Rapid tranquillisation in psychiatric emergency settings in Brazil: pragmatic randomised controlled trial of intramuscular haloperidol versus intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine. Rapid tranquillisation in psychiatric emergency settings in India: pragmatic randomised controlled trial of intramuscular olanzapine versus intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine. Rapid tranquillisation for agitated patients in emergency psychiatric rooms: a randomised trial of midazolam versus haloperidol plus promethazine. Rapid tranquillisation of violent or agitated patients in a psychiatric emergency setting. Pragmatic randomised trial of intramuscular lorazepam v. haloperidol plus promethazine. Parenteral haloperidol for rapid control of severe, disruptive symptoms of acute schizophrenia. Rapid tranquilization for agitated patients in emergency psychiatric rooms: a randomized trial of olanzapine, ziprasidone, haloperidol plus promethazine, haloperidol plus midazolam and haloperidol alone. Efficacy of combinations of intramuscular antipsychotics and sedative-hypnotics for control of psychotic agitation. Intramuscular flunitrazepam versus intramuscular haloperidol in the emergency treatment of aggressive psychotic behavior. Effects of carbamazepine and valproate on haloperidol plasma levels and on psychopathologic outcome in schizophrenic patients.
To determine whether haloperidol alone results in swifter and safer tranquillisation and sedation than haloperidol plus promethazine.
                Pragmatic randomised open trial (January-July 2004).
                Psychiatric emergency room, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
                316 patients who needed urgent intramuscular sedation because of agitation, dangerous behaviour, or both.
                Open treatment with intramuscular haloperidol 5-10 mg or intramuscular haloperidol 5-10 mg plus intramuscular promethazine up to 50 mg; doses were at the discretion of the prescribing clinician.
                The primary outcome was proportion tranquil or asleep by 20 minutes. Secondary outcomes were asleep by 20 minutes; tranquil or asleep by 40, 60, and 120 minutes; physically restrained or given additional drugs within 2 hours; severe adverse events; another episode of agitation or aggression; additional visit from the doctor during the subsequent 24 hours; overall antipsychotic load in the first 24 hours; and still in hospital after 2 weeks.
                Primary outcome data were available for 311 (98.4%) people, 77% of whom were thought to have a psychotic illness. Patients allocated haloperidol plus promethazine were more likely to be tranquil or asleep by 20 minutes than those who received intramuscular haloperidol alone (relative risk 1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.10 to 1.55; number needed to treat 6, 95% confidence interval 4 to 16; P=0.002). No differences were found after 20 minutes. However, 10 cases of acute dystonia occurred, all in the haloperidol alone group.
                Haloperidol plus promethazine is a better option than haloperidol alone in terms of speed of onset of action and safety. Enough data are now available to change guidelines that continue to recommend treatments that leave people exposed to longer periods of aggression than necessary and patients vulnerable to distressing and unsafe adverse effects.
                Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN83261243 [controlled-trials.com]. To compare the effect of intramuscular olanzapine with intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine on rapid tranquillisation of agitated or violent people with mental illness.
                Pragmatic, allocation concealed, randomised controlled trial.
                Emergency services of a general hospital psychiatry department in Vellore, south India.
                300 adults with agitated or violent behaviour as a result of mental illness; 150 randomised to intramuscular olanzapine and 150 randomised to intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine.
                Open treatment with intramuscular olanzapine or intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine.
                Primary outcome was proportion of patients who were tranquil or asleep at 15 minutes and 240 minutes. Secondary outcomes were proportion of patients who were tranquil, asleep, restrained, absconding, or clinically improved at 15, 30, 60, 120, and 240 minutes; additional medical interventions and adverse effects over four hours; and compliance with oral drugs and adverse effects over two weeks.
                Of 300 people randomised to receive either intramuscular olanzapine or intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine, follow-up data were available for primary outcomes for 298 (99%). Both treatments resulted in similar proportions of people being tranquil or asleep at 15 minutes (olanzapine 131/150 (87%), haloperidol plus promethazine 136/150 (91%); relative risk 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 1.47) and 240 minutes (olanzapine 144/150 (96%), haloperidol plus promethazine 145/150 (97%); relative risk 0.99, 0.95 to 1.03). However, more people given olanzapine than those given haloperidol plus promethazine required additional drugs over four hours (65/150 (43%) v 31/150 (21%); relative risk 2.07, 1.43 to 2.97). Adverse effects were uncommon with both treatments.
