Current practices in managing acutely disturbed patients at three hospitals in Rio de Janeiro-Brazil: a prevalence study Rapid tranquillisation of violent or agitated patients in a psychiatric emergency setting. Pragmatic randomised trial of intramuscular lorazepam v. haloperidol plus promethazine. Rapid tranquillisation in psychiatric emergency settings in India: pragmatic randomised controlled trial of intramuscular olanzapine versus intramuscular 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. Rapid tranquillisation for agitated patients in emergency psychiatric rooms: a randomised trial of midazolam versus haloperidol plus promethazine Rapid tranquillisation in psychiatric emergency settings in Brazil: pragmatic randomised controlled trial of intramuscular haloperidol versus intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine TREC-Rio trial: a randomised controlled trial for rapid tranquillisation for agitated patients in emergency psychiatric rooms [ISRCTN44153243] Are Low Doses of Antipsychotics Effective in the Management of Psychomotor Agitation? A Randomized, Rated-Blind Trial of 4 Intramuscular Interventions Haloperidol, lorazepam, or both for psychotic agitation? A multicenter, prospective, double-blind, emergency department study. Efficacy of Topiramate, Valproate, and Their Combination on Aggression/Agitation Behavior in Patients With Psychosis Alprazolam as a neuroleptic adjunct in the emergency treatment of schizophrenia. A double-blind study of lorazepam versus the combination of haloperidol and lorazepam in managing agitation. Risperidone versus Haloperidol, in Combination with Lorazepam, in the Treatment of Acute Agitation and Psychosis: A Pilot, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial Factors associated with the use of physical restraints for agitated patients in psychiatric emergency rooms. [Patients in a state of agitation at the admission service of a Rouen hospital emergency department]. Comparison of Intramuscular Olanzapine, Orally Disintegrating Olanzapine Tablets, Oral Risperidone Solution, and Intramuscular Haloperidol in the Management of Acute Agitation in an Acute Care Psychiatric Ward in Taiwan Propericiazine in Psychiatric Emergencies: A controlled comparative study *
Background The medical management of aggressive and violent behaviour is a critical situation for which there is little evidence . In order to prepare for a r and omised trial , due to start in the psychiatric emergency rooms of Rio de Janeiro in 2001 , a survey of current practice was necessary . Methods A seven day survey of pharmacological management of aggressive people with psychosis in the emergency rooms of all four public psychiatric hospitals in Rio de Janeiro , Brazil . Results In one hospital data were not available . Of the 764 people with psychosis attending these ERs , 74 were given IM medication for rapid tranquillisation ( 9.7 % , 2.1/week/100,000 ) . A haloperidol-promethazine mix ( with or without other drugs ) was used for the majority of patients ( 83 % ) . Conclusion The haloperidol-promethazine mix , given intramuscularly for rapid tranquilization , is prevalent in Rio , where it is considered both safe and efficient . However , scientific evaluation of all pharmacological approaches to rapid tranquilization of psychotic people is inadequate or incomplete and a r and omized trial of IM haloperidol-promethazine is overdue BACKGROUND The pharmacological management of violence in people with psychiatric disorders is under- research ed . AIMS To compare interventions commonly used for controlling agitation or violence in people with serious psychiatric disorders . METHOD We r and omised 200 people to receive intramuscular lorazepam ( 4 mg ) or intramuscular haloperidol  ( 10 mg ) plus promethazine ( 25 - 50 mg mix ) . RESULTS At blinded assessment s 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 . CONCLUSIONS Both interventions are effective for controlling violent/agitated behaviour . If speed of sedation is required , the haloperidol-promethazine combination has advantages over lorazepam Objective To compare the effect of intramuscular olanzapine with intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine on rapid tranquillisation of agitated or violent people with mental illness .  Design Pragmatic , allocation concealed , r and omised controlled trial . Setting Emergency services of a general hospital psychiatry department in Vellore , south India . Participants 300 adults with agitated or violent behaviour as a result of mental illness ; 150 r and omised to intramuscular olanzapine and 150 r and omised to intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine .  