-
Australian Journal of General Practice Dec 2019Evidence exists for the use of palliative sedation for people approaching the last days of life with refractory and intolerable symptoms. It is a third-line intervention... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Evidence exists for the use of palliative sedation for people approaching the last days of life with refractory and intolerable symptoms. It is a third-line intervention that deliberately lowers the conscious state to relieve intolerable and refractory symptoms. This level of intervention is not routinely used in primary care, and there is a lack of guidelines for palliative sedation in this context.
OBJECTIVE
This article provides some key information about palliative sedation and global issues faced by all individuals involved. A tertiary centre case study is used to illustrate the key points. Given this form of therapy may be required for palliative patients in the community, another aim of this article is to provide an overview for primary care practitioners to raise their awareness of such therapy and the issues related to it.
DISCUSSION
While palliative sedation has been regarded as 'controversial' in early palliative care literature, there has been an increased effort to formulate standardised guidelines to define and ethically justify this procedure.
Topics: Aged; Analgesics; Conscious Sedation; Dehydration; Dyspnea; Humans; Hydromorphone; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Male; Methotrimeprazine; Midazolam; Multiple Myeloma; Multiple Organ Failure; Pain; Palliative Care; Phenobarbital; Propofol; Psychomotor Agitation; Sepsis; Terminal Care
PubMed: 31774984
DOI: 10.31128/AJGP-05-19-4938 -
EMBO Molecular Medicine Jan 2024Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV) pathogenesis is driven by a combination of neuronal death and neuroinflammation. We tested 42 FDA-approved drugs that were shown to...
Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV) pathogenesis is driven by a combination of neuronal death and neuroinflammation. We tested 42 FDA-approved drugs that were shown to induce autophagy for antiviral effects. Four drugs were tested in the JE mouse model based on in vitro protective effects on neuronal cell death, inhibition of viral replication, and anti-inflammatory effects. The antipsychotic phenothiazines Methotrimeprazine (MTP) & Trifluoperazine showed a significant survival benefit with reduced virus titers in the brain, prevention of BBB breach, and inhibition of neuroinflammation. Both drugs were potent mTOR-independent autophagy flux inducers. MTP inhibited SERCA channel functioning, and induced an adaptive ER stress response in diverse cell types. Pharmacological rescue of ER stress blocked autophagy and antiviral effect. MTP did not alter translation of viral RNA, but exerted autophagy-dependent antiviral effect by inhibiting JEV replication complexes. Drug-induced autophagy resulted in reduced NLRP3 protein levels, and attenuation of inflammatory cytokine/chemokine release from infected microglial cells. Our study suggests that MTP exerts a combined antiviral and anti-inflammatory effect in JEV infection, and has therapeutic potential for JE treatment.
Topics: Animals; Mice; Encephalitis Virus, Japanese; Methotrimeprazine; Neuroinflammatory Diseases; Encephalitis, Japanese; Antiviral Agents; Autophagy; Anti-Inflammatory Agents
PubMed: 38177535
DOI: 10.1038/s44321-023-00014-w -
BMJ Open Sep 2019Methotrimeprazine is commonly used for the management of nausea but never tested formally against other drugs used in this setting. The aim was to demonstrate superior... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVES
Methotrimeprazine is commonly used for the management of nausea but never tested formally against other drugs used in this setting. The aim was to demonstrate superior antiemetic efficacy.
DESIGN
Double-blind, randomised, controlled trial of methotrimeprazine versus haloperidol.
SETTING
11 palliative care sites in Australia.
PARTICIPANTS
Participants were >18 years, had cancer, an average nausea score of ≥3/10 and able to tolerate oral medications. Ineligible patients had acute nausea related to treatment, nausea for which a specific antiemetic was indicated, were about to undergo a procedure or had received either of the study drugs or a change in glucocorticoid dose within the previous 48 hours.
INTERVENTIONS
Based on previous studies, haloperidol was used as the control. Participants were randomised to encapsulated methotrimeprazine 6·25 mg or haloperidol 1·5 mg one time or two times per day and assessed every 24 hours for 72 hours.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
A ≥two-point reduction in nausea score at 72 hours from baseline. Secondary outcome measures were as follows: complete response at 72 hours (end nausea score less than 3), response at 24 and 48 hours, vomiting episodes, use of rescue antiemetics, harms and global impression of change.
RESULTS
Response to treatment at 72 hours was 75% (44/59) in the haloperidol (H) arm and 63% (36/57) in the methotrimeprazine (M) arm with no difference between groups (intention-to-treat analysis). Complete response rates were 56% (H) and 51% (M). In the analysis, there was no difference in response rates: (85% (44/52) (H) and 74% (36/49) (M). Complete response rates were 64% (H) and 59% (M). Toxicity worse than baseline was minimal with a trend towards greater sedation in the methotrimeprazine arm.
