Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
ABSTRACT
Background: Agitation is a common behavioral
emergency associated with high risk of injury to patients and health care professionals. There are a wide
variety of approaches to assessing the severity of agitation and the risk of violence/aggression, and many
different pharmacotherapies have been used to manage this condition.
Objectives: Two systematic reviews were carried
out. The first focused on measures used to assess agitation and predict aggression/violence and/or the need
for medication. The second focused on clinical trials
of the efficacy and tolerability of pharmacotherapies
for agitation.
Methods: Publications relevant to each topic were
identified by searches of MEDLINE through December 24, 2009. The search concerning the assessment of
agitation included the terms agitation AND assessment
AND (scale OR instrument); the search for clinical trials
of pharmacotherapies for agitation included the terms
agitation and treatment AND (emergency OR acute).
Both searches were limited to reports of studies published
in English involving patients aged 18 years.
Results: The literature search identified 13 scales
used to assess the severity of agitation across multiple
patient populations; only 3 of these reports involved
the prediction of aggression/violence in patients with
agitation, and 1 involved prediction of the need for
medication. Thirty-one clinical trials of pharmacotherapy for agitation were identified by the literature
search. Based on their results, orally administered olanzapine, risperidone, aripiprazole, quetiapine, haloperidol, and lorazepam; intramuscularly administered
olanzapine, lorazepam, ziprasidone, haloperidol, aripiprazole, midazolam, and droperidol; and intravenously administered droperidol and lorazepam were
effective for the treatment of agitation. The intramuscular route of administration was associated with a more
rapid onset of action compared with the oral route (eg,
for olanzapine, 30 minutes vs 1 hour, respectively).
March 2010
INTRODUCTION
Agitation is characterized by excessive motor or verbal activity, irritability, uncooperativeness, threatening
gestures, and, in some cases, assault.1,2 Key features
generally present in patients with agitation include
restlessness with excessive or semipurposeful motor
activity, irritability, heightened responsiveness to internal and external stimuli, and an unstable clinical
course.3 Aggression is not a core feature of agitation,
and the frequency with which agitation is associated
with aggression has not been clearly established.4
As many as 1.7 million emergency department
(ED) visits in the United States per year may involve
agitated patients,5 and 20% to 50% of visits to psychiatric emergency services in the United States may
involve patients who are at risk for agitation.5,6 Approximately 10% of patients encountered in emergency psychiatry settings may become agitated or violent
during assessment.7
Agitation may be associated with psychiatric conditions, including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder,
personality disorder, general anxiety disorder, panic
Accepted for publication January 2, 2010.
Express Track online publication March 3, 2010.
doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2010.03.006
0149-2918/$ - see front matter
2010 Excerpta Medica Inc. All rights reserved.
403
Clinical Therapeutics
disorder, and major depression.4,8 Agitation may also
be associated with central nervous system diseases,
including Parkinsons disease, Alzheimers disease, and
other types of dementia.8,9 It may also occur in individuals with a wide range of medical conditions (eg,
thyrotoxicosis, encephalitis, meningitis) and in those
with brain trauma or hypoglycemia.8,10 Agitation may
occur in those who abuse substances (eg, alcohol, cocaine, methamphetamine) and may also result from
akathisia after administration of a conventional antipsychotic agent.8,11
Psychoses, including schizophrenia and bipolar
disorder, are common causes of agitation among individuals presenting in the ED.6,12,13 Schizophrenia affects ~2.4 million adults in the United States (1.1%
of those aged 18 years), with bipolar disorder affecting ~5.7 million (2.6% of those aged 18 years).14 It
has been estimated that ~20% of patients with schizophrenia will have episodes of agitation during their
lifetime.15 Agitated patients with schizophrenia are
thought to account for 900,000 annual visits to psychiatric emergency services, or 21% of all psychiatric
emergency visits.16 The frequency of agitation in patients with bipolar disorder has not been reported.
Many different medical specialists (eg, psychiatrists,
emergency physicians, primary care physicians, geriatricians) encounter agitation in their practices.5,17,18
Clinicians in different specialties may view agitation
primarily or exclusively from the perspective of their
own patient population, and consideration of the condition and its treatment may vary greatly across specialties. As described by a psychiatrist, symptoms
of agitation are likely to reflect observations from
agitated patients with either schizophrenia or bipolar
disorder. Conversely, because they are likely to encounter patients with agitation associated with a wide
range of underlying conditions,1820 emergency physicians may describe agitation in terms of a broader
range of symptoms. Similarly, geriatricians descriptions of agitation are likely to reflect syndromes commonly seen in the elderly.21 Regardless of the underlying etiology, there is clear agreement that agitation is
a behavioral emergency that requires immediate intervention to control symptoms and decrease the risk of
injury to the patient, health care personnel, and others
in the immediate treatment area.22,23
This paper reports the results of 2 systematic reviews. The first focused on measures used to assess
agitation and predict aggression/violence and/or the
404
METHODS
Publications relevant to each topic were identified by
searches of MEDLINE through December 24, 2009.
