-
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy =... Dec 2020Individual response to medication depends on several factors (age, gender, body weight, general clinical condition, genetics, diet, hydration status, comorbidities,...
Individual response to medication depends on several factors (age, gender, body weight, general clinical condition, genetics, diet, hydration status, comorbidities, co-administered drugs and their mode of administration, smoking, alcohol overuse, environmental factors, e.g. sunlight) that may contribute to adverse drug reactions even at therapeutic doses. Patients in palliative care are at increased risk of these reactions. Unwanted drug effects diminish the quality of life and may lead to a suboptimal dying process. Haloperidol is one of the three most commonly used drugs in palliative care and the most commonly employed typical antipsychotic. It has also been recommended for inclusion into the palliative care emergency kit of home care teams. As such, it is important to be fully conversant with the indications, benefits, and risks of haloperidol, especially in the context of palliative care.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Haloperidol; Humans; Palliative Care; Quality of Life; Risk Factors
PubMed: 33068931
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2020.110772 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2017Between 40% and 70% of people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia do not respond to clozapine, despite adequate blood levels. For these people, a number of treatment... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Between 40% and 70% of people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia do not respond to clozapine, despite adequate blood levels. For these people, a number of treatment strategies have emerged, including the prescription of a second anti-psychotic drug in combination with clozapine.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the clinical effects of various clozapine combination strategies with antipsychotic drugs in people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia both in terms of efficacy and tolerability.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (to 28 August 2015) and MEDLINE (November 2008). We checked the reference lists of all identified randomised controlled trials (RCT). For the first version of the review, we also contacted pharmaceutical companies to identify further trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included only RCTs recruiting people of both sexes, aged 18 years or more, with a diagnosis of treatment-resistant schizophrenia (or related disorders) and comparing clozapine plus another antipsychotic drug with clozapine plus a different antipsychotic drug.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis using a random-effects meta-analysis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and 95% CIs. We used GRADE to create 'Summary of findings' tables and assessed risk of bias for included studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified two further studies with 169 participants that met our inclusion criteria. This review now includes five studies with 309 participants. The quality of evidence was low, and, due to the high degree of heterogeneity between studies, we were unable to undertake a formal meta-analysis to increase the statistical power.For this update, we specified seven main outcomes of interest: clinical response in mental state (clinically significant response, mean score/change in mental state), clinical response in global state (mean score/change in global state), weight gain, leaving the study early (acceptability of treatment), service utilisation outcomes (hospital days or admissions to hospital) and quality of life.We found some significant differences between clozapine combination strategies for global and mental state (clinically significant response and change), and there were data for leaving the study early and weight gain. We found no data for service utilisation and quality of life. Clozapine plus aripiprazole versus clozapine plus haloperidolThere was no long-term significant difference between aripiprazole and haloperidol combination strategies in change of mental state (1 RCT, n = 105, MD 0.90, 95% CI -4.38 to 6.18, low quality evidence). There were no adverse effect data for weight gain but there was a benefit of aripiprazole for adverse effects measured by the LUNSERS at 12 weeks (1 RCT, n = 105, MD -4.90, 95% CI -8.48 to -1.32) and 24 weeks (1 RCT, n = 105, MD -4.90, 95% CI -8.25 to -1.55), but not 52 weeks (1 RCT, n = 105, MD -4.80, 95% CI -9.79 to 0.19). Similar numbers of participants from each group left the study early (1 RCT, n = 106, RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.22, very low quality evidence). Clozapine plus amisulpride versus clozapine plus quetiapine One study showed a significant benefit of amisulpride over quetiapine in the short term, for both change in global state (Clinical Global Impression (CGI): 1 RCT, n = 50, MD -0.90, 95% CI -1.38 to -0.42, very low quality evidence) and mental state (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS): 1 RCT, n = 50, MD -4.00, 95% CI -5.86 to -2.14, low quality evidence). Similar numbers of participants from each group left the study early (1 RCT, n = 56, RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.60, very low quality evidence) Clozapine plus risperidone versus clozapine plus sulpirideThere was no difference between risperidone and sulpiride for clinically significant response, defined by the study