                Intramuscular olanzapine and intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine were effective at rapidly tranquillising or sedating agitated or violent patients with mental illness but the combination resulted in fewer additional medical interventions within four hours of intervention.
                Clinical trials NCT00455234 [ClinicalTrials.gov]. To compare two widely used drug treatments for people with aggression or agitation due to mental illness.
                Pragmatic, randomised clinical trial.
                Three psychiatric emergency rooms in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
                301 aggressive or agitated people.
                Open treatment with intramuscular midazolam or intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine.
                Patients tranquil or sedated at 20 minutes. Secondary outcomes: patients tranquil or asleep by 40, 60, and 120 minutes; restrained or given extra drugs within 2 hours; severe adverse events; another episode of agitation or aggression; needing extra visits from doctor during first 24 hours; overall antipsychotic load in first 24 hours; and not discharged by two weeks.
                151 patients were randomised to midazolam, and 150 to haloperidol-promethazine mix. Follow up for the primary outcome was available for 298 (99%): 134/151 (89%) of patients given midazolam were tranquil or asleep after 20 minutes compared with 101/150 (67%) of those given haloperidol plus promethazine (relative risk 1.32 (95% confidence interval 1.16 to 1.49)). By 40 minutes, midazolam still had a statistically and clinically significant 13% relative advantage (1.13 (1.01 to 1.26)). After 1 hour, about 90% of both groups were tranquil or asleep. One important adverse event occurred in each group: a patient given midazolam had transient respiratory depression, and one given haloperidol-promethazine had a grande mal seizure.
                Both treatments were effective. Midazolam was more rapidly sedating than haloperidol-promethazine, reducing the time people are exposed to aggression. Adverse effects and resources to deal with them should be considered in the choice of the treatment. The pharmacological management of violence in people with psychiatric disorders is under-researched.
                To compare interventions commonly used for controlling agitation or violence in people with serious psychiatric disorders.
                We randomised 200 people to receive intramuscular lorazepam (4 mg) or intramuscular haloperidol (10 mg) plus promethazine (25-50 mg mix).
                At blinded assessments 4 h later (99.5% follow-up), equal numbers in both groups (96%) were tranquil or asleep. However, 76% given the haloperidol-promethazine mix were asleep compared with 45% of those allocated lorazepam (RR=2.29,95% CI 1.59-3.39; NNT=3.2,95% CI 2.3-5.4). The haloperidol-promethazine mix produced a faster onset of tranquillisation/sedation and more clinical improvement over the first 2 h. Neither intervention differed significantly in the need for additional intervention or physical restraints, numbers absconding, or adverse effects.
                Both interventions are effective for controlling violent/agitated behaviour. If speed of sedation is required, the haloperidol-promethazine combination has advantages over lorazepam. Intramuscular haloperidol, at three dose levels, (5 mg, 2 mg, and 1 mg) chlorpromazine (25 mg), and placebo were compared for efficacy, rapidity of therapeutic onset, and safety in 50 acute psychotic patients requiring rapid control. The drugs were administered parenterally under double-blind conditions at half-hour intervals until successful control of moderate to very severe symptomatology was achieved or a maximum of four injections had been given. Global evaluation, BPRS, and target symptom ratings were performed. The overall results indicated that the 5 mg and 2 mg haloperidol doses were significantly superior to the 1 mg haloperidol and 25 mg chlorpromazine doses and to placebo. Transfer of patients to oral haloperidol was satisfactorily accomplished. Side effects for all medications were minimal and included slight to moderate EPS and drowsiness. The use of antiparkinson drugs completely controlled the extrapyramidal symptoms. To compare the effectiveness of intramuscular olanzapine, ziprasidone, haloperidol plus promethazine, haloperidol plus midazolam and haloperidol alone as the first medication(s) used to treat patients with agitation and aggressive behavior.
                One hundred fifty patients with agitation caused by psychotic or bipolar disorder were randomly assigned under double-blind conditions to receive olanzapine, ziprasidone, haloperidol plus midazolam, haloperidol plus promethazine or haloperidol alone. The Overt Agitation Severity Scale, Overt Aggression Scale and Ramsay Sedation Scale were applied within 12 hours after the first dosage.