The search concerning measures for the assessment of
agitation included the terms agitation AND assessment AND (scale OR instrument); the search for clinical trials of pharmacotherapies for agitation included
the terms agitation and treatment AND (emergency
OR acute). Both searches were limited to reports of
studies published in English involving patients aged
18 years.
The abstracts of all publications identified by the
searches were reviewed for relevance. For a report to
be included in the review, patients had to be treated
specifically for agitation; exacerbations of schizophrenia or manic episodes without defined agitation were
not included. For each paper included in the analysis, data on the study design, patient characteristics,
drug doses and routes of administration, results for
the primary efficacy variable, and tolerability were
extracted from the full text by one of the authors
(R.W.R.).
repetitious mannerisms, restlessness, screaming, repetitive sentences or questions, making strange noises,
and complaining. Items are rated from 0 = none to
3 = often or continuous. In addition to its use in nursing homes, this instrument has been used for the assessment of patients being admitted to the hospital
for psychiatric services.27
The Brset Violence Checklist (BVC) was developed primarily for use in the evaluation of psychiatric
inpatients.28 It measures 6 clinician-rated variables:
confusion, irritability, boisterousness, physical threats,
verbal threats, and attacks on objects. Each item is
scored for its presence (1) or absence (0). For patients
who are well known to the clinical staff, habitual behaviors (nonviolent) are scored 0, whereas an increase
in the listed behaviors is scored 1. The sum of scores
is then totaled. A total score of 0 indicates a low risk
of violence, and a score 2 is predictive of a violent
episode in the next 24 hours.
The Clinical Global Impression Scale for Aggression is a simple instrument based solely on observation of the patient.29 The clinician rates agitation on a
scale from 1 = none to 5 = aggressive behavior. It has
not been used to predict violence or the need for medication, although scores on this instrument have been
found to be linearly correlated with scores on the
Positive and Negative Syndrome ScaleExcited Component (PANSS-EC).
The CMAI is a 29-item caregiver rating questionnaire used for the assessment of agitation in older
persons.30 It includes descriptions of 29 agitated behaviors, each rated on a 7-point scale of frequency.
This instrument was developed primarily for the assessment of elderly patients in long-term care facilities, although it has been used for the initial assessment of agitation in patients being admitted to the
hospital for psychiatric care.31
The Historical, Clinical, and Risk Management20
Violence Risk Assessment Scheme (HCR-20) has been
used to assess the risk of violence in a wide range of settings.32 It includes 20 items taken from the patients
medical history or rated by the clinician, including history
of violence, current clinical status, and environmental/
support factors that may increase the risk for violence.
Each item is scored as 0 = not present, 1 = possibly present, or 2 = definitely present, with a maximum score
of 40. It has been found to be effective in predicting
violent behavior in clinical psychiatric, forensic, and
correctional settings.
405
Clinical Therapeutics
The McNiel-Binder Violence Screening Checklist
is used to predict future violent behavior.33 It includes
5 variables: history of physical attacks or fear-inducing
behavior within 2 weeks, absence of suicidal behavior,
schizophrenic or manic diagnosis, male gender, and
currently married or living with a partner. Each variable is scored as present or absent. This instrument
has been found to have moderate sensitivity (57.2%)
and specificity (70.0%) for predicting violence in patients admitted to a psychiatric inpatient unit.
The Neurobehavioral Rating ScaleRevised (NRS-R)
is a 29-item, multidimensional, clinician-based instrument designed to measure neurobehavioral disturbances.34 It includes assessments of orientation and
memory of recent events, emotional state, postconcussional symptoms, focused attention and concentration, explanation of proverbs, planning and mentalflexibility tasks, and delayed recall of objects presented
at the beginning of a session. It also involves the clinicians observations regarding the patients fatigability,
visible signs of anxiety, disinhibition, agitation, hostility, difficulties in expressive and receptive communication, and disturbance of mood. Each variable is scored
as present or absent. This instrument has been employed for the assessment of agitation level in patients
presenting to the ED.35
The Overt Aggression Scale (OAS) is a checklist of
16 items that is used to evaluate verbal aggression and
physical aggression against self, objects, and others.36,37
It is scored as described in the next paragraph. The
scale was developed for use in both adults and pediatric patients in clinical and research settings.
The Overt Agitation Severity Scale is used to assess
vocalizations (eg, whining) and orofacial movements
(eg, grimacing), movements of the upper torso and extremities (eg, tapping of fingers, rocking), and movements of the lower extremities (eg, toe-tapping, kicking at objects) indicative of agitation.38 Each behavior
is measured on a scale from 0 = not present to 4 =
always present. This instrument has been validated in
psychiatric inpatients.39
The PANSS-EC is commonly used in the assessment
of psychiatric conditions, although it can be used to
measure agitation and has been extensively used in
clinical trials of pharmacotherapy for agitation.4043 It
includes 5 individual PANSS items: hostility, uncooperativeness, impulsivity, tension, and excitability.