as 20% to 50% reduction in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.68, very low quality evidence). There were similar equivocal results for weight gain (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.90, very low quality evidence) and mental state (PANSS total: 1 RCT, n = 60, MD -2.28, 95% CI -7.41 to 2.85, very low quality evidence). No-one left the study early. Clozapine plus risperidone versus clozapine plus ziprasidoneThere was no difference between risperidone and ziprasidone for clinically significant response (1 RCT, n = 24, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.27, very low quality evidence), change in global state CGI-II score (1 RCT, n = 22, MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.82 to 0.22, very low quality evidence), change in PANSS total score (1 RCT, n = 16, MD 1.00, 95% CI -7.91 to 9.91, very low quality evidence) or leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 24, RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.49, very low quality evidence). Clozapine plus ziprasidone versus clozapine plus quetiapineOne study found, in the medium term, a superior effect for ziprasidone combination compared with quetiapine combination for clinically significant response in mental state (> 50% reduction PANSS: 1 RCT, n = 63, RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.81, low quality evidence), global state (CGI - Severity score: 1 RCT, n = 60, MD -0.70, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.22, low quality evidence) and mental state (PANSS total score: 1 RCT, n = 60, MD -12.30, 95% CI -22.43 to -2.17, low quality evidence). There was no effect for leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 63, RR 0.52, CI 0.05 to 5.41, very low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The reliability of results from this review is limited, evidence is of low or very low quality. Furthermore, due to the limited number of included studies, we were unable to undertake formal meta-analyses. As a consequence, any conclusions drawn from these findings are based on single, small-sized RCTs with high risk of type II error. Properly conducted and adequately powered RCTs are required. Future trialists should seek to measure patient-important outcomes such as quality of life, as well as clinical response and adverse effects.
Topics: Adult; Amisulpride; Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Clozapine; Dibenzothiazepines; Drug Resistance; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Haloperidol; Humans; Male; Piperazines; Quetiapine Fumarate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risperidone; Schizophrenia; Sulpiride; Thiazoles; Weight Gain
PubMed: 28333365
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006324.pub3 -
Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria (Sao... Sep 2008The objective of the present study is to systematically review the supporting evidence for the use of antipsychotics in the treatment of behavioral and psychological... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The objective of the present study is to systematically review the supporting evidence for the use of antipsychotics in the treatment of behavioral and psychological symptoms in patients with dementia, as well as the controversies and limitations of this prescription. We discuss the available evidence in the light of the high prevalence of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia in this population, along with the greater susceptibility of elderly patients to adverse events.
METHOD
Systematic literature review of the use of typical and atypical antipsychotics in patients with dementia was carried out in the databases PubMed/Medline, Embase and SciELO. The search was limited to clinical trials and meta-analysis of the literature published from 1986 to 2007.
RESULTS
Evidence drawn from randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trials support the use of both typical and atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of behavioral symptoms of dementia, especially psychotic symptoms and abnormal psychomotor activity. Nevertheless, the use of these drugs in demented patients is not devoid of important adverse events. Although the induction of extrapyramidal symptoms is not as frequent or severe with atypical antipsychotics as it is with first-generation neuroleptics, the former drugs may particularly increase the risk of cerebrovascular events and death.
CONCLUSION
Although effective, antipsychotic drugs must be prescribed cautiously in patients with dementia. Dose regimens, duration of treatment and a cautious assessment of risk-benefit must be established for each patient.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Benzodiazepines; Cerebrovascular Disorders; Dementia; Dementia, Vascular; Dibenzothiazepines; Double-Blind Method; Evidence-Based Medicine; Haloperidol; Humans; Olanzapine; Piperazines; Quetiapine Fumarate; Quinolones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risperidone; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 18833428
DOI: 10.1590/s1516-44462008000300014 -
Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria (Sao... Sep 2009Rapid and safe tranquillisation is sometimes unavoidable. We conducted this systematic review to determine the value of the combination haloperidol plus promethazine,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Rapid and safe tranquillisation is sometimes unavoidable. We conducted this systematic review to determine the value of the combination haloperidol plus promethazine, frequently used in Brazil.
