Effectiveness and Safety of Intravenous Medications for the Management of Acute Disturbance (Agitation and Other Escalating Behaviors): A Systematic Review of Prospective Interventional Studies

Acute disturbance is a broad term referring to escalating behaviors secondary to a change in mental state, such as agitation, aggression, and violence. Available management options include de-escalation techniques and rapid tranquilization, mostly via parenteral formulations of medication. While the intramuscular route has been extensively studied in a range of clinical settings, the same cannot be said for intravenous (IV); this is despite potential benefits, including rapid absorption and complete bioavailability. This systematic review analyzed existing evidence for effectiveness and safety of IV medication for management of acute disturbances. It followed a preregistered protocol (PROSPERO identification CRD42020216456) and is reported following the guidelines set by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. APA PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were searched for eligible interventional studies up until May 30th, 2023. Data analysis was limited to narrative synthesis since primary outcome measures varied significantly. Results showed mixed but positive results for the effectiveness of IV dexmedetomidine, lorazepam, droperidol, and olanzapine. Evidence was more limited for IV haloperidol, ketamine, midazolam, chlorpromazine, and valproate. There was no eligible data on the use of IV clonazepam, clonidine, diazepam, diphenhydramine, propranolol, ziprasidone, fluphenazine, carbamazepine, or promethazine. Most studies reported favorable adverse event profiles, though they are unlikely to have been sufficiently powered to pick up rare serious events. In most cases, evidence was of low or mixed quality, accentuating the need for further standardized, large-scale, multi-arm randomized controlled trials with homogeneous outcome measures. Overall, this review suggests that IV medications may offer an effective alternative parenteral route of administration in acute disturbance, particularly in general hospital settings.

Inflammatory and blood gas markers of COVID-19 delirium compared to non-COVID-19 delirium: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to find the association of inflammation and respiratory failure with delirium in COVID-19 patients. We compare the inflammatory and arterial blood gas markers between patients with COVID-19 delirium and delirium in other medical disorders.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study used the CHART-DEL, a validated research tool, to screen patients for delirium retrospectively from clinical notes. Inflammatory markers C-reactive protein (CRP) and white cell count (WBC), and the partial pressures of oxygen (PO₂) and carbon dioxide (PCO₂) were compared between patients with COVID-19 delirium and delirium in other medical disorders.

RESULTS

In bivariate analysis, CRP (mg/L) was significantly higher in the COVID-19 group, (81.7 ± 80.0 vs. 58.8 ± 87.7, p = 0.04), and WBC (10⁹/L) was significantly lower (7.44 ± 3.42 vs. 9.71 ± 5.45, p = 0.04). The geometric mean of CRP in the COVID-19 group was 140% higher in multiple linear regression (95% CI = 7-439%, p = 0.03) with age and sex as covariates. There were no significant differences in pO₂ or pCO₂ across groups.

CONCLUSION

The association between higher CRP and COVID-19 in patients with delirium may suggest an inflammatory basis for delirium in COVID-19. Our findings may assist clinicians in establishing whether delirium is due to COVID-19, which may improve management and outcomes of infected patients.

Reduced activity in a liaison psychiatry service during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic: Comparison with 2019 data and characterisation of the SARS-COV-2 positive cohort

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic led to changes in how healthcare was accessed and delivered. It was suggested that COVID-19 will lead to an increased delirium burden in its acute phase, with variable effect on mental health in the longer term. Despite this, there are limited data on the direct effects of the pandemic on psychiatric care.

Objectives

1) describe the mental health presentations of a diverse acute inpatient population, 2) compare findings with the same period in 2019, 3) characterise the SARS-CoV-2 positive cohort of patients.

Methods

We present a descriptive summary of the referrals to a UK psychiatric liaison department during the exponential phase of the pandemic, and compare this to the same period in 2019.

Results

show a 40.3% reduction in the number of referrals in 2020, with an increase in the proportion of referrals for delirium and psychosis. One third (28%) of referred patients tested positive for COVID-19 during their admission, with 39.7% of these presenting with delirium as a consequence of their COVID-19 illness. Our data indicate decreased clinical activity for our service during the pandemic’s peak. There was a marked increase in delirium, though in no other psychiatric presentations.

Conclusions

In preparation for further exponential rises in COVID-19 cases, we would expect seamless integration of liaison psychiatry teams in general hospital wards to optimise delirium management in patients with COVID-19. Further consideration should be given to adequate staffing of community and crisis mental health teams to safely manage the potentially increasing number of people reluctant to visit the emergency department.

Management of acute disturbance: The intravenous route

Introduction

The intravenous (IV) is one of the main parenteral routes for drug administration. Rapid onset of action, precise titration, patient-specific dosing and bypass of liver metabolism are a few of its advantages, while hypersensitivity reactions, adverse effects, infection risk and a higher overall cost some of its most debated downsides. Unlike other areas of Medicine, IV has been significantly under-utilized in Psychiatry.

Objectives

This systematic review analyzed the evidence for effectiveness and safety behind the use of IV medication used for the management of acute disturbance.

Methods

APA PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were searched for eligible studies. Studies were included if they used IV medication to treat acute disturbance, in English language, had participants aged >18. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the National Institutes of Health quality checklist.

Results

17 studies were deemed eligible. Data analysis was limited to narrative synthesis since primary outcome measures varied significantly between each study. Findings showed strong evidence for efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine, droperidol, midazolam, and olanzapine. These medications displayed a short time to sedation, reduction in agitation levels, or large percentage of patients adequately sedated with a low number of adverse events. Results did not provide enough evidence for the use of IV ketamine, haloperidol, diazepam, lorazepam, and promethazine.

Conclusions

This review supports dexmedetomidine, droperidol, midazolam, and olanzapine as safe and efficacious options for managing acute disturbance via the intravenous route, particularly in special clinical settings where trained staff, optimal monitoring, resuscitation equipment and ventilators are all at hand.

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.