-
Australasian Emergency Care Jun 2021Chemical restraint (CR) is emergency drug management for acute behavioural disturbances in people with mental illness, provided with the aim of rapid calming and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chemical restraint (CR) is emergency drug management for acute behavioural disturbances in people with mental illness, provided with the aim of rapid calming and de-escalating potentially dangerous situations.
AIMS
To describe a systematic review of Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) reporting on short-term safety and effectiveness of drugs used for CR, administered to non-consenting adults with mental health conditions, who require emergency management of acute behavioural disturbances. A meta-analysis was conducted of those RCTs with comparable interventions, outcome measures and measurement timeframes.
METHOD
Academic databases were searched for RCTs published between 1 January 1996 and 20th April 2020. Relevant RCTs were critically appraised using the 13-item JBI checklist. All RCTs were described, and step-wise filters were applied to identify studies suitable for meta-analysis. For these, forest and funnel plots were constructed, and Q and I statistics guided interpretation of pooled findings, tested using MedCalc Version 19.1.
RESULTS
Of 23 relevant RCTs, 18 (78.2% total) had excellent methodological quality scores (at least 90%). Eight RCTs were potentially relevant for meta-analysis (six of excellent quality), reporting 20 drug arms in total. Adverse events for 6-36% patients were reported in all 20 drug arms. Four drug arms from two homogenous studies of N = 697 people were meta-analysed. These RCTs tested two antipsychotic drugs (droperidol, olanzapine) delivered intravenously in either 5 mgs or 10 mg doses, with outcomes of time to calm, percentage calm within five or 10 min, and adverse events. There were no significant differences between drug arms for either measure of calm. However, 5 mg olanzapine incurred significantly lower risk of adverse events than 10 mg olanzapine (OR 0.4 (95%CI 0.2-0.8)), although no dose differences were found for droperidol.
CONCLUSION
5 mg intravenous olanzapine is recommended for quick, safe emergency management of people with acute behavioural disturbances associated with mental illness.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Droperidol; Humans; Olanzapine; Tranquilizing Agents
PubMed: 33046432
DOI: 10.1016/j.auec.2020.08.004 -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... May 2024Adults with cannabis hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) are increasingly presenting to the emergency department (ED), and this systematic review will evaluate the direct... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Adults with cannabis hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) are increasingly presenting to the emergency department (ED), and this systematic review will evaluate the direct evidence on the effectiveness of capsaicin and dopamine antagonists in its clinical management.
METHODS
A bibliographic search was conducted to address the following population-intervention-control-outcome (PICO) question: (P) adults >18 years old with a diagnosis of acute CHS presenting to the ED; (I) dopamine antagonists (e.g., haloperidol, droperidol) and topical capsaicin; (C) usual care or no active comparator; and (O) symptoms improvement/resolution in ED, ED length of stay, admission rate, ED recidivism, need for rescue medication, and adverse events. This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA reporting recommendations.
RESULTS
From 53 potentially relevant articles, seven articles were included: five observational studies and two randomized controlled trials, including a total of 492 patients. Five of these studies evaluated the efficacy of capsaicin cream (n = 386), and two examined dopamine antagonists (haloperidol, droperidol; n = 106). There was mixed evidence for the efficacy of capsaicin for reducing nausea and emesis. Both studies evaluating dopamine antagonists detected clinical benefit to usual care or no active comparator.
CONCLUSIONS
There is limited direct evidence on the efficacy of dopamine antagonists or capsaicin for treating CHS in the ED. Current evidence is mixed for capsaicin and potentially beneficial for dopamine antagonists. Because of the small number of studies, small number of participants, lack of standardization of treatment administration, and risk of bias of the included studies, methodologically rigorous trials on both types of intervention are needed to directly inform ED management of CHS.