Each item is rated on a scale from 1 = nonexistent to
7 = severe.43 A response to treatment is considered a
406
TREATMENT OF AGITATION
The literature search for clinical trials of pharmacotherapy for agitation retrieved 169 citations. After
evaluation of the abstracts and/or full text of these citations, 31 clinical trials were included in the review.
Oral Therapy
The search identified 7 trials of oral therapy for
agitation (Table II), 2 assessing antipsychotic
monotherapy48,49 and 5 assessing antipsychotic agents
in combination with intramuscular lorazepam.5054
Monotherapy
In a 72-hour, randomized, rater-blinded, prospective trial, Villari et al48 evaluated haloperidol 5 to
15 mg/d, risperidone 2 to 6 mg/d, olanzapine 10 to
20 mg/d, and quetiapine 300 to 800 mg/d in 101 agitated patients with psychosis. There were no signifiVolume 32 Number 3
March 2010
Study/
Design
Patient
Population
Setting and
Duration of
Treatment
Interventions
Most Common
AEs (5%)
Psychosis
(unspecified)
Mental
health
department,
72 h
Currier et al49
OL
ED, 3 h
Quetiapine 100 mg
(n = 7), 150 mg (n = 6),
or 200 mg (n = 7)
PANSS-EC at 2 h: 40%
reduction achieved in
50% of patients
Orthostasis in 40% of
patients at 2 h
Currier et al50
R, PG,
prospective,
rater blinded,
noninferiority
Acute exacerbation
of schizophrenia or
schizoaffective
disorder, mania with
psychotic features,
acute paranoid
reaction, delusional
disorders (DSM-IV);
age 1865 y
PES, 24 h
Risperidone 2 mg +
lorazepam 2 mg IM
(n = 83)
Haloperidol 5 mg IM +
lorazepam 2 mg IM
(n = 79)
Risperidone: somnolence
(12.8%)
Haloperidol: somnolence
(12.7%), headache (6.3%),
agitation (5.1%),
hyperkinesia (5.1%)
(continued)
407
Villari et al48
R, prospective,
rater blinded
Study/
Design
Patient
Population
Setting and
Duration of
Treatment
Interventions
Most Common
AEs (5%)
Volume 32 Number 3
Kinon et al51
R, DB, PG
Schizophrenia,
schizophreniform or
schizoaffective
disorder;
age 1865 y
Inpatient
psychiatric,
5d
Olanzapine 20 mg/d +
lorazepam to 4 mg/d
IM as needed (n = 306)
Aripiprazole to 30 mg/d +
lorazepam to 4 mg/d
IM as needed
(n = 298)
PANSS-EC: significant
decreases from baseline
to end of each day with
both treatments (P < 0.001),
with no significant
differences between
groups
Kinon et al52
R, DB,
prospective
Schizophrenia,
schizophreniform or
schizoaffective
disorder;
age 1850 y
Hospitalized,
3 wk
Olanzapine 10 mg/d +
lorazepam 12 mg IM
as needed (n = 52)
Haloperidol 10 mg/d +
lorazepam 12 mg IM
as needed (n = 48)
Olanzapine: somnolence
(17.3%), anxiety (11.5%),
headache (11.5%), agitation
(9.6%), pain (9.6%),
nervousness (7.7%),
insomnia (5.7%)
Haloperidol: headache
(25.0%), somnolence
(25.0%), nervousness
(16.7%), insomnia (13.0%),
agitation (10.0%), pain
(10.0%), dystonia (8.3%),
hypertonia (8.3%),
increased salivation (8.3%)
Veser et al53
R, DB, PC,
prospective
Psychosis
(unspecified);
age 1865 y
ED, 90 min
Risperidone 2 mg +
lorazepam 2 mg IM
(n = 10)
Haloperidol 5 mg +
lorazepam 2 mg IM
(n = 10)
Lorazepam 2 mg IM
(n = 10)
Not reported
(continued)
Clinical Therapeutics
408
Table II (continued).
March 2010
Table II (continued).
Study/
Design
Baker et al54
R, DB
treatment,
followed by R,
OL treatment
Patient
Population
Schizophrenia,
schizoaffective
disorder,
schizophreniform
disorder, bipolar I
disorder (manic or
mixed episode)
(DSM-IV);
age 1855 y
Setting and
Duration of
Treatment
PES, DB
treatment
for 4 d,
followed
by OL
treatment
for 3 d
Interventions
Olanzapine 10 or 20 mg/d +
lorazepam 4 mg/d IM as
needed during DB
treatment period,
followed by olanzapine
520 mg/d
(N = 148)
Most Common
AEs (5%)
PANSS-EC at 24 h:
significant decreases with
both treatments (P < 0.001),
with no significant
difference between groups
Olanzapine 10 mg/d:
somnolence (26%),
nervousness (11%),
headache (8%), insomnia
(8%), dizziness (7%)
Olanzapine 20 mg/d:
somnolence (31%), dizziness
(17%), headache (17%),
insomnia (13%), nervousness
(7%)
409
AEs = adverse events; R = randomized; MOAS = Modified Overt Aggression Scale; EPS = extrapyramidal symptoms; OL = open label; ED = emergency department; PANSS-EC = Positive and Negative Syndrome ScaleExcited Component; PG = parallel group; DSM-IV = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
Fourth Edition; PES = psychiatric emergency services; DB = double blind; PC = placebo controlled.