Interventions Open treatment with intramuscular olanzapine or intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine . Main outcome measures 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 clinical ly 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 . Results Of 300 people r and omised to receive either intramuscular olanzapine or intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine , follow-up data were available for primary outcomes for 298 ( 99 % ) . Both treatments result ed 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 . Conclusions Intramuscular olanzapine and intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine were effective at rapidly tranquillising or sedating agitated or violent  patients with mental illness but the combination result ed in fewer additional medical interventions within four hours of intervention . Trial registration Clinical trials NCT00455234 OBJECTIVE 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 . METHOD One hundred fifty patients with agitation caused by psychotic or bipolar disorder were r and omly 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 . RESULTS 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 . CONCLUSION 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 Abstract Objective To compare two widely used drug treatments for people with aggression or agitation due to mental illness . Design Pragmatic , r and omised clinical trial . Setting Three psychiatric emergency rooms in Rio de Janeiro , Brazil . Subjects 301 aggressive or agitated people . Interventions Open treatment with intramuscular midazolam or intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine . Main outcome measures Patients tranquil or se date d 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 . Results 151 patients were r and omised 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 clinical ly 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 gr and e mal seizure . Conclusions Both treatments were effective . Midazolam was more rapidly sedating than haloperidol-promethazine , reducing the time people are exposed to aggression . Adverse effects and re sources to deal with them should be considered in the choice of the treatment Objective To determine whether haloperidol alone results in swifter and safer tranquillisation and sedation than haloperidol plus promethazine . Design Pragmatic r and omised open trial ( January-July 2004 ) . Setting Psychiatric emergency room , Rio de Janeiro , Brazil . Participants 316 patients who needed urgent intramuscular sedation because of agitation , dangerous behaviour , or both . Interventions 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 . Main outcome measures 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 . Results 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 . Conclusions 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 . Trial registration Current Controlled Trials IS RCT N83261243 Background Agitated or violent patients constitute 10 % of all emergency psychiatric treatment . Management guidelines , the preferred treatment of clinicians and clinical practice all differ . Systematic review s show that all relevant studies are small and none are likely to have adequate power to show true differences between treatments . Worldwide , current treatment is not based on evidence from r and omised trials . In Brazil , the combination haloperidol-promethazine is frequently used , but no studies involving this mix exist . Methods TREC-Rio ( Tranquilização Rápida-Ensaio Clínico [ Translation : Rapid Tranquillisation- Clinical Trial ] ) will compare midazolam with haloperidol-promethazine mix for treatment of agitated patients in emergency psychiatric rooms of Rio de Janeiro , Brazil . TREC-Rio is a r and omised , controlled , pragmatic and open study . Primary measure of outcome is tranquillisation at 20 minutes but effects on other measures of morbidity will also be assessed . TREC-Rio will involve the collaboration of as many health care professionals based in four psychiatric emergency rooms of Rio as possible . Because the design of this trial does not substantially complicate clinical management , and in several aspects simplifies it , the study can be large , and treatments used in everyday practice can be evaluated 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 r and omized , 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 Rapid tranquilization is a routinely practice d 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 prospect i ve , r and omized , double-blind , multicenter trial . Ninety-eight psychotic , agitated , and aggressive patients ( 73 men and 25 women ) were prospect ively enrolled during an 18-month period in emergency departments in five university or general hospitals . Patients were r and omly 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 Abstract : Topiramate is an antiepileptic drug , recently also used in the treatment of psychiatric diseases . Inasmuch as topiramate and valproate , which are currently used for aggressive behavior , share several pharmacological mechanisms ( positive modulatory effect on the GABA activity and negative modulatory effect on glutamatergic neurotransmission ) , the objective of the present study was to compare the pharmacological effects of topiramate with those of valproate and their combination in patients with psychiatric disorders showing marked aggression and agitation . A retrospective , case-controlled , mirror-image study was carried out in a sample of 45 in patients affected by schizophrenia , schizoaffective and bipolar disorder , and hospitalized in a maximum-security Canadian psychiatry hospital .  