).

CONCLUSIONS

Combination sedatives appear to be safe when administered intravenously in the ED. Combination sedatives may be more effective than single-agent sedatives in agitated alcohol-intoxicated patients.

Are low doses of antipsychotics effective in the management of psychomotor agitation? A randomized, rated-blind trial of 4 intramuscular interventions

BACKGROUND

Psychomotor agitation can be associated with a wide range of medical conditions. Although clinical practice advocates the use of several drugs for the management of psychomotor agitation, there are still very few controlled studies comparing the profiles of action and the adverse effects of different drugs that induce tranquilization.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of 4 low-dose pharmacological interventions used to control psychomotor agitation guided by the clinical response.

METHODS

Using a randomized, rated-blind design, 100 agitated patients were assigned to receive 1 of 4 treatments: haloperidol (2.5 mg) + promethazine (25 mg) (HLP + PMZ), haloperidol (2.5 mg) + midazolam (7.5 mg) (HLP + MID), ziprasidone (10 mg) (ZIP), or olanzapine (10 mg) (OLP). Patients were evaluated just before the intervention and after 30, 60, and 90 minutes, using the Agitation-Calmness Evaluating Scale. Adverse effects were assessed within 24 hours after the intervention, using selected items from the UKU Scale (Ugvalg Klinisk Undersgelser Side Effect Scale). According to the clinical indication, medication could be repeated twice after the first injection. Data were analyzed using general linear model with repeated measures and logistic regression.

RESULTS

All treatment options promoted a reduction in agitation, without causing excessive sedation, although a lower reduction in agitation was observed with HLP + PMZ and ZIP compared with HLP + MID and OLZ. The need for an additional dose of medication was observed in 22 patients, and only 8 remained agitated during the entire 90-minute period. A higher risk for the development of extrapyramidal symptoms within the following 24 hours was observed with HLP + PMZ.

DISCUSSION

Low doses of haloperidol combined with midazolam can be as effective as olanzapine in reducing psychomotor agitation without increasing the risk of extrapyramidal effects. Because of the higher risk for the occurrence of extrapyramidal symptoms, the combination of haloperidol with promethazine should be considered a second-line treatment option.