Clinical Therapeutics
cant differences between groups with respect to improvement on the Modified OAS. (The Modified OAS
is a retrospective version of the OAS intended to
cover a 1-week period of behavior. It measures the
same 16 items as the OAS, with each item rated on
a 5-point scale from never to >10 times per week.)
Because the first postbaseline evaluation took place
3 days after the initiation of therapy, the onset of action was not determined. Adverse events (AEs) occurring in 5% of patients with haloperidol were extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) (21.4%), somnolence
(18.0%), hypotension (14.0%), abnormal gait (7.1%),
and headache (7.1%). The most common AEs with
risperidone were somnolence (11.1%), abnormal gait
(7.4%), EPS (7.4%), and hypotension (7.4%). The
most common AEs with olanzapine were somnolence
(21.0%), hypotension (17.0%), dizziness (12.5%), abnormal gait (8.3%), and headache (8.3%). The most
common AEs with quetiapine were somnolence
(32.0%), dizziness (18.0%), and hypotension (14.0%).
In a 3-hour, open-label trial by Currier et al,49 patients with psychosis and at least moderate agitation
received quetiapine 100 mg (n = 7), 150 mg (n = 6), or
200 mg (n = 7). At 2 hours after dosing, 50% of patients had a 40% reduction in PANSS-EC scores.
Orthostasis was the most common AE, occurring in
40% of patients.
Combination Therapy
Currier et al50 conducted a 24-hour, randomized,
prospective, rater-blinded, noninferiority trial comparing risperidone 2 mg and haloperidol 5 mg IM,
both with lorazepam 2 mg IM, in 162 patients with an
acute exacerbation of schizophrenia or schizoaffective
disorder, mania with psychotic features, acute paranoid reaction, or delusional disorders. Efficacy was
evaluated based on PANSS-EC scores from 30 minutes to 24 hours after dosing. Both agents significantly
decreased PANSS-EC scores from 30 minutes to 2 hours
after dosing (P < 0.001), with no significant difference
between them. The most common AE with risperidone
was somnolence (12.8%); the most common AEs with
haloperidol were somnolence (12.7%), headache
(6.3%), agitation (5.1%), and hyperkinesia (5.1%).
Kinon et al51 conducted a 5-day, randomized,
double-blind, parallel-group study comparing olanzapine 20 mg/d with aripiprazole 30 mg/d, both combined with lorazepam up to 4 mg/d IM as needed, in
604 patients with schizophrenia or schizophreniform
410
Intramuscular Therapy
Twenty studies were identified that assessed intramuscular administration of antipsychotic agents and/
or benzodiazepines (Table III). Of these, 15 involved
monotherapy43.5568 and 5 involved combination
therapy.6973
Monotherapy
In a 24-hour, randomized, prospective trial, Breier
et al43 compared olanzapine 2.5 to 10 mg with haloperidol 7.5 mg and placebo in 270 patients with
schizophrenia or schizophreniform or schizoaffective
disorder. All olanzapine doses were associated with
significant decreases in the primary efficacy measure,
PANSS-EC scores at 2 hours, compared with placebo
(all, P 0.01). Olanzapine doses 5 mg were associated with significant decreases compared with placebo
at 30 minutes (P 0.05). Haloperidol was associated
with significant decreases compared with placebo
from 60 minutes to 2 hours (all, P < 0.001). No AEs
were reported in 5% of patients receiving olanzapine. The most common AEs with haloperidol were
parkinsonism (16.7%) and akathisia (7.9%).
A 1-day, randomized, double-blind trial by Meehan
et al55 compared the effects of olanzapine 2.5 to 5 mg,
lorazepam 1 mg, and placebo in 272 patients with
Alzheimers disease, vascular dementia, or mixed dementia. Olanzapine significantly decreased PANSS-EC
scores compared with placebo from 30 minutes to
2 hours after dosing (all, P 0.05). Lorazepam significantly decreased PANSS-EC scores compared with
placebo at 2 hours (P 0.05). The only AE reported
by 5% of patients was somnolence in the lorazepam
group (10.3%).