Overt Aggression Scale , Agitation-Calmness Evaluation Scale , number and intensity of psychotic episodes , number of episodes of withdrawal from group activities per week , and number of therapeutic isolation per week and of strict surveillance intervention per week were evaluated before and after the treatments . Results indicate that patients treated with topiramate show a decrease in the average score of the Overt Aggression Scale , a decrease of episodes of agitation and of strict surveillance interventions . This effect was similar to the group treated with valproate or with the combination of valproate-topiramate . However , valproate therapy , but not topiramate therapy , decreased the intensity of agitation episodes measured by the Agitation-Calmness Evaluation Scale ;  valproate and the combination topiramate-valproate decreased the number of psychotic disorganization episodes as well . These results suggest that topiramate could be a valid medicine in the control of aggression in psychosis . Double-blind , r and omized , placebo-controlled studies need to further assess this pharmacological indication OBJECTIVE 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 purpose s 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 . METHOD Twenty-eight acutely psychotic patients with schizophrenia who were admitted to an emergency psychiatric service were r and omly assigned to treatment with either haloperidol and alprazolam or haloperidol with placebo under double-blind conditions . Drug administration lasted 72 hours . RESULTS 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 . CONCLUSIONS 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 STUDY OBJECTIVE To compare the utility of intramuscular lorazepam ( LZ ) with the combination of intramuscular haloperidol ( HDL ) and LZ to control  acutely agitated behavior .  DESIGN R and omized double-blind comparison . SETTING Psychiatric emergency service of a large , university-affiliated , municipal hospital . PATIENTS Twenty subjects treated on the psychiatric emergency service . INTERVENTIONS 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 . MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS 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 study ing 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 . CONCLUSION 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 Objective . 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 . Methods . In this prospect i ve , r and omized , 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 . Results . 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 . Conclusions . 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 OBJECTIVE To examine factors associated with physical restraint in psychiatric emergency rooms . METHOD We extracted variables likely to predict use of physical restraints from a large r and omised trial undertaken in three psychiatric emergency rooms in Rio de Janeiro . We fitted a Bayesian binary multivariate model using only variables clearly preceding the restraints . RESULTS Of 301 agitated , aggressive people admitted to emergency rooms , 73 ( 24 % ) were restrained during the first 2 h of admission . In Rio , younger people ( OR=1.03 for each year younger ) , exhibiting intense ( OR=2.53 ) or extreme agitation ( OR=7.71 ) , thought to result from substance misuse ( OR=1.75 ) or diagnoses other than psychosis ( OR=1.88 ) , arriving in the morning ( OR=1.64 ) were at greater risk of  physical restraints  than older , less severely aggressive or agitated people , arriving at the hospital during the afternoon or night . Hospital , gender , first admission to hospital and medication were not associated with risk of being restrained . CONCLUSION Restraint practice s in Rio are predictable and based on a limited clinical assessment . Predictive factors for physical restraint may vary worldwide , but should be monitored and studied to assist training , and to establish programs to evaluate and refine this controversial practice OBJECTIVE To determine the incidence and causes of agitation states in patients presenting at the Rouen University Hospital emergency room and to analyze the management scheme . PATIENTS AND METHOD A prospect i ve study was conducted over a 9 month period in 100 consecutive patients presenting a state of agitation assessed using the Overt Aggression Scale . A pre-planned management protocol was applied . RESULTS The incidence of states of agitation was 0.56 % . There were 43 women and 57 men , mean age 33 years . Most of the agitated patients were admitted between 6 p.m. and 