Topics: Humans; Vomiting; Emergency Service, Hospital; Capsaicin; Dopamine Antagonists; Administration, Topical; Adult; Antiemetics; Syndrome; Female; Male; Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome
PubMed: 37391387
DOI: 10.1111/acem.14770 -
Cephalalgia : An International Journal... Mar 2015There is a considerable amount of practice variation in managing migraines in emergency settings, and evidence-based therapies are often not used first line. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There is a considerable amount of practice variation in managing migraines in emergency settings, and evidence-based therapies are often not used first line.
METHODS
A peer-reviewed search of databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL) was carried out to identify randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of interventions for acute pain relief in adults presenting with migraine to emergency settings. Where possible, data were pooled into meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Two independent reviewers screened 831 titles and abstracts for eligibility. Three independent reviewers subsequently evaluated 120 full text articles for inclusion, of which 44 were included. Individual studies were then assigned a US Preventive Services Task Force quality rating. The GRADE scheme was used to assign a level of evidence and recommendation strength for each intervention.
INTERPRETATION
We strongly recommend the use of prochlorperazine based on a high level of evidence, lysine acetylsalicylic acid, metoclopramide and sumatriptan, based on a moderate level of evidence, and ketorolac, based on a low level of evidence. We weakly recommend the use of chlorpromazine based on a moderate level of evidence, and ergotamine, dihydroergotamine, lidocaine intranasal and meperidine, based on a low level of evidence. We found evidence to recommend strongly against the use of dexamethasone, based on a moderate level of evidence, and granisetron, haloperidol and trimethobenzamide based on a low level of evidence. Based on moderate-quality evidence, we recommend weakly against the use of acetaminophen and magnesium sulfate. Based on low-quality evidence, we recommend weakly against the use of diclofenac, droperidol, lidocaine intravenous, lysine clonixinate, morphine, propofol, sodium valproate and tramadol.
Topics: Canada; Emergency Medical Services; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Pain Management; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Societies, Medical; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24875925
DOI: 10.1177/0333102414535997 -
Dementia & Neuropsychologia 2017Delirium is a common disorder associated with poor prognosis, especially in the elderly. The impact of different treatment approaches for delirium on morbimortality and...
UNLABELLED
Delirium is a common disorder associated with poor prognosis, especially in the elderly. The impact of different treatment approaches for delirium on morbimortality and long-term welfare is not completely understood.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments in elderly patients with delirium.
METHODS
This systematic review compared pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments in patients over 60 years old with delirium. Databases used were: MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and LILACS from inception to January 6, 2016.
RESULTS
A total of ten articles were selected. The six non-pharmacological intervention studies showed no impact on duration of delirium, mortality or institutionalization, but a decrease in severity of delirium and improvement in medium-term cognitive function were observed. The most commonly used interventions were temporal-spatial orientation, orientation to self and others, early mobilization and sleep hygiene. The four studies with pharmacological interventions found that rivastigmine reduced the duration of delirium, improved cognitive function and reduced caregiver burden; olanzapine and haloperidol decreased the severity of delirium; droperidol reduced length of hospitalization and improved delirium remission rate.
CONCLUSION
Although the pharmacological approach has been used in the treatment of delirium among elderly, there have been few studies assessing its efficacy, involving a small number of patients. However, the improvements in delirium duration and severity suggest these drugs are effective in treating the condition. Once delirium has developed, non-pharmacological treatment seems less effective in controlling symptoms, and there is a lack of studies describing different non-pharmacological interventions.
PubMed: 29213524
DOI: 10.1590/1980-57642016dn11-030009 -
European Psychiatry : the Journal of... Apr 2019Non-pharmacological interventions preferably precede pharmacological interventions in acute agitation. Reviews of pharmacological interventions remain descriptive or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Non-pharmacological interventions preferably precede pharmacological interventions in acute agitation. Reviews of pharmacological interventions remain descriptive or compare only one compound with several other compounds. The goal of this study is to compute a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect on restoring calmness after a pharmacological intervention, so a more precise recommendation is possible.