A 24-hour, randomized, double-blind trial by Agid
et al56 compared ziprasidone 2 and 20 mg in 79 patients with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder,
bipolar disorder with psychotic features, delusional
disorder, or unspecified psychotic disorder. Ziprasidone 20 mg was associated with significant decreases
in the PANSS early psychosis factor score compared
with ziprasidone 2 mg at 4 hours (first postbaseline
March 2010
Study/
Design
Patient
Population
Setting and
Duration of
Treatment
Interventions
Most Common
AEs (5%)
Volume 32 Number 3
Breier et al43
R, prospective
Schizophrenia,
schizophreniform
or schizoaffective
disorder (DSM-IV);
age 18 y
Hospitalized,
24 h
Olanzapine 2.510 mg
(n = 185)
Haloperidol 7.5 mg
(n = 40)
Placebo (n = 45)
PANSS-EC at 2 h: significant
decreases, all olanzapine doses vs
placebo (all, P 0.01); significant
decrease, olanzapine doses 5 mg
vs placebo at 30 min (P 0.05);
significant decrease, haloperidol
vs placebo from 60 min to 2 h
(all, P < 0.001)
Haloperidol:
parkinsonism (16.7%),
akathisia (7.9%)*
Meehan et al55
R, DB, PC,
prospective
Alzheimers disease,
vascular dementia,
mixed dementia;
age 55 y
Hospitalized
or in longterm care
facility, 1 d
Olanzapine 2.55 mg
(n = 137)
Lorazepam 1 mg (n = 68)
Placebo (n = 67)
Lorazepam:
somnolence (10.3%)*
Agid et al56
R, DB
Schizophrenia,
schizoaffective
disorder, bipolar
disorder with
psychotic features,
delusional disorder,
unspecified
psychotic disorder
(DSM-IV); age 18 y
Hospitalized,
24 h
Ziprasidone 2 mg (n = 38)
Ziprasidone 20 mg
(n = 41)
Not reported
(continued)
Clinical Therapeutics
412
Table III. Results of clinical studies of intramuscular treatment for agitation.
March 2010
Patient
Population
Setting and
Duration of
Treatment
Interventions
Most Common
AEs (5%)
Ziprasidone 2 mg:
somnolence (13.2%),
nausea (7.9%),
asthenia (5.3%),
diarrhea (5.3%),
insomnia (5.3%)
Ziprasidone 20 mg:
somnolence (19.5%),
nausea (12.2%),
dizziness (9.8%),
injection-site pain
(7.3%)
Schizophrenia,
schizoaffective
disorder (DSM-IV);
age 60 y
Admitted to
psychiatric
ward, 3 d
Ziprasidone 10 or 20 mg
(N = 21)
Acute urinary
retention, blurred
vision, sedation
(1 patient each)
Wright et al59
R, PC,
prospective
Schizophrenia,
schizoaffective or
schizophreniform
disorder (DSM-IV);
age 18 y
Hospitalized,
24 h
Olanzapine 10 mg
(n = 131)
Haloperidol 5 mg
(n = 126)
Placebo (n = 54)
PANSS-EC at 2 h: significant
decreases, olanzapine vs placebo
from 15 min to 2 h (all, P < 0.05)
and vs haloperidol from 15 to
45 min (P < 0.01)
Haloperidol: dystonia
(7.1%), EPS (5.6%)*
Damsa et al60
Prospective,
observational
Patients with
agitation (diagnosis
not established);
age not specified
ED, 24 h
8 Patients had
20mm Hg
reduction in systolic
blood pressure
Centorrino
et al61
OL,
observational
Schizophrenia,
bipolar disorder;
age 1865 y
PES, 2 h
PANSS-EC at 2 h: significant
decrease (P < 0.001)
Insomnia (9.5%),
arthralgia (7.9%),
headache (6.3%)
413
(continued)
Barak et al58
OL
Study/
Design
Patient
Population
Setting and
Duration of
Treatment
Interventions
Most Common
AEs (5%)
Volume 32 Number 3
San et al62
Nonrandomized,
observational
Schizophrenia,
bipolar disorder,
unspecified
psychotic disorder
(DSM-IV);
age 1870 y
PES, 24 h
Olanzapine 10 mg (N = 92)
PANSS-EC from 2 to 24 h:
significant decrease at 2 h (first
postbaseline assessment) and
24 h (both, P = 0.001)
No AEs reported in
5% of patients
Meehan et al63
R, prospective
Bipolar disorder
(mixed or manic
episode) (DSMIII-R); age 18 y
PES, 24 h
Olanzapine 10 mg (n = 99)
Lorazepam 2 mg (n = 51)
Placebo (n = 51)
Olanzapine:
somnolence (13.1%),
dizziness (9.1%)
Lorazepam: dizziness
(13.7%), somnolence
(9.8%)
Tran-Johnson
et al64
R, DB, PC
Schizophrenia,
schizophreniform
disorder (DSM-IV);
age 18 y
Hospitalized,
1d
PANSS-EC at 2 h: significant
decreases from 45 min to 2 h,
aripiprazole 9.75 mg vs placebo
(all, P 0.05); significant
decreases at 105 min and 2 h,
haloperidol vs placebo (both,
P < 0.01)
Andrezina
et al65
R, DB
Schizophrenia,
schizoaffective
disorder (DSM-IV);
age 18 y
Hospitalized,
24 h
Administered up to 3 times
(0, 2, and 4 h):
Aripiprazole 9.75 mg
(n = 175)
Haloperidol 6.5 mg
