Acute high-dose parenteral haloperidol treatment of psychosis. A double-blind study of lorazepam versus the combination of haloperidol and lorazepam in managing agitation. Haloperidol, lorazepam, or both for psychotic agitation? A multicenter, prospective, double-blind, emergency department study. Efficacy of combinations of intramuscular antipsychotics and sedative-hypnotics for control of psychotic agitation. Risperidone versus haloperidol, in combination with lorazepam, in the treatment of acute agitation and psychosis: a pilot, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. 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. A double-blind, randomized comparison of the efficacy and safety of intramuscular injections of olanzapine, lorazepam, or placebo in treating acutely agitated patients diagnosed with bipolar mania. Alprazolam as a neuroleptic adjunct in the emergency treatment of 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. Randomized clinical trial comparing intravenous midazolam and droperidol for sedation of the acutely agitated patient in the emergency department. Intramuscular flunitrazepam versus intramuscular haloperidol in the emergency treatment of aggressive psychotic behavior. Parenteral lorazepam versus parenteral haloperidol for the control of psychotic disruptive behavior. Efficacy of lorazepam and haloperidol for rapid tranquilization in a psychiatric emergency room setting.
After 2 days of drug-free observation, 20 newly admitted psychotic patients received 20-35 mg of haloperidol intravenously and 20 patients received 30-40 mg of diazepam intravenously. Posttreatment ratings at 4 and 24 hours with the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and the Clinical Global Impressions revealed significant improvement in both groups but no significant differences between the two treatments. To compare the utility of intramuscular lorazepam (LZ) with the combination of intramuscular haloperidol (HDL) and LZ to control acutely agitated behavior.
                Randomized double-blind comparison.
                Psychiatric emergency service of a large, university-affiliated, municipal hospital.
                Twenty subjects treated on the psychiatric emergency service.
                Patients received an injection of either LZ 2 mg (11 patients) or HDL 5 mg plus LZ 2 mg (9 patients). The Overt Aggression Scale (OAS), visual analog scales reflecting agitation and hostility, and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) severity scale were administered at baseline and 30, 60, 120, and 180 minutes after the injection.
                Planned data comparisons included categoric assignment of patients as improved, as defined by decreases in outcome measures 60 minutes after the injection, as well as continuous variables up to 180 minutes after the injection. A significantly greater percentage of subjects receiving combined treatment improved on the specific measures 60 minutes after dosing (p<0.05). Kaplan-Meier survival analyses showed significant between-group differences in survival curves plotted for the entire study period (p<0.05). Repeated measures analyses of variance studying group differences showed that both groups improved over time, but between-group differences were not significant. The powers of these analyses were low due to the small sample. No serious adverse effects occurred in either treatment group.
                Our results suggest superior efficacy for HDL-LZ over LZ alone. Categoric tests of improvement at 60 minutes provided the strongest evidence of group differences. Rapid tranquilization is a routinely practiced method of calming agitated psychotic patients by use of neuroleptics, benzodiazepines, or both in combination. Although several studies have examined the efficacy of the three approaches, none have compared these treatments in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial. Ninety-eight psychotic, agitated, and aggressive patients (73 men and 25 women) were prospectively enrolled during an 18-month period in emergency departments in five university or general hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned to receive intramuscular injections of lorazepam (2 mg), haloperidol (5 mg), or both in combination. Patients in each treatment group received 1 to 6 injections of the same study drug within 12 hours, based on clinical need. They were evaluated hourly after the first injection until at least 12 hours after the last. Efficacy was assessed on the Agitated Behavior Scale (ABS), a modified Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (MBPRS), Clinical Global impressions (CGI) scale, and an Alertness Scale. Effective symptom reduction was achieved in each treatment group with significant (P < .01) mean decreases from baseline at every hourly ABS evaluation. Significant (P < .05) mean differences on the ABS (hour 1) and MBPRS (hours 2 and 3) suggest that tranquilization was most rapid in patients receiving the combination treatment. Study event incidence (side effects) did not differ significantly between treatment groups, although patients receiving haloperidol alone tended to have more extrapyramidal system symptoms. The superior results produced by the combination treatment support the use of lorazepam plus haloperidol as the treatment of choice for acute psychotic agitation. 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. To compare oral risperidone and intramuscular (IM) haloperidol, both in combination with IM lorazepam, in the management of acute agitation and psychosis in the medical emergency department.
                In this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of 30 patients presenting to the emergency department with acute agitation and/or psychosis, three groups of 10 patients received oral and IM medications: 1) 2 mg oral risperidone and 2 mg IM lorazepam; 2) 5 mg oral haloperidol and 2 mg IM lorazepam; 3) oral placebo and 2 mg IM lorazepam. Each treatment group received both an injection and a tablet to reduce treatment group variability. Patients were evaluated using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) before receiving medication and at 30 and 90 minutes after medication was administered. The intergroup mean percent reductions in rating scale scores were compared using ANOVA, chi-square, and Kruskal-Wallis tests.
                There were no statistically significant differences among the groups at any point. The two groups receiving an antipsychotic plus lorazepam showed a trend towards increased symptom reduction compared with the group receiving lorazepam alone, although this trend was not statistically significant.