METHOD
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register and included all randomised clinical trials involving aggressive people with psychosis for which haloperidol plus promethazine was being used. We reliably selected, quality assessed and extracted data from all relevant studies.
RESULTS
We identified four relevant high quality studies. The combination haloperidol plus promethazine mix was compared with midazolam, lorazepam, haloperidol alone and olanzapine Intramuscular. In Brazil, haloperidol plus promethazine was effective with over 2/3 of people being tranquil by 30 minutes, but midazolam was more swift and in India, compared with lorazepam, the combination was more effective. Over the next few hours reported differences are negligible. Haloperidol given without promethazine in this situation causes frequent serious adverse effects. Olanzapine is as rapidly tranquillising as haloperidol plus promethazine, but did not have an enduring effect and more people needed additional drugs within 4 hours.
CONCLUSION
All treatments evaluated are effective, but this review provides compelling evidence as to clear advantages of the haloperidol plus promethazine combination.
Topics: Anti-Anxiety Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Drug Therapy, Combination; Haloperidol; Humans; Lorazepam; Midazolam; Olanzapine; Promethazine; Psychomotor Agitation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 19784494
DOI: 10.1590/s1516-44462009000300014 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Nov 1995Randomized controlled studies were reviewed to assess the effectiveness and safety of antiemetics used for prophylaxis in paediatric strabismus surgery. Early and late... (Review)
Review
Randomized controlled studies were reviewed to assess the effectiveness and safety of antiemetics used for prophylaxis in paediatric strabismus surgery. Early and late vomiting (6 and 48 h after operation, respectively), and adverse effects were evaluated using the numbers-needed-to-treat method. In 27 reports with information on 2033 children, the mean incidence of early vomiting was 54% and of late vomiting 59%, without prophylaxis. Only three drugs were studied sufficiently for firm conclusions to be drawn. In the best documented regimen (droperidol 75 micrograms kg-1), four children have to be given the drug to prevent one vomiting; of the three others, one may vomit and two would not have vomited anyway; fewer than one child in 100 may have an extrapyramidal reaction and 16 may have minor adverse effects. Metoclopramide 0.15 and 0.25 mg kg-1 was significantly better than control only for early vomiting. Propofol had a high incidence of oculocardiac reflex without conferring any significant antiemetic effect: it should not be used. The benefits of prophylactic antiemetic therapy are not proven.
Topics: Antiemetics; Child; Droperidol; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Strabismus; Vomiting
PubMed: 7577280
DOI: 10.1093/bja/75.5.556 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2012Medication used for acute aggression in psychiatry must have rapid onset of effect, low frequency of administration and low levels of adverse effects. Zuclopenthixol... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Medication used for acute aggression in psychiatry must have rapid onset of effect, low frequency of administration and low levels of adverse effects. Zuclopenthixol acetate is said to have these properties.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the clinical effects of zuclopenthixol acetate for the management of acute aggression or violence thought to be due to serious mental illnesses, in comparison to other drugs used to treat similar conditions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia's Group Trials Register (July 2011). We supplemented this by citation searching and personal contact with authors and relevant pharmaceutical companies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised clinical trials involving people thought to have serious mental illnesses comparing zuclopenthixol acetate with other drugs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors extracted and cross-checked data independently. We calculated fixed-effect relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous data. We analysed by intention-to-treat. We used mean differences (MD) for continuous variables.