                All medications produced a calming effect within one hour of administration, but only olanzapine and haloperidol reduced agitation by less than 10 points, and only olanzapine reduced aggression by less than four points in the first hour. After twelve hours, only patients treated with haloperidol plus midazolam had high levels of agitation and aggression and also more side effects. Ziprasidone, olanzapine and haloperidol alone had more stable results for agitation control, while ziprasidone, haloperidol plus promethazine and olanzapine had stable results for aggression control.
                Olanzapine, ziprasidone, haloperidol plus promethazine, haloperidol plus midazolam and haloperidol were effective in controlling agitation and aggression caused by mental illness over 12 hours. Although all the drugs had advantages and disadvantages, haloperidol plus midazolam was associated with the worst results in all the observed parameters. The combination of haloperidol, 5 mg, and lorazepam, 4 mg, was both effective and safe for managing agitated behavior in an open trial with acutely psychotic patients. The combination also appeared to be superior to its individual components when studied in a randomized, nonblind trial. The principle of the combined use of antipsychotics and sedative-hypnotics was further tested by comparing two new combinations: thiothixene, 5 mg, and lorazepam, 4 mg, versus haloperidol, 5 mg, and phenobarbital sodium, 130 mg. These combinations had comparable efficacy and safety, and the level of transquilization approached that produced by the haloperidol-lorazepam combination in the preceding studies. The authors examined the efficacy of intramuscular flunitrazepam compared with intramuscular haloperidol for the immediate control of agitated or aggressive behavior in acutely psychotic patients.
                Twenty-eight actively psychotic inpatients, aged 20-60 years, who were under treatment with neuroleptic agents were selected for the study. Each was randomly assigned on a double-blind basis to receive either 5 mg i.m. of haloperidol (N=13) or 1 mg i.m. of flunitrazepam (N=15) during an aggressive event. Verbal and physical aggression was measured over time with the Overt Aggression Scale. Patients were also rated with the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and the Clinical Global Impression scale.
                Both flunitrazepam and haloperidol exhibited acute antiaggressive activity. This beneficial effect, as assessed by the Overt Aggression Scale, was obtained within 30 minutes.
                Intramuscular flunitrazepam may serve as a convenient, rapid, safe, and effective adjunct to neuroleptics in reducing aggressive behavior in emergency psychiatric settings. The objective of this study was to compare the effects of carbamazepine (CBZ) and valproate (VPA) cotreatment on the plasma levels of haloperidol and on the psychopathologic outcome in schizophrenic disorders. In this controlled clinical trial, 27 patients with an ICD-10 diagnosis of schizophrenia (N = 24) or schizoaffective disorder (N = 3) were randomly assigned to receive 4 weeks of treatment with either haloperidol alone, haloperidol with CBZ, or haloperidol with VPA. Whereas the haloperidol dose remained stable, the antiepileptic drug doses were adjusted to achieve therapeutic plasma levels. Clinical state was rated by the Positive subscale of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and the Inpatient Multidimensional Psychiatric Scale. The use of CBZ was associated with significantly lower haloperidol plasma levels and with a worse clinical outcome compared with antipsychotic monotherapy. VPA had no significant effect on either plasma levels or on psychopathology. Our results suggest that comedication with haloperidol and CBZ is associated with a high risk for treatment failure. This might be a result of a pharmacokinetic interaction on the hepatic level. The concomitant use of VPA with neuroleptic therapy is not impaired by clinically significant drug interactions, but it is not associated with a better outcome under our conditions.
If no other alternative exists, sole use of intramuscular haloperidol could be life-saving. Where additional drugs to offset the adverse effects are available, sole use of haloperidol for the extreme emergency, in situations of coercion, could be considered unethical. Addition of the sedating promethazine has support from better-grade evidence from within randomised trials. Use of an alternative antipsychotic drug is only partially supported by fragmented and poor-grade evidence. Evidence for use of newer generation antipsychotic alternatives is no stronger than that for older drugs. Adding a benzodiazepine to haloperidol does not have strong evidence of benefit and carries a risk of additional harm.
After six decades of use for emergency rapid tranquillisation, this is still an area in need of good independent trials relevant to real world practice.