(n = 185)
Placebo (n = 88)
PANSS-EC at 2 h: significant
decreases from 60 min to 2 h,
aripiprazole vs placebo (P < 0.05);
significant decreases from 45 min
to 2 h, haloperidol vs placebo
(P < 0.05)
Aripiprazole: headache
(7.4%), dizziness
(6.3%), insomnia
(5.7%), nausea (5.7%)
Haloperidol: insomnia
(12.0%), headache
(8.2%), EPS (5.5%)
(continued)
Clinical Therapeutics
414
March 2010
Patient
Population
Setting and
Duration of
Treatment
Interventions
Most Common
AEs (5%)
Undifferentiated
agitation; age 18 y
ED, 2 h
Respiratory depression:
4 patients droperidol,
9 ziprasidone,
24 midazolam
Resnick and
Burton67
R, DB,
prospective
Psychosis
(unspecified);
age 1865 y
PES
Single doses:
Droperidol 5 mg (n = 11)
Haloperidol 5 mg (n = 16)
Haloperidol: dystonia
(1 patient)*
Nobay et al68
R, DB,
prospective
Psychosis
(unspecified),
substance abuse; age
not specified
ED, 1 d
Midazolam 5 mg (n = 42)
Haloperidol 5 mg (n = 42)
Lorazepam 2 mg (n = 27)
No AEs reported in
5% of patients
Huf et al69
R, OL
Psychosis
(unspecified),
substance abuse; age
not specified
PES, 2 wk
Haloperidol 510 mg
(n = 156)
Haloperidol 510 mg +
promethazine 50 mg
(n = 160)
Tranquilized or asleep at
20 min: 55% haloperidol vs
72% haloperidol + promethazine
at 20 min (P = 0.002)
Haloperidol
monotherapy:
dystonia
(9 patients)*
TREC
Collaborative
Group70
R, patient
blinded,
prospective
Psychosis
(unspecified),
substance abuse; age
not specified
PES, 2 wk
Haloperidol 510 mg +
promethazine 25
50 mg (n = 150)
Midazolam 15 mg
(n = 151)
No AEs reported in
5% of patients
(continued)
415
Martel et al66
R, DB,
prospective
Study/
Design
Patient
Population
Setting and
Duration of
Treatment
Interventions
Most Common
AEs (5%)
Raveendran
et al71
R, patient
blinded,
prospective
Psychiatric illness
(unspecified); age not
specified
PES, 2 wk
Haloperidol 10 mg +
promethazine 25
50 mg (n = 150)
Olanzapine 10 mg
(n = 150)
No AEs reported in
5% of patients
Bieniek et al72
R, OL
Psychosis, meeting
clinical criteria for
chemical restraint;
age 1850 y
PES, 180-min
duration of
observation
Lorazepam 2 mg (n = 11)
Lorazepam 2 mg +
haloperidol 5 mg (n = 9)
No AEs reported in
5% of patients
Battaglia et al73
R, DB,
prospective
Psychosis
(unspecified); age
not specified
PES, 24 h
Lorazepam 2 mg (n = 31)
Haloperidol 5 mg (n = 35)
Lorazepam 2 mg +
haloperidol 5 mg
(n = 32)
Lorazepam:
dry mouth (16%)
Haloperidol:
EPS (20%),
dry mouth (9%)
Lorazepam +
haloperidol: dry
mouth (9%), EPS
(6%)
Volume 32 Number 3
AEs = adverse events; R = randomized; DSM-IV = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition; PANSS-EC = Positive and Negative Syndrome
ScaleExcited Component; DB = double blind; PC = placebo controlled; BARS = Brief Agitation Rating Scale; OL = open label; EPS = extrapyramidal symptoms;
ED = emergency department; PES = psychiatric emergency services; DSM-III-R = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition Revised; BPRS = Brief
Psychiatric Rating Scale; TREC = Tranquilizao RpidaEnsaio Clnico (Rapid Tranquilization Clinical Trial).
*The absence of AE data for a comparator indicates that no AEs were reported in 5% of patients in that group.
Clinical Therapeutics
416
Table III (continued).
Combination Therapy
Huf et al69 conducted a randomized, open-label
comparison of haloperidol 5 to 10 mg and haloperidol 5 to 10 mg plus promethazine 50 mg in 316 agitated patients with unspecified psychosis or substance
abuse. The proportions of patients in the haloperidol and haloperidol-plus-promethazine groups who
were tranquilized or asleep within 20 minutes were
55% and 72%, respectively (P = 0.002). Dystonia
was reported in 9 patients treated with haloperidol
monotherapy.
The TREC (Tranquilizao RpidaEnsaio Clnico
[Rapid Tranquilization Clinical Trial]) Collaborative
Group conducted a 2-week, randomized, patientblinded, prospective comparison of the combination
of haloperidol 5 to 10 mg plus promethazine 25 to
50 mg and midazolam 15 mg in 301 patients with
unspecified psychosis or substance abuse.70 At 20 minutes, 67% of those who received haloperidol plus
promethazine and 89% of those who received midazolam were tranquilized or asleep (P not reported).