MAIN RESULTS
We found no data for the primary outcome, tranquillisation. Compared with haloperidol, zuclopenthixol acetate was no more sedating at two hours (n = 40, 1 RCT, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.34). People given zuclopenthixol acetate were not at reduced risk of being given supplementary antipsychotics (n = 134, 3 RCTs, RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.30) although additional use of benzodiazepines was less (n = 50, 1 RCT, RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.47). People given zuclopenthixol acetate had fewer injections over seven days compared with those allocated to haloperidol IM (n = 70, 1 RCT, RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.84, NNT 4, CI 3 to 14). We found no data on more episodes of aggression or harm to self or others. One trial (n = 148) reported no significant difference in adverse effects for people receiving zuclopenthixol acetate compared with those allocated haloperidol at one, three and six days (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.27). Compared with haloperidol or clotiapine, people allocated zuclopenthixol did not seem to be at more risk of a range of movement disorders (< 20%). Three studies found no difference in the proportion of people getting blurred vision/dry mouth (n = 192, 2 RCTs, RR at 24 hours 0.90, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.70). Similarly, dizziness was equally infrequent for those allocated zuclopenthixol acetate compared with haloperidol (n = 192, 2 RCTs, RR at 24 hours 1.15, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.88). There was no difference between treatments for leaving the study before completion (n = 522, RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.31). One study reported no difference in adverse effects and outcome scores, when high dose (50-100 mg/injection) zuclopenthixol acetate was compared with low dose (25-50 mg/injection) zuclopenthixol acetate.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Recommendations on the use of zuclopenthixol acetate for the management of psychiatric emergencies in preference to 'standard' treatment have to be viewed with caution. Most of the small trials present important methodological flaws and findings are poorly reported. This review did not find any suggestion that zuclopenthixol acetate is more or less effective in controlling aggressive acute psychosis, or in preventing adverse effects than intramuscular haloperidol, and neither seemed to have a rapid onset of action. Use of zuclopenthixol acetate may result in less numerous coercive injections and low doses of the drug may be as effective as higher doses. Well-conducted pragmatic randomised controlled trials are needed.
Topics: Acute Disease; Aggression; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Clopenthixol; Dibenzothiazepines; Haloperidol; Humans; Psychotic Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia; Violence
PubMed: 22513898
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000525.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2015Haloperidol is worldwide one of the most frequently used antipsychotic drugs with a very high market share. Previous narrative, unsystematic reviews found no differences... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Haloperidol is worldwide one of the most frequently used antipsychotic drugs with a very high market share. Previous narrative, unsystematic reviews found no differences in terms of efficacy between the various first-generation ("conventional", "typical") antipsychotic agents. This established the unproven psychopharmacological assumption of a comparable efficacy between the first-generation antipsychotic compounds codified in textbooks and treatment guidelines. Because this assumption contrasts with the clinical impression, a high-quality systematic review appeared highly necessary.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of haloperidol with other first-generation antipsychotics in schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis.
SEARCH METHODS
In October 2011 and July 2012, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register, which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. To identify further relevant publications, we screened the references of all included studies and contacted the manufacturers of haloperidol for further relevant trials and missing information on identified studies. Furthermore, we contacted the corresponding authors of all included trials for missing data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral haloperidol with another oral first-generation antipsychotic drug (with the exception of the low-potency antipsychotics chlorpromazine, chlorprothixene, levopromazine, mesoridazine, perazine, prochlorpromazine, and thioridazine) in schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis. Clinically important response to treatment was defined as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were global state, mental state, behaviour, overall acceptability (measured by the number of participants leaving the study early due to any reason), overall efficacy (attrition due to inefficacy of treatment), overall tolerability (attrition due to adverse events), and specific adverse effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using The Cochrane Collaboration`s 'Risk of bias' tool.We analysed dichotomous outcomes with risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes with mean differences (MD), both with the associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). All analyses were based on a random-effects model and we preferably used data on an intention-to-treat basis where possible.