METHOD
A search in Pubmed and Embase was done to isolate RCT's considering pharmacological interventions in acute agitation. The outcome is reaching calmness within maximum of 2 h, assessed by the psychometric scales of PANSS-EC, CGI or ACES. Also the percentages of adverse effects was assessed.
RESULTS
Fifty-three papers were included for a systematic review and meta-analysis. Most frequent studied drug is olanzapine. Changes on PANNS-EC and ACES at 2 h showed the strongest changes for haloperidol plus promethazine, risperidon, olanzapine, droperidol and aripiprazole. However, incomplete data showed that the effect of risperidon is overestimated. Adverse effects are most prominent for haloperidol and haloperidol plus lorazepam.
CONCLUSION
Olanzapine, haloperidol plus promethazine or droperidol are most effective and safe for use as rapid tranquilisation. Midazolam sedates most quickly. But due to increased saturation problems, midazolam is restricted to use within an emergency department of a general hospital.
Topics: Aggression; Anti-Anxiety Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Drug Therapy, Combination; Haloperidol; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Lorazepam; Midazolam; Olanzapine; Promethazine; Psychomotor Agitation; Psychotic Disorders; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30721802
DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2019.01.014 -
The Primary Care Companion For CNS... Dec 2023To assess the efficacy and safety of loxapine in acute agitation. PubMed, Cochrane database, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to identify...
To assess the efficacy and safety of loxapine in acute agitation. PubMed, Cochrane database, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to identify relevant articles published in English or French from inception to March 15, 2022. The term "Loxap*" was searched in titles and abstracts. Interventional studies that compared the effectiveness of loxapine to any other intervention (including another administration route or dosage of loxapine, other drugs, and placebo) in acute agitation were included. From the 1,435 articles initially identified, and after the assessment of 73 full texts, 7 articles were selected, encompassing 1,276 participants. Two reviewers independently extracted data of interest using a predefined form. Among included studies, 5 were double-blind, 2 were open-label, and all were randomized. The risk of bias was low for 2 studies, involving 658 participants. Four articles compared loxapine to placebo, and 3 compared it with haloperidol, aripiprazole, and droperidol. Loxapine was found to be more effective and faster regarding acute agitation control. Also, across included studies, loxapine was well-tolerated, with mildly or moderately severe adverse effects. Notwithstanding methodological limitations of the included studies, this systematic review provides reassuring results regarding the use of loxapine in acute agitation. However, further studies with methodological optimizations might be of interest. .
Topics: Humans; Loxapine; Antipsychotic Agents; Administration, Inhalation; Psychomotor Agitation; Aripiprazole; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38134395
DOI: 10.4088/PCC.23r03552 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Drugs can prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, but their relative efficacies and side effects have not been compared within one systematic review. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Drugs can prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, but their relative efficacies and side effects have not been compared within one systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting by drugs and the development of any side effects.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2004), EMBASE (January 1985 to May 2004), CINAHL (1982 to May 2004), AMED (1985 to May 2004), SIGLE (to May 2004), ISI WOS (to May 2004), LILAC (to May 2004) and INGENTA bibliographies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials that compared a drug with placebo or another drug, or compared doses or timing of administration, that reported postoperative nausea or vomiting as an outcome.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted outcome data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 737 studies involving 103,237 people. Compared to placebo, eight drugs prevented postoperative nausea and vomiting: droperidol, metoclopramide, ondansetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, dexamethasone, cyclizine and granisetron. Publication bias makes evidence for differences among these drugs unreliable. The relative risks (RR) versus placebo varied between 0.60 and 0.80, depending upon the drug and outcome. Evidence for side effects was sparse: droperidol was sedative (RR 1.32) and headache was more common after ondansetron (RR 1.16).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Either nausea or vomiting is reported to affect, at most, 80 out of 100 people after surgery. If all 100 of these people are given one of the listed drugs, about 28 would benefit and 72 would not. Nausea and vomiting are usually less common and, therefore, drugs are less useful. For 100 people, of whom 30 would vomit or feel sick after surgery if given placebo, 10 people would benefit from a drug and 90 would not. Between one to five patients out of every 100 people may experience a mild side effect, such as sedation or headache, when given an antiemetic drug. Collaborative research should focus on determining whether antiemetic drugs cause more severe, probably rare, side effects. Further comparison of the antiemetic effect of one drug versus another is not a research priority.