CONCLUSION
This study did not demonstrate any difference in response rate between methotrimeprazine and haloperidol in the control of nausea.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
ACTRN 12615000177550.
Topics: Antiemetics; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Monitoring; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Glucocorticoids; Haloperidol; Humans; Male; Methotrimeprazine; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palliative Care; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31515428
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029942 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2015This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2013, on Levomepromazine for nausea and vomiting in palliative care.Nausea and vomiting... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2013, on Levomepromazine for nausea and vomiting in palliative care.Nausea and vomiting are common, distressing symptoms for patients receiving palliative care. There are several drugs which can be used to treat these symptoms, known as antiemetics. Levomepromazine is an antipsychotic drug is commonly used as an antiemetic to alleviate nausea and vomiting in palliative care settings.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of, and adverse events associated with, levomepromazine for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update we searched electronic databases, including those of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE, up to February 2015. We searched clinical trial registers on 7 October 2015 for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of levomepromazine for the treatment of nausea or vomiting, or both, in adults receiving palliative care. We excluded studies in which symptoms were thought to be due to pregnancy or surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We assessed the potential relevance of studies based on titles and abstracts. We obtained copies of any study reports that appeared to meet the inclusion criteria for further assessment. At least two review authors read each paper to determine suitability for inclusion and discussed discrepancies in order to achieve a consensus.
MAIN RESULTS
In the original review, we identified 421 abstracts using the search strategy. We considered eight studies for inclusion but ultimately excluded them all from the review. We updated the search in February 2015 and identified 35 abstracts, but again none met the inclusion criteria. We identified two trials from clinical trial registers, one of which is ongoing and one of which was closed due to poor recruitment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
As in the initial review, we identified no published randomised controlled trials examining the use of levomepromazine for the management of nausea and vomiting in adults receiving palliative care, and our conclusion (that further studies of levomepromazine and other antiemetic agents are needed to provide better evidence for their use in this setting) remains unchanged. We did, however, identify one ongoing study that we hope will contribute to the evidence base for this intervention in future updates of this review.
Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Female; Humans; Methotrimeprazine; Nausea; Palliative Care; Pregnancy; Vomiting
PubMed: 26524693
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009420.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2015Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms in patients with terminal, incurable illnesses. Both nausea and vomiting can be distressing. Haloperidol is commonly prescribed... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms in patients with terminal, incurable illnesses. Both nausea and vomiting can be distressing. Haloperidol is commonly prescribed to relieve these symptoms. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 2, 2009, of Haloperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events associated with the use of haloperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients.
SEARCH METHODS
For this updated review, we performed updated searches of CENTRAL, EMBASE and MEDLINE in November 2013 and in November 2014. We searched controlled trials registers in March 2015 to identify any ongoing or unpublished trials. We imposed no language restrictions. For the original review, we performed database searching in August 2007, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and AMED, using relevant search terms and synonyms. Handsearching complemented the electronic searches (using reference lists of included studies, relevant chapters and review articles) for the original review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of haloperidol for the treatment of nausea or vomiting, or both, in any setting, for inclusion. The studies had to be conducted with adults receiving palliative care or suffering from an incurable progressive medical condition. We excluded studies where nausea or vomiting, or both, were thought to be secondary to pregnancy or surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We imported records from each of the electronic databases into a bibliographic package and merged them into a core database where we inspected titles, keywords and abstracts for relevance. If it was not possible to accept or reject an abstract with certainty, we obtained the full text of the article for further evaluation. The two review authors independently assessed studies in accordance with the inclusion criteria. There were no differences in opinion between the authors with regard to the assessment of studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We considered 27 studies from the 2007 search. In this update we considered a further 38 studies from the 2013 search, and two in the 2014 search. We identified one RCT of moderate quality with low risk of bias overall which met the inclusion criteria for this update, comparing ABH (Ativan®, Benadryl®, Haldol®) gel, applied to the wrist, with placebo for the relief of nausea in 22 participants. ABH gel includes haloperidol as well as diphenhydramine and lorazepam. The gel was not significantly better than placebo in this small study; however haloperidol is reported not to be absorbed significantly when applied topically, therefore the trial does not address the issue of whether haloperidol is effective or well-tolerated when administered by other routes (e.g. by mouth, subcutaneously or intravenously). We identified one ongoing trial of haloperidol for the management of nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer, with initial results published in a conference abstract suggesting that haloperidol is effective for 65% of patients. The trial had not been fully published at the time of our review. A further trial has opened, comparing oral haloperidol with oral methotrimeprazine (levomepromazine) for patients with cancer and nausea unrelated to their treatment, which we aim to include in the next review update.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Since the last version of this review, we found one new study for inclusion but the conclusion remains unchanged. There is incomplete evidence from published RCTs to determine the effectiveness of haloperidol for nausea and vomiting in palliative care. Other than the trial of ABH gel vs placebo, we did not identify any fully published RCTs exploring the effectiveness of haloperidol for nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients for this update, but two trials are underway.