MAIN RESULTS
The systematic review currently includes 63 randomised trials with 3675 participants. Bromperidol (n = 9), loxapine (n = 7), and trifluoperazine (n = 6) were the most frequently administered antipsychotics comparator to haloperidol. The included studies were published between 1962 and 1993, were characterised by small sample sizes (mean: 58 participants, range from 18 to 206) and the predefined outcomes were often incompletely reported. All results for the main outcomes were based on very low or low quality data. In many trials the mechanism of randomisation, allocation, and blinding was frequently not reported. In short-term studies (up to 12 weeks), there was no clear evidence of a difference between haloperidol and the pooled group of the other first-generation antipsychotic agents in terms of the primary outcome "clinically important response to treatment" (40 RCTs, n = 2132, RR 0.93 CI 0.87 to 1.00). In the medium-term trials, haloperidol may be less effective than the other first-generation antipsychotic group but this evidence is based on only one trial (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 0.51 CI 0.37 to 0.69).Based on limited evidence, haloperidol alleviated more positive symptoms of schizophrenia than the other antipsychotic drugs. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in global state, other mental state outcomes, behaviour, leaving the study early due to any reason, due to inefficacy, as well as due to adverse effects. The only statistically significant difference in specific side effects was that haloperidol produced less akathisia in the medium term.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The findings of the meta-analytic calculations support the statements of previous narrative, unsystematic reviews suggesting comparable efficacy of first-generation antipsychotics. In efficacy-related outcomes, there was no clear evidence of a difference between the prototypal drug haloperidol and other, mainly high-potency first-generation antipsychotics. Additionally, we demonstrated that haloperidol is characterised by a similar risk profile compared to the other first-generation antipsychotic compounds. The only statistically significant difference in specific side effects was that haloperidol produced less akathisia in the medium term. The results were limited by the low methodological quality in many of the included original studies. Data for the main results were low or very low quality. Therefore, future clinical trials with high methodological quality are required.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Antipsychotic Agents; Haloperidol; Humans; Loxapine; Psychotic Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia; Trifluoperazine
PubMed: 25592299
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009831.pub2 -
The International Journal of... Oct 2021The use of ketamine for depression has increased rapidly in the past decades. Ketamine is often prescribed as an add-on to other drugs used in psychiatric patients, but...
BACKGROUND
The use of ketamine for depression has increased rapidly in the past decades. Ketamine is often prescribed as an add-on to other drugs used in psychiatric patients, but clear information on drug-drug interactions is lacking. With this review, we aim to provide an overview of the pharmacodynamic interactions between ketamine and mood stabilizers, benzodiazepines, monoamine oxidase-inhibitors, antipsychotics, and psychostimulants.
METHODS
MEDLINE and Web of Science were searched.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies were included. For lithium, no significant interactions with ketamine were reported. Two out of 5 studies on lamotrigine indicated that the effects of ketamine were attenuated. Benzodiazepines were repeatedly shown to reduce the duration of ketamine's antidepressant effect. For the monoamine oxidase-inhibitor tranylcypromine, case reports showed no relevant changes in vital signs during concurrent S-ketamine use. One paper indicated an interaction between ketamine and haloperidol, 2 other studies did not. Four papers investigated risperidone, including 3 neuroimaging studies showing an attenuating effect of risperidone on ketamine-induced brain perfusion changes. Clozapine significantly blunted ketamine-induced positive symptoms in patients with schizophrenia but not in healthy participants. One paper reported no effect of olanzapine on ketamine's acute psychotomimetic effects.
CONCLUSION
Current literature shows that benzodiazepines and probably lamotrigine reduce ketamine's treatment outcome, which should be taken into account when considering ketamine treatment. There is evidence for an interaction between ketamine and clozapine, haloperidol, and risperidone. Due to small sample sizes, different subject groups and various outcome parameters, the evidence is of low quality. More studies are needed to provide insight into pharmacodynamic interactions with ketamine.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Bipolar Disorder; Clozapine; Depression; Drug Interactions; Female; Haloperidol; Humans; Ketamine; Lithium; Male; Olanzapine; Psychotropic Drugs; Risperidone; Schizophrenia; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34170315
DOI: 10.1093/ijnp/pyab039 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Oct 2019Delirium is an acute disorder marked by impairments in attention and cognition, caused by an underlying medical problem. Antipsychotics are used to prevent delirium, but...