No AEs were reported in 5% of patients.
417
Clinical Therapeutics
A 2-week, randomized, patient-blinded, prospective trial by Raveendran et al71 compared haloperidol
10 mg plus promethazine 25 to 50 mg with olanzapine 10 mg in 300 patients with unspecified psychiatric
illness. At 15 minutes, 91% of patients who received
haloperidol plus promethazine and 87% of those who
received olanzapine were tranquilized or asleep (P not
reported). No AEs were reported in 5% of patients.
Bieniek et al72 conducted a randomized, open-label
comparison of lorazepam 2 mg and lorazepam 2 mg
plus haloperidol 5 mg in 20 patients with psychosis
who met the clinical criteria for chemical restraint.
Over 180 minutes of observation, haloperidol plus
lorazepam was significantly more effective in improving OAS scores at 60 minutes compared with lorazepam monotherapy (P = 0.04). No AEs were reported
in 5% of patients in either treatment group.
Battaglia et al73 conducted a 24-hour, randomized,
double-blind, prospective comparison of lorazepam
2 mg, haloperidol 5 mg, and their combination in
98 patients with unspecified psychosis. Patients receiving combination therapy had greater reductions in
Agitated Behavior Scale scores at 1 hour compared
with lorazepam (P not provided). There were no differences between lorazepam and haloperidol or between haloperidol and combination treatment. The
most common AE with lorazepam was dry mouth
(16%); the most common AEs for haloperidol were
EPS (20%) and dry mouth (9%); and the most common AEs for lorazepam plus haloperidol were dry
mouth (9%) and EPS (6%).
Intravenous Therapy
Four reports of intravenous treatment for agitation
were identified, all involving comparisons between
droperidol monotherapy and a benzodiazepine7476 or
placebo77 (Table IV).
Knott et al74 conducted a 1-hour, randomized,
double-blind, prospective comparison of droperidol
5 mg and midazolam 5 mg in 153 patients with psychiatric illness or substance abuse. Sedation was measured
based on a score of 2 on a 6-point scale (5 = highly
aroused and violent; 4 = highly aroused; 3 = moderately aroused; 2 = mildly aroused and pacing; 1 = settled; and 0 = asleep). The median time to sedation was
8.0 minutes for droperidol and 6.5 minutes for midazolam. No AEs were reported in 5% of patients treated
with droperidol. The most common AEs with midazolam were hypotension (5.4%) and hypoxia (5.4%).
418
DISCUSSION
Agitation may be present in patients with a wide
range of medical and psychiatric disorders.8 Agitation
can be viewed in terms of a 2-dimensional frameworkduration and severitywith symptoms that
vary over time and according to the changing characteristics of the patients internal state and environment
during the episode.78,79 The continuum of agitation
can be described as proceeding from anxiety to high
anxiety to agitation to aggression. There is evidence
that the severity of untreated agitation increases with
time in at least some patients.80 Unpremeditated violence in patients with agitation may be preceded by a
30- to 60-minute prodromal period during which they
may exhibit increased pacing or loud speech.81
Assessment of the severity of agitation and prediction of whether it is likely to lead to aggressive/violent
behavior are important to guiding treatment decisions
in both the emergency and nonemergency settings. The
Volume 32 Number 3
March 2010
Table IV. Results of clinical studies of intravenous treatment for agitation.
Study/
Design
Patient
Population
Setting and
Duration of
Treatment
Interventions
Most Common
AEs (5%)
Psychiatric illness,
substance abuse;
age 1865 y
ED, 1 h
Droperidol 5 mg until
sedated (n = 79)
Midazolam 5 mg until
sedated (n = 74)
Midazolam: hypotension
(5.4%), hypoxia (5.4%)*
Richards et al75
R, OL,
prospective
Methamphetamine
abuse; age 18 y
ED, 1 h
No AEs reported in 5%
of patients
Richards et al76
R, OL,
prospective
Psychosis
(unspecified), drug
abuse; age 18 y
ED, 1 h
No AEs reported in 5%
of patients
Rosen et al77
R, DB,
prospective
Combative; age
1854 y
ED, 1 d
Droperidol 5 mg (n = 23)
Placebo (n = 23)
No AEs reported in 5%
of patients
AEs = adverse events; R = randomized; DB = double blind; ED = emergency department; OL = open label.
*The absence of AE data for a comparator indicates that no AEs were reported in 5% of patients in that group.
419
Knott et al74
R, DB,
prospective
Clinical Therapeutics
13 assessment tools reviewed here vary substantially
in their suitability for use in the assessment of agitation in the emergency setting. For example, completion of the HCR-20 may take several hours and requires access to the patients medical history. In
contrast, the BVC requires ~5 minutes to complete
and is based entirely on currently observed behavior.28 Other instruments fall between these extremes;
the NRS-R and CMAI each take ~15 to 20 minutes to
complete.35,82
There are differences in the extent to which these
instruments have been evaluated for their ability to
predict violent behavior and/or the requirement for
intervention to prevent aggressive/violent behavior.