Topics: Antiemetics; Diphenhydramine; Gels; Haloperidol; Humans; Lorazepam; Nausea; Palliative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vomiting
PubMed: 26524474
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006271.pub3 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2020Drug repurposing is a rapid approach to identify therapeutics for the treatment of emerging infectious diseases such as COVID-19. To address the urgent need for...
Drug repurposing is a rapid approach to identify therapeutics for the treatment of emerging infectious diseases such as COVID-19. To address the urgent need for treatment options, we carried out a quantitative high-throughput screen using a SARS-CoV-2 cytopathic assay with a compound collection of 8,810 approved and investigational drugs, mechanism-based bioactive compounds, and natural products. Three hundred and nineteen compounds with anti-SARS-CoV-2 activities were identified and confirmed, including 91 approved drugs and 49 investigational drugs. The anti-SARS-CoV-2 activities of 230 of these confirmed compounds, of which 38 are approved drugs, have not been previously reported. Chlorprothixene, methotrimeprazine, and piperacetazine were the three most potent FDA-approved drugs with anti-SARS-CoV-2 activities. These three compounds have not been previously reported to have anti-SARS-CoV-2 activities, although their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV and Ebola virus have been reported. These results demonstrate that this comprehensive data set is a useful resource for drug repurposing efforts, including design of new drug combinations for clinical trials for SARS-CoV-2.
PubMed: 33708112
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.592737 -
BioRxiv : the Preprint Server For... Aug 2020Drug repurposing is a rapid approach to identifying therapeutics for the treatment of emerging infectious diseases such as COVID-19. To address the urgent need for...
Drug repurposing is a rapid approach to identifying therapeutics for the treatment of emerging infectious diseases such as COVID-19. To address the urgent need for treatment options, we carried out a quantitative high-throughput screen using a SARS-CoV-2 cytopathic assay with a compound collection of 8,810 approved and investigational drugs, mechanism-based bioactive compounds, and natural products. Three hundred and nineteen compounds with anti-SARS-CoV-2 activities were identified and confirmed, including 91 approved drug and 49 investigational drugs. Among these confirmed compounds, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 activities of 230 compounds, including 38 approved drugs, have not been previously reported. Chlorprothixene, methotrimeprazine, and piperacetazine were the three most potent FDA approved drugs with anti-SARS-CoV-2 activities. These three compounds have not been previously reported to have anti-SARS-CoV-2 activities, although their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV and Ebola virus have been reported. These results demonstrate that this comprehensive data set of drug repurposing screen for SARS-CoV-2 is useful for drug repurposing efforts including design of new drug combinations for clinical trials.
PubMed: 32839771
DOI: 10.1101/2020.08.18.255877 -
Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) Feb 2023Antipsychotics have narrow therapeutic windows, and their monitoring in biological fluids is therefore important; consequently, stability in those fluids must be...
Antipsychotics have narrow therapeutic windows, and their monitoring in biological fluids is therefore important; consequently, stability in those fluids must be investigated during method development and validation. This work evaluates the stability of chlorpromazine, levomepromazine, cyamemazine, clozapine, haloperidol, and quetiapine in oral fluid (OF) samples, using the dried saliva spots (DSS) sampling approach and gas chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry. Since many parameters can influence the stability of the target analytes, design of experiments was adopted to check the crucial factors that affect that stability in a multivariate fashion. The studied parameters were the presence of preservatives at different concentrations, temperature, light, and time. It was possible to observe that antipsychotic stability improved when OF samples in DSS were stored at 4 °C, with a low ascorbic acid concentration, and in the absence of light. With these conditions, chlorpromazine and quetiapine were stable for 14 days, clozapine and haloperidol were stable for 28 days, levomepromazine remained stable for 44 days, and cyamemazine was stable for the entire monitored period (146 days). This is the first study that evaluates the stability of these antipsychotics in OF samples after application to DSS cards.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Clozapine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Haloperidol; Chlorpromazine; Methotrimeprazine; Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry
PubMed: 36903275
DOI: 10.3390/molecules28052030 -
JAMA Internal Medicine Oct 2022An increasing number of individuals fill antipsychotic prescriptions during pregnancy, and concerns have been raised about prenatal antipsychotic exposure on...