                Lorazepam alone was as effective as lorazepam plus haloperidol or lorazepam plus risperidone in this small trial. While not statistically significant, a trend toward better outcomes with combined treatment warrants further study. 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. There are no rapid-acting intramuscular formulations of atypical antipsychotics available for quickly calming an agitated patient with bipolar disorder. In this study, 201 agitated patients with bipolar mania were randomly assigned to receive one to three injections of the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine (10 mg, first two injections; 5 mg, third injection), the benzodiazepine lorazepam (2 mg, first two injections; 1 mg, third injection), or placebo (placebo, first two injections; olanzapine, 10 mg, third injection) within a 24-hour period. Agitation was measured at baseline, every 30 minutes for the first 2 hours, and at 24 hours after the first injection using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component subscale and two additional agitation scales. At 2 hours after the first injection, patients treated with olanzapine showed a significantly greater reduction in scores on all agitation scales compared with patients treated with either placebo or lorazepam. At 24 hours after the first injection, olanzapine remained statistically superior to placebo in reducing agitation in patients with acute mania, whereas patients treated with lorazepam were not significantly different from those treated with placebo or olanzapine. Furthermore, no significant differences among the three treatment groups were observed in safety measures, including treatment-emergent extrapyramidal symptoms, the incidence of acute dystonia, or QTc interval changes. These findings suggest that intramuscular olanzapine is a safe and effective treatment for reducing acute agitation in patients with bipolar mania. While neuroleptics remain the mainstay of drug intervention in the emergency management of psychosis, a variety of agents have received study as alternatives or adjuncts to these drugs in an attempt to improve the safety and efficacy of acute treatment. The purposes of this study were to investigate the efficacy and safety of alprazolam as a neuroleptic adjunct for schizophrenic patients in psychotic relapse and to clarify the effects of combination treatment on specific aspects of the psychotic process.
                Twenty-eight acutely psychotic patients with schizophrenia who were admitted to an emergency psychiatric service were randomly assigned to treatment with either haloperidol and alprazolam or haloperidol with placebo under double-blind conditions. Drug administration lasted 72 hours.
                Both groups improved significantly. The combination-treated group required significantly less medication and had 56% fewer dystonic reactions. The addition of alprazolam was most effective for symptoms of excitement and uncooperativeness, particularly in the initial hours of treatment.
                The combination of alprazolam and haloperidol seems to be the most effective for agitated patients, particularly in the first 48 hours of treatment. It may also result in fewer dystonic reactions. 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. We compare intravenous midazolam and droperidol for the onset of sedation of acutely agitated patients in the emergency department (ED).
                This was a double-blind, randomized, clinical trial set in the ED of a university teaching hospital. Subjects were adults, acutely agitated because of mental illness, intoxication, or both, who received midazolam or droperidol, 5 mg intravenously, every 5 minutes until sedated. We analyzed time to sedation using survival analysis, median times to sedation, and proportions sedated at 5 and 10 minutes.
                Seventy-four patients received midazolam; 79 patients, droperidol. Survival analysis showed no difference in time to sedation (hazard ratio 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61 to 1.23), P=.42. Median time to sedation was 6.5 minutes for midazolam (median dose 5 mg) and 8 minutes for droperidol (median dose 10 mg), P=.075 (effect size 1.5 minutes; 95% CI 0 to 4 minutes). At 5 minutes, 33 of 74 (44.6%) patients from the midazolam group were adequately sedated compared with 13 of 79 (16.5%) patients from the droperidol group, a difference of 28.1% (95% CI 12.9% to 43.4%; P<.001). By 10 minutes, 41 of 74 (55.4%) from the midazolam group were sedated compared to 42 of 79 (53.2%) from droperidol, a difference of 2.2% (95% CI -14.9% to 19.3%; P=.91). Eleven adverse events occurred in the midazolam group and 10 in the droperidol group. Three patients required active airway management (3 patients with assisted ventilation and 1 patient intubated); all received midazolam.
                There is no difference in onset of adequate sedation of agitated patients using midazolam or droperidol. Patients sedated with midazolam may have an increased need for active airway management. 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. In a double-blind, prospective study, 2 mg of intramuscular lorazepam and 5 mg of intramuscular haloperidol were equally effective in controlling aggression, agitation, and assaultive behavior. Although lorazepam and haloperidol produced an equivalent mean decrease in aggression, significantly more subjects who received lorazepam had a greater decrease in aggression ratings than haloperidol recipients; this effect was independent of sedation. Lorazepam produced significantly fewer extrapyramidal symptoms. These data support the current clinical practice of using lorazepam (alone, or in combination with a neuroleptic) for control of acute aggressive and assaultive behavior. The efficacy of a benzodiazepine was compared with that of a neuroleptic for the rapid tranquilization of patients presenting at a psychiatric emergency room service. Thirty-seven highly agitated patients exhibiting psychotic symptoms were randomly assigned to receive either 2 mg lorazepam or 5 mg haloperidol as needed every 30 min for 4 h. Administration route was either intramuscular injection or oral concentrate. Symptom ratings were conducted each hour using double-blind procedures. Both medications reduced symptom ratings on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and Global Clinical Impression of Overall Symptom Severity Scale. Global Clinical Impression scores for the two medication groups did not differ significantly either at baseline or at 4 h after entry into the study. However, Global Clinical Impression scores of patients in the lorazepam group were less severe at intermittent ratings. The groups did not differ on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale at any rating time. No differences were found either in the number of doses administered or in the administration route selected. Given the potential for severe extrapyramidal symptoms developing hours or days after a single dose of haloperidol, lorazepam may provide an excellent alternative for the rapid tranquilization of the acutely agitated psychotic patient in the emergency room setting.
The evidence from trials for the use of benzodiazepines alone is not good. There were relatively little good data and most trials are 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 needed in this area.