Rapid tranquillisation in psychiatric emergency settings in India: pragmatic randomised controlled trial of intramuscular olanzapine versus intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine. Rapid tranquillisation in psychiatric emergency settings in Brazil: pragmatic randomised controlled trial of intramuscular haloperidol versus intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine. Rapid tranquillisation for agitated patients in emergency psychiatric rooms: a randomised trial of midazolam versus haloperidol plus promethazine. Rapid tranquilization for agitated patients in emergency psychiatric rooms: a randomized trial of olanzapine, ziprasidone, haloperidol plus promethazine, haloperidol plus midazolam and haloperidol alone. Olanzapine versus haloperidol in the treatment of schizophrenia and schizoaffective and schizophreniform disorders: results of an international collaborative trial. Rapid tranquillisation of violent or agitated patients in a psychiatric emergency setting. Pragmatic randomised trial of intramuscular lorazepam v. haloperidol plus promethazine. A double-blind trial of haloperidol, chlorpromazine, and lorazepam in the treatment of delirium in hospitalized AIDS patients. A multicentre, double-blind, randomized comparison of quetiapine (ICI 204,636, 'Seroquel') and haloperidol in schizophrenia. Therapy of alcohol withdrawal syndrome in intensive care unit patients following trauma: results of a prospective, randomized trial.
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 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 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. 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. This international, multicenter double-blind trial was designed to compare the therapeutic profile of an atypical antipsychotic, olanzapine, with that of a conventional dopamine D2 antagonist, haloperidol.
                A total of 1,996 patients at 174 sites in Europe and North America were randomly assigned to treatment with olanzapine (N = 1,336) or haloperidol (N = 660) over 6 weeks. The primary efficacy analysis involved the mean change from baseline to endpoint in total scores on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). Secondary analyses included comparisons of the mean change in positive and negative symptoms, comorbid depression, extrapyramidal symptoms, and overall drug safety.
                Olanzapine demonstrated clinical results superior to those of haloperidol on overall improvement according to the BPRS and on every secondary measure, including depression. Olanzapine was also associated with significantly fewer discontinuations of treatment due to lack of drug efficacy or adverse events. Substantially more olanzapine-treated patients (66.5%) than haloperidol-treated patients (46.8%) completed 6 weeks of therapy. Statistically significant advantages of olanzapine treatment were related to 1) change in negative symptoms, 2) extrapyramidal symptom profile, 3) effect on prolactin levels, and 4) response rate.
                Olanzapine shows a superior and broader spectrum of efficacy in the treatment of schizophrenic psychopathology, with a substantially more favorable safety profile, than haloperidol. It meets several of the criteria for a novel atypical antipsychotic agent. 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. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy and side effects of haloperidol, chlorpromazine, and lorazepam for the treatment of the symptoms of delirium in adult AIDS patients in a randomized, double-blind, comparison trial.
                Nondelirious, medically hospitalized AIDS patients (N = 244) consented to participate in the study and were monitored prospectively for the development of delirium. Patients entered the treatment phase of the study if they met DSM-III-R criteria for delirium and scored 13 or greater on the Delirium Rating Scale. Thirty patients were randomly assigned to treatment with haloperidol (N = 11), chlorpromazine (N = 13), or lorazepam (N = 6). Efficacy and side effects associated with the treatment were measured with repeated assessments using the Delirium Rating Scale, the Mini-Mental State, and the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale.
                Treatment with either haloperidol or chlorpromazine in relatively low doses resulted in significant improvement in the symptoms of delirium as measured by the Delirium Rating Scale. No improvement in the symptoms of delirium was found in the lorazepam group. Cognitive function, as measured by the Mini-Mental State, improved significantly from baseline to day 2 for patients receiving chlorpromazine. Treatment with haloperidol or chlorpromazine was associated with an extremely low prevalence of extrapyramidal side effects. All patients receiving lorazepam, however, developed treatment-limiting adverse effects. Although only a small number of patients had been treated with lorazepam, the authors became sufficiently concerned with the adverse effects to terminate that arm of the protocol early.