IMPORTANCE
An increasing number of individuals fill antipsychotic prescriptions during pregnancy, and concerns have been raised about prenatal antipsychotic exposure on neurodevelopmental outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
To examine whether maternal prescription fill for antipsychotics during pregnancy was associated with performance in standardized tests among schoolchildren.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This register-based cohort study included 667 517 children born in Denmark from January 1, 1997, to December 31, 2009, and who were attending public primary and lower secondary school. All children had completed at least 1 language (Danish) or mathematics test as part of the Danish National School Test Program between 2010 and 2018. Data were analyzed from November 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022.
EXPOSURES
Antipsychotic prescriptions filled by pregnant individuals were obtained from the Danish National Prescription Register.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Differences in standardized test scores (range, 1-100; higher scores indicate better test results) in language and mathematics between children of mothers with and without antipsychotic prescription fills during pregnancy were estimated using linear regression models. Seven sensitivity analyses, including a sibling-controlled analysis, were performed.
RESULTS
Of the 667 517 children included (51.2% males), 1442 (0.2%) children were born to mothers filling an antipsychotic prescription during pregnancy. The mean (SD) age of children at the time of testing spanned from 8.9 (0.4) years in grade 2 to 14.9 (0.4) years in grade 8. Maternal prescription fill for antipsychotics was not associated with performance in language (crude mean test score: 50.0 [95% CI, 49.1-50.9] for the exposed children vs 55.4 [95% CI, 55.4-55.5] for the unexposed children; adjusted difference, 0.5 [95% CI, -0.8 to 1.7]) or in mathematics (crude mean test score: 48.1 [95% CI, 47.0-49.3] for the exposed children vs 56.1 [95% CI, 56.1-56.2] for the unexposed children; adjusted difference, 0.4 [95% CI, -1.0 to 1.8]). There was no evidence that results were modified by the timing of filling prescriptions, classes (first-generation and second-generation) of antipsychotics, or the most commonly prescribed antipsychotic monotherapies, including chlorprotixene, flupentixol, olanzapine, zuclopenthixol, quetiapine, perphenazine, and methotrimeprazine. The results remained robust across sensitivity analyses, including sibling-controlled analyses, negative control exposures analyses, and probabilistic bias analyses.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this register-based cohort study, maternal prescription fill for antipsychotics during pregnancy did not appear to be associated with standardized test scores in the offspring. The findings provide further reassuring data on offspring neurodevelopmental outcomes associated with antipsychotic treatment during pregnancy.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Child; Clopenthixol; Cohort Studies; Denmark; Female; Flupenthixol; Humans; Male; Methotrimeprazine; Olanzapine; Perphenazine; Pregnancy; Prescriptions; Quetiapine Fumarate
PubMed: 35969410
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.3388 -
European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy :... Mar 2023Patients in the acute phase of agitation can require the administration of multiple drugs by intramuscular injection in order to temporarily stabilise their condition....
BACKGROUND
Patients in the acute phase of agitation can require the administration of multiple drugs by intramuscular injection in order to temporarily stabilise their condition. Administration of multiple psychotropic medications in a single syringe can be beneficial to both the patient and healthcare professionals. However, there are very little data in the literature regarding psychotropic drug compatibility in syringes for acute agitation.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to assess the visual compatibility of various combinations of 12 intramuscular psychotropic medications in syringes, and to validate compatibility with the use of a particle counter. The medications evaluated were benztropine mesylate, diazepam, dimenhydrinate, diphenhydramine hydrochloride, haloperidol lactate, hydroxyzine, lorazepam, loxapine, methotrimeprazine, midazolam, olanzapine and zuclopenthixol acetate.
METHODS
Compounded solutions of medication combinations underwent visual inspection initially and after 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 hours using a white background and a black background. In order to validate the compatibility results, the presence of particulate matter was determined by light obscuration.
RESULTS
This study identified 35 combinations that were visually compatible and 35 that were visually incompatible. We chose eight highly clinically relevant combinations to test using the requirements of the United States Pharmacopoeia (USP) chapter 788 (Particulate Matter in Injections). Of those eight, six were physically compatible, including the triple combinations of lorazepam and haloperidol with either benztropine or diphenhydramine.
CONCLUSION
These physical compatibility results will give healthcare professionals an idea of the possible compatible combinations of psychotropic drugs in syringes, and thus complete some of the missing data in the literature.
Topics: Humans; Haloperidol; Lorazepam; Syringes; Psychotropic Drugs; Diphenhydramine
PubMed: 36002244
DOI: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2022-003378