Topics: Antiemetics; Humans; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28715610
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004125.pub3 -
Anesthesia and Analgesia Jun 1999Postoperative nausea and vomiting are important causes of morbidity after anesthesia and surgery. We performed a meta-analysis of published, randomized, controlled... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
UNLABELLED
Postoperative nausea and vomiting are important causes of morbidity after anesthesia and surgery. We performed a meta-analysis of published, randomized, controlled trials to determine the relative efficacy and safety of ondansetron, droperidol, and metoclopramide for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. We performed a literature search of English references using both the MEDLINE database and a manual search. Double-blinded, randomized, controlled trials comparing the efficiency of the prophylactic administration of ondansetron, droperidol, and/or metoclopramide therapy during general anesthesia were included. A total of 58 studies were identified, of which 4 were excluded for methodological concerns. For each comparison of drugs, a pooled odds ratio (OR) with a 95% CI was calculated using a random effects model. Ondansetron (pooled OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.31, 0.61; P < 0.001) and droperidol (pooled OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54, 0.85; P < 0.001) were more effective than metoclopramide in preventing vomiting. Ondansetron was more effective than droperidol in preventing vomiting in children (pooled OR 0.49; P = 0.004), but they were equally effective in adults (pooled OR 0.87; P = 0.45). The overall risk of adverse effects was not different among drug combinations. We conclude that ondansetron and droperidol are more effective than metoclopramide in reducing postoperative vomiting.
IMPLICATIONS
We performed a systematic review of published, randomized, controlled trials to determine the relative efficacy and safety of ondansetron, droperidol, and metoclopramide for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting. Ondansetron and droperidol were more effective than metoclopramide in reducing postoperative vomiting. The overall risk of adverse effects did not differ.
Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Child; Droperidol; Female; Humans; Male; Metoclopramide; Ondansetron; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 10357347
DOI: 10.1097/00000539-199906000-00032 -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Dec 2010despite the introduction of newer antiemetics in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), perphenazine is recommended in current guidelines, as the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
despite the introduction of newer antiemetics in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), perphenazine is recommended in current guidelines, as the concept of multimodal management of PONV in high-risk patients requires more than two drugs to be combined. The aim of this quantitative systematic review was to assess the efficacy and safety of perphenazine in the prophylaxis of PONV in adults and children.
METHODS
randomised controlled trials investigating the efficacy of perphenazine in the prevention of PONV in comparison with any other drug or placebo were systematically searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library. Dichotomous data on the efficacy and adverse effects were combined and relative risks (RRs) as well as corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
RESULTS
eleven trials published between 1965 and 1999 including a total of 2081 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were further analysed. In children, perphenazine 0.07 mg kg was effective in preventing vomiting (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.18-0.54), whereas in adults, a dose of about 5 mg was effective for the prevention of PONV (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.37-0.67). When compared with established newer drugs, for example, ondansetron, dexamethasone or droperidol, no significant differences were observed in the pooled analysis with limited data. Reporting of adverse events was poor. Transient sedation was reported in three eligible trials (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.40-2.05).
CONCLUSION
there is evidence that perphenazine is effective in the prevention of PONV in children and adults without serious adverse effects compared with placebo.
Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Child; Humans; Perphenazine; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors
PubMed: 20739894
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e32833b7969 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2016People experiencing acute psychotic illnesses, especially those associated with agitated or violent behaviour, may require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
People experiencing acute psychotic illnesses, especially those associated with agitated or violent behaviour, may require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. Droperidol, a butyrophenone antipsychotic, has been used for this purpose in several countries.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the effects of droperidol, including its cost-effectiveness, when compared to placebo, other 'standard' or 'non-standard' treatments, or other forms of management of psychotic illness, in controlling acutely disturbed behaviour and reducing psychotic symptoms in people with schizophrenia-like illnesses.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated previous searches by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (18 December 2015). We searched references of all identified studies for further trial citations and contacted authors of trials. We supplemented these electronic searches by handsearching reference lists and contacting both the pharmaceutical industry and relevant authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with useable data that compared droperidol to any other treatment for people acutely ill with suspected acute psychotic illnesses, including schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, mixed affective disorders, the manic phase of bipolar disorder or a brief psychotic episode.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For included studies, we assessed quality, risk of bias and extracted data. We excluded data when more than 50% of participants were lost to follow-up. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified four relevant trials from the update search (previous version of this review included only two trials). When droperidol was compared with placebo, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found evidence of a clear difference (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31, high-quality evidence). There was a clear demonstration of reduced risk of needing additional medication after 60 minutes for the droperidol group (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.85, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular arrhythmia (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.31, moderate-quality evidence) and respiratory airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.52, low-quality evidence) than placebo. For 'being ready for discharge', there was no clear difference between groups (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48, high-quality evidence). There were no data for mental state and costs.Similarly, when droperidol was compared to haloperidol, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found evidence of a clear difference (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09, high-quality evidence). There was a clear demonstration of reduced risk of needing additional medication after 60 minutes for participants in the droperidol group (2 RCTs, N = 255, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.90, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular hypotension (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.30 to 26.49,moderate-quality evidence) and cardiovascular hypotension/desaturation (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.12 to 67.98, low-quality evidence) than haloperidol. There was no suggestion that use of droperidol was unsafe. For mental state, there was no evidence of clear difference between the efficacy of droperidol compared to haloperidol (Scale for Quantification of Psychotic Symptom Severity, 1 RCT, N = 40, mean difference (MD) 0.11, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.29, low-quality evidence). There were no data for service use and costs.Whereas, when droperidol was compared with midazolam, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found droperidol to be less acutely tranquillising than midazolam (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.28, high-quality evidence). As regards the 'need for additional medication by 60 minutes after initial adequate sedation, we found an effect (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.20, moderate-quality evidence). In terms of adverse effects, we found no statistically significant differences between the two drugs for either airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.55, low-quality evidence) or respiratory hypoxia (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.03, moderate-quality evidence) - but use of midazolam did result in three people (out of around 70) needing some sort of 'airway management' with no such events in the droperidol group. There were no data for mental state, service use and costs.Furthermore, when droperidol was compared to olanzapine, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by any time point, we found no clear differences between the older drug (droperidol) and olanzapine (e.g. at 30 minutes: 1 RCT, N = 221, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11, high-quality evidence). There was a suggestion that participants allocated droperidol needed less additional medication after 60 minutes than people given the olanzapine (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular arrhythmia (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88, moderate-quality evidence) and respiratory airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.72, low-quality evidence) than olanzapine. For 'being ready for discharge', there was no difference between groups (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34, high-quality evidence). There were no data for mental state and costs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Previously, the use of droperidol was justified based on experience rather than evidence from well-conducted and reported randomised trials. However, this update found high-quality evidence with minimal risk of bias to support the use of droperidol for acute psychosis. Also, we found no evidence to suggest that droperidol should not be a treatment option for people acutely ill and disturbed because of serious mental illnesses.
Topics: Acute Disease; Aggression; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Droperidol; Haloperidol; Humans; Midazolam; Olanzapine; Psychomotor Agitation; Psychotic Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27976370
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002830.pub3