The HCR-20, McNiel-Binder Violence Screening
Checklist, and BVC have been found effective in predicting aggression/violence among psychiatric inpatients and in the correctional setting.28,32,33,83 The
PANSS-EC has been used in clinical practice to evaluate whether psychotropic medication should be administered to agitated patients with schizophrenia.
Although several scales have been found useful in
predicting violent behavior, it must be stressed that an
assessment based on these or any other scales provides
only a snapshot of the patients condition at a given
time and that the severity of an episode may change
over time depending on both the external environment and the evolution of the patients internal
condition.40,78,79,8487 It should also be noted that experienced psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses are able
to accurately predict violent behavior without the use
of specific assessment tools. One study found that
psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses correctly predicted violent behavior in 82% and 84%, respectively, of
newly admitted psychiatric patients.88
The characteristics of an ideal medication for the
acute management of agitation include easy preparation and nontraumatic administration (no needles),
with no associated pain or need for restraint; a rapid
onset of action, with little interpatient variability in
pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics; a sufficient duration of effect for patients to be transported
to the appropriate service; tranquilization without
excessive sedation that may interfere with interaction
with the patient, diagnosis, or selection of additional
therapy; and a low risk for adverse reactions and drug
interactions.89,90 A final important consideration with
any medication used in the ED is that it must control
agitation in patients with underlying conditions that
420
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this review highlight the numerous options for the assessment and treatment of patients
with agitation. Management of agitated patients in
the emergency setting could be facilitated by development of an easy-to-administer instrument that can
predict the risk for violence/aggression in agitated
patients, as well as performance of comparative studies aimed at defining an approach to the treatment of
agitation that is well accepted by health care providers
and patients.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Preparation of this article was supported by Alexza
Pharmaceuticals, Mountain View, California.
Dr. Zeller is a member of speakers bureaus for Eli
Lilly and Company and Pfizer Inc. Dr. Rhoades is a
paid consultant for Alexza Pharmaceuticals. The authors have indicated that they have no other conflicts
of interest with regard to the content of this article.
REFERENCES
1. Zimbroff DL. Pharmacological control of acute agitation:
Focus on intramuscular preparations. CNS Drugs. 2008;22:
199212.
2. Citrome L. Atypical antipsychotics for acute agitation.
New intramuscular options offer advantages. Postgrad Med.
2002;112:8588, 9496.
3. Lindenmayer JP. The pathophysiology of agitation. J Clin
Psychiatry. 2000;61(Suppl 14):510.
4. Nordstrom K, Allen MH. Managing the acutely agitated
and psychotic patient. CNS Spectr. 2007;12(Suppl 17):
511.
5. Allen MH, Currier GW. Use of restraints and pharmacotherapy in academic psychiatric emergency services. Gen
Hosp Psychiatry. 2004;26:4249.
6. Marco CA, Vaughan J. Emergency management of agitation in schizophrenia. Am J Emerg Med. 2005;23:767
776.
421
Clinical Therapeutics
7. Huf G, Alexander J, Allen MH. Haloperidol plus promethazine for psychosis induced aggression. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(1)
CD005146.
8. Battaglia J. Pharmacological management of acute agitation. Drugs.
2005;65:12071222.
9. Lesser JM, Hughes S. Psychosisrelated disturbances. Psychosis, agitation, and disinhibition in Alzheimers disease: Definitions and
treatment options. Geriatrics. 2006;
61:1420.
10. Warren RE, Deary IJ, Frier BM. The
symptoms of hyperglycaemia in
people with insulin-treated diabetes:
Classification using principal components analysis. Diabetes Metab Res
Rev. 2003;19:408414.
11. Citrome L. New treatments for agitation. Psychiatr Q. 2004;75:197
213.
12. DAmore J, Hung O, Chiang W,
Goldfrank L. The epidemiology of
the homeless population and its
impact on an urban emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2001;8:
10511055.
13. Zun LS, Downey LV. Level of agitation of psychiatric patients presenting to an emergency department.
Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry.
2008;10:108113.
14. National Institute of Mental Health.
The Numbers Count: Mental Disorders in America. http://www.nimh.
nih.gov/health/publications/thenumbers-count-mental-disordersin-america/index.shtml. Accessed
November 18, 2009.
15. Pilowsky LS, Ring H, Shine PJ, et al.
Rapid tranquillisation. A survey of
emergency prescribing in a general
psychiatric hospital. Br J Psychiatry.
1992;160:831835.
16. Piechniczek-Buczek J. Psychiatric
emergencies in the elderly population. Emerg Med Clin North Am.
2006;24:467490, viii.
17. Alderfer BS, Allen MH. Treatment
of agitation in bipolar disorder
across the life cycle. J Clin Psychiatry.
2003;64(Suppl 4):39.
422
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
Volume 32 Number 3
March 2010
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
423
Clinical Therapeutics
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
424
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
Volume 32 Number 3
March 2010