4 a.m. ( 69 % ) . Over the 9 month period , 2 patients were admitted twice for agitation and 2 absconded . Low glucose level was the cause of agitation in 4 cases . Alcohol and /or drug use concerned 73 % of the agitated patients and was the most frequently observed triggering factor ( 17 % ) . Only 6 % of the patients had a regular employment . Physical restraining measures and sedation were required in 86 % and 84 % of the cases respectively . Among 67 patients given loxapine for sedation , 2 developed acute dyskinesia and 9 low blood pressure . One out of 4 patients were referred to a psychiatric unit . CONCLUSION Patients in a state of agitation are young , often female , and in a difficult socio-economic situation . Hypoglycemia is the main differential diagnosis . A triggering factor can often be identified . A state of agitation is not a repetitive condition but occurs as a short-lived episode in the patientís history . Such patients need rapid care to avoid further aggravation and disruption of the emergency room activity , and to prevent the patient from fleeing . Loxapine provides effective sedation but requires regular monitoring of blood pressure and can provoke acute dyskinesia in young subjects Introduction : The purpose of this study was to compare efficacy and safety among intramuscular olanzapine , intramuscular haloperidol , orally disintegrating olanzapine tablets , and oral risperidone solution for agitated patients with psychosis during the first 24 hours of treatment in an acute care psychiatric ward . Methods : Forty-two in patients from an acute care psychiatric ward of a medical center in central Taiwan were enrolled . They were r and omly assigned to 1 of the 4 treatment groups ( 10-mg intramuscular olanzapine , 10-mg olanzapine oral disintegrating tablet , 3-mg oral risperidone solution , or 7.5-mg intramuscular haloperidol ) . Agitation was measured by using the excited component of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale ( PANSS-EC ) , the Agitation-Calmness Evaluation Scale , and the Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale during the first 24 hours . Results : There were significant differences in the PANSS-EC total scores for the 4 intervention groups at 15 , 30 , 45 , 60 , 75 , and 90 minutes after the initiation of treatment . More significant differences were found early in the treatment . In the post hoc analysis , the patients who received intramuscular olanzapine or orally disintegrating olanzapine tablets showed significantly greater improvement in PANSS-EC scores than did patients who received intramuscular haloperidol at points 15 , 30 , 45 , 60 , 75 , and 90 minutes after injection . Conclusions : These findings suggest that intramuscular olanzapine , orally disintegrating olanzapine tablets , and oral risperidone solution are as effective treatments as intramuscular haloperidol for patients with acute agitation . Intramuscular olanzapine and disintegrating olanzapine tablets are more effective than intramuscular haloperidol in the early phase of the intervention . There is no significant difference in effectiveness among intramuscular olanzapine , orally disintegrating olanzapine tablets , and oral risperidone solution Its pharmacological action in animals is similar to that of the major tranquillizers . It has a five times more potent cataleptic action than prochlorperazine , seventeen times more potent antiemetic activity and four times more potent antiserotonin activity than chlorpromazine . In clinical studies propericiazine has been found to be an effective antipsychotic medication ( 1,3,4,6,7 ) . Furthermore , it was noted that the drug had particular usefulness in the treatment of character disorders ( 6 ) and in patients manifesting aggressive behaviour ( 2,5 ) . In a previous study propericiazine was tested for its calming effect when given as PRN ( prorenata ) medication to agitated hospitalized psychiatric patients under treatment with various other psychiatric drugs . The drug had a calming effect in forty-four of the fifty cases ( 7 ) . To further substantiate these findings in this study the efficacy and side effects of propericiazine were compared with
This review suggests that both benzodiazepines work , but that midazolam has a faster onset and thereby reduces the risk of exposure to violence .
Most evidence , however , exists for the haloperidol plus promethazine mix , with currently more than 400 people r and omised to the combination .
The onset of action is swift and faster than lorazepam .
The combination also seems safe with no clear longer term consequences .
BACKGROUND Health services often manage agitated or violent people and for emergency psychiatric services such behaviour is particularly prevalent ( 10 % ) .
The drugs used in this situation should ensure that the person swiftly and safely becomes calm .
OBJECTIVES To examine whether haloperidol plus promethazine is an effective treatment for psychosis induced agitation/aggression .