                Symptoms of delirium in medically hospitalized AIDS patients may be treated efficaciously with few side effects by using low-dose neuroleptics (haloperidol or chlorpromazine). Lorazepam alone appears to be ineffective and associated with treatment-limiting adverse effects. Quetiapine (ICI 204,636, 'Seroquel') is a new atypical antipsychotic agent with a similar binding profile to the original atypical antipsychotic, clozapine. Its clinical efficacy has already been demonstrated at multiple fixed doses (150-750 mg/day) and has been suggested to be comparable with haloperidol (12 mg/day).
                This international, 6-week, multicentre, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group trial compared quetiapine with haloperidol (455 mg and 8 mg mean total daily doses, respectively) in 448 hospitalized patients with acute exacerbation of chronic or subchronic schizophrenia (DSM-III-R), in order to establish their equivalence in terms of efficacy, and the nature of their tolerability profiles, especially in terms of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) and serum prolactin levels.
                Both quetiapine and haloperidol produced a clear reduction in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) Severity of Illness and Global Improvement scores. At day 42, the PANSS total score was reduced by -18.7+/-1.63 in the quetiapine group, and -22.1+/-1.63 in the haloperidol group (P = 0.13, between-treatment). Quetiapine was better tolerated than haloperidol in terms of EPS as demonstrated by the significant differences in the Simpson Scale and Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale scores (P < 0.05). Although patients in both groups had elevated serum prolactin concentrations at baseline, mean serum prolactin concentration decreased (by 16.5 microg/l) in quetiapine-treated patients, yet increased (by 5.9 microg/l) in patients treated with haloperidol.
                Quetiapine is an effective and well tolerated antipsychotic of comparable efficacy to haloperidol and lacks the latter compound's effect on prolactin and EPS. To assess the effect of three different alcohol withdrawal therapy regimens in traumatized chronic alcoholic patients with respect to the duration of mechanical ventilation and the frequency of pneumonia and cardiac disorders during their intensive care unit (ICU) stay.
                A prospective, randomized, blinded, controlled clinical trial.
                A university hospital ICU.
                Multiple-injured alcohol-dependent patients (n=180) transferred to the ICU after admission to the emergency room and operative management. A total of 180 patients were included in the study; however, 21 patients were excluded from the study after assignment.
                Patients who developed actual alcohol withdrawal syndrome were randomized to one of the following treatment regimens: flunitrazepam/clonidine (n=54); chlormethiazole/haloperidol (n=50); or flunitrazepam/haloperidol (n=55). The need for administration of medication was determined, using a validated measure of the severity of alcohol withdrawal (Revised Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol Scale).
                The duration of mechanical ventilation and major intercurrent complications, such as pneumonia, sepsis, cardiac disorders, bleeding disorders, and death, were documented. Patients did not differ significantly between groups regarding age, Revised Trauma and Injury Severity Score and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score on admission. In all except four patients in the flunitrazepam/clonidine group, who continued to hallucinate, the Revised Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol Scale decreased to <20 after initiation of therapy. ICU stay did not significantly differ between groups (p=.1669). However, mechanical ventilation was significantly prolonged in the chlormethiazole/haloperidol group (p=.0315) due to an increased frequency of pneumonia (p=.0414). Cardiac complications were significantly (p=.0047) increased in the flunitrazepam/clonidine group.
                There was some advantage in the flunitrazepam/clonidine regimen with respect to pneumonia and the necessity for mechanical ventilation. However, four (7%) patients had to be excluded from the study due to ongoing hallucinations during therapy. Also, cardiac complications were increased in this group. Thus, flunitrazepam/haloperidol should be preferred in patients with cardiac or pulmonary risk. Further studies are required to determine which therapy should be considered.
All treatments evaluated within the included studies are effective. Benzodiazepines, however, have the potential to cause respiratory depression, probably midazolam more so than lorazepam, and use of this group of drugs outside of services fully confident of observing for and managing the consequences of respiratory distress is difficult to justify. Haloperidol used on its own is at such risk of generating preventable adverse effects that unless it is the only choice, this evidence directs that this sole treatment should be avoided. Olanzapine IM is valuable when compared with haloperidol plus promethazine but its duration of action is short and re-injection is frequently needed. Haloperidol plus promethazine used in two diverse situations in Brazil and India has much evidence to support its swift and safe clinically valuable effects.