BACKGROUND
Delirium is an acute disorder marked by impairments in attention and cognition, caused by an underlying medical problem. Antipsychotics are used to prevent delirium, but their benefits and harms are unclear.
PURPOSE
To conduct a systematic review evaluating the benefits and harms of antipsychotics for prevention of delirium in adults.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from inception through July 2019, without restrictions based on study setting, language of publication, or length of follow-up.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) that compared an antipsychotic with placebo or another antipsychotic, and prospective observational studies with a comparison group.
DATA EXTRACTION
One reviewer extracted data and graded the strength of the evidence, and a second reviewer confirmed the data. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias.
DATA SYNTHESIS
A total of 14 RCTs were included. There were no differences in delirium incidence or duration, hospital length of stay (high strength of evidence [SOE]), and mortality between haloperidol and placebo used for delirium prevention. Little to no evidence was found to determine the effect of haloperidol on cognitive function, delirium severity (insufficient SOE), inappropriate continuation, and sedation (insufficient SOE). There is limited evidence that second-generation antipsychotics may lower delirium incidence in the postoperative setting. There is little evidence that short-term use of antipsychotics was associated with neurologic harms. In some of the trials, potentially harmful cardiac effects occurred more frequently with antipsychotic use.
LIMITATIONS
There was significant heterogeneity in antipsychotic dosing, route of antipsychotic administration, assessment of outcomes, and adverse events. There were insufficient or no data available to draw conclusions for many of the outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Current evidence does not support routine use of haloperidol or second-generation antipsychotics for prevention of delirium. There is limited evidence that second-generation antipsychotics may lower the incidence of delirium in postoperative patients, but more research is needed. Future trials should use standardized outcome measures.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42018109552).
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Cognition; Delirium; Electrocardiography; Haloperidol; Heart; Hospital Mortality; Hospitalization; Humans; Length of Stay; Observational Studies as Topic; Palliative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 31476766
DOI: 10.7326/M19-1859 -
BMC Anesthesiology Feb 2024To systematically review the evidence about the effect of haloperidol on postoperative delirium in elderly patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the evidence about the effect of haloperidol on postoperative delirium in elderly patients.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were used to find concerned studies for meta-analysis. The main outcome was the incidence of postoperative delirium, and the secondary outcomes were side effects of haloperidol and the length of hospital stay. The meta-analyses were conducted using the Review Manager Version 5.1. This study was conducted based on the PRISMA statement.
RESULTS
Eight RCTs (1569 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. There was a significant difference in the incidence of postoperative delirium between haloperidol and control groups (OR = 0.62, 95%CI 0.48-0.80, P = 0.0002, I = 20%). In addition, side effects of haloperidol and the duration of hospitalization were comparable (OR = 0.58, 95%CI 0.25-1.35, P = 0.21, I = 0%; MD =-0.01, 95%CI -0.16-0.15, P = 0.92, I = 28%). Subgroup analysis implied the effect of haloperidol on postoperative delirium might vary with the dose (5 mg daily: OR = 0.40, 95%CI 0.22-0.71, P = 0.002, I = 0%; <5 mg daily: OR = 0.72, 95%CI 0.42-1.23, P = 0.23, I = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS
The meta-analysis revealed perioperative application of haloperidol could decrease the occurrence of postoperative delirium without obvious side effects in elderly people, and high-dose haloperidol (5 mg daily) possessed a greater positive effect.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Haloperidol; Antipsychotic Agents; Emergence Delirium; Delirium; Hospitalization
PubMed: 38308229
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-024-02434-8