Search

Os autores apresentam e discutem o potencial dos ensaios clínicos pragmáticos como uma alternativa aos ensaios clínicos explanatórios e aos estudos observacionais (Ex.: coorte, caso-controle) para obtenção de evidências que justifiquem o uso de intervenções terapêuticas. Argumentam que tal estratégia, quando utilizada num contexto adequado, constitui uma poderosa ferramenta para a identificação de medidas não viesadas de efetividade, com logística mais simples e custo inferior ao dos ensaios clínicos hoje utilizados.

Apesar das recomendações contra o uso prolongado de benzodiazepínicos em idosos, as pesquisas indicam que o uso desses medicamentos aumenta com a idade. O padrão de uso de benzodiazepínicos e os fatores associados ao uso prolongado destes foram examinados com base em um questionário padronizado, aplicado a 634 mulheres com mais de sessenta anos, participantes de um centro de convivência para idosos no Rio de Janeiro, entre maio de 1992 e dezembro de 1995. A prevalência de uso de benzodiazepínicos na última quinzena foi estimada em 21,3% (IC 95% 18,1-24,5), e a prevalência de uso diário por 12 meses ou mais em 7,4% (IC 95% 5,4-9,4). Em uma análise multivariada, o número de medicamentos consumidos mostrou uma associação importante e progressiva com o uso prolongado de benzodiazepínicos, com OR = 2,77 (IC 95% 1,17-6,57) para aquelas que consomem entre quatro a seis medicamentos e OR = 7,62 (IC 95% 3,18-18,26) para aquelas que consomem mais de sete medicamentos. Queixas de insônia (OR = 8,87 IC 95% 2,53-31,06) e cefaléia (OR = 3,53 IC 95% 1,82-6,89) também estiveram fortemente associadas a este padrão de uso.

Abstract Background Vancomycin is an antibiotic of growing importance in the treatment of hospital infections, with particular emphasis on its value in the fight against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. However its usage profile must be evaluated to assure maximum benefit and minimum risk. Findings A cross-sectional retrospective study was carried out among inpatients that received vancomycin in a Brazilian quaternary hospital. The occurrence of adverse reactions reported was evaluated in medical records relating to patients taking vancomycin during a one year period. Males comprised 52% (95% CI: 41.7-60.2%) of the sample population, with a mean age of 50.6 (95% CI: 47.2-54.0) years and mean treatment period of 9.7 (95% CI: 8.0-11.5) Days. It was verified that nephrotoxicity occurred in 18.4% (95% CI: 11.3-27.5) of patients, Red man syndrome occurred in 2% (95% CI 0.2-7.2), while the occurrence of thrombocytopenia was 7.1% (95% CI: 2.9-14.2). Conclusions It may be noted that even after 50 years of use, adverse reactions associated with vancomycin continue with high frequency, presenting a public health problem, especially considering its current use in cases of multidrug resistant infections. In this context, we emphasize the importance of intensive pharmacovigilance in hospital as a surveillance tool after drug approval by the sanitary authority.

Abstract Background Thousands of people whose aggression is thought due to serious mental illness are secluded or restrained every day. Without fair testing these techniques will continue to be used outside of a rigorous evidence base. With such coercive treatment this leaves all concerned vulnerable to abuse and criticism. This paper presents the protocol for a randomised trial comparing seclusion with restraints for people with serious mental illnesses. Methods/Design Setting-General psychiatric wards of a large psychiatric hospital in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Participants-Anyone aggressive or violent suspected or known to have serious mental illness for whom restriction is felt to be indicated by nursing and medical staff, but also for whom they are unsure whether seclusion or restraint would be indicated. Interventions-The standard care of either strong cotton banding to edge of bed with medications as indicated and close observation or the other standard care of use of a minimally furnished seclusion room but with open but barred windows onto the nursing station. Outcomes-time to restrictions lifted, early change of treatment, additional episodes, adverse effects/events, satisfaction with care during episode. Duration-2 weeks. Identifier: ISRCTN 49454276 http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN49454276

Abstract Background Sildenafil is a cyclic guanosine monophosphate-specific phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor used for treating pulmonary hypertension. Although the use of sildenafil in patients under 18 years old is off-label, this inhibitor has been widely prescribed for children treatment at hospitals in Brazil. In this work we evaluated the current practices in using sildenafil in the three main reference hospitals of Rio de Janeiro to design a clinical trial. Then we analyzed the content of sildenafil in powder paper preparations used in these institutions. Methods and Results We assessed the data about the use of sildenafil in three reference hospitals including Instituto Nacional de Cardiologia – INC, Instituto Estadual de Cardiologia Aloysio de Castro – IECAC and Hospital Pro-Cardíaco – HPC. The pharmacy records were analyzed from April 1st, 2008 to April 30th, 2008 and interviews with the pharmacists were also performed. Our results showed that INC used the greatest amount of sildenafil in: treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), management of transient PAH during surgery, preparation for cardiac transplantation and haemodynamic studies during cardiac catheterization. Meanwhile IECAC and HPC used sildenafil only for treating PAH in few patients during the period evaluated. In INC and IECAC, sildenafil was available in tablets, and powder papers prepared by two private pharmacies and one public hospital pharmacy. In contrast all patients of HPC received sildenafil in tablets with no external manipulation. Our quantification analysis results using reverse-phase high performance liquid chromatography method showed that powder papers prepared by the private pharmacies from the sildenafil tablets presented only 58.5 to 89.3% of the declared concentration in contrast to samples from the public hospital pharmacy (104.4 to 105.3%). Conclusion Few patients received the prescribed sildenafil dose at the reference hospitals evaluated in Rio de Janeiro, which may importantly compromise this inhibitor effect in the current treatment. This study reinforced the need of checking the practices of preparing and administering sildenafil continually.

Abstract Background Agitated or violent patients constitute 10% of all emergency psychiatric treatment. Management guidelines, the preferred treatment of clinicians and clinical practice all differ. Systematic reviews show that all relevant studies are small and none are likely to have adequate power to show true differences between treatments. Worldwide, current treatment is not based on evidence from randomised trials. In Brazil, the combination haloperidol-promethazine is frequently used, but no studies involving this mix exist. Methods TREC-Rio (Tranquilização Rápida-Ensaio Clínico [Translation: Rapid Tranquillisation-Clinical Trial]) will compare midazolam with haloperidol-promethazine mix for treatment of agitated patients in emergency psychiatric rooms of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. TREC-Rio is a randomised, controlled, pragmatic and open study. Primary measure of outcome is tranquillisation at 20 minutes but effects on other measures of morbidity will also be assessed. TREC-Rio will involve the collaboration of as many health care professionals based in four psychiatric emergency rooms of Rio as possible. Because the design of this trial does not substantially complicate clinical management, and in several aspects simplifies it, the study can be large, and treatments used in everyday practice can be evaluated.

Abstract Background The medical management of aggressive and violent behaviour is a critical situation for which there is little evidence. In order to prepare for a randomised trial, due to start in the psychiatric emergency rooms of Rio de Janeiro in 2001, a survey of current practice was necessary. Methods A seven day survey of pharmacological management of aggressive people with psychosis in the emergency rooms of all four public psychiatric hospitals in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Results In one hospital data were not available. Of the 764 people with psychosis attending these ERs, 74 were given IM medication for rapid tranquillisation (9.7%, 2.1/week/100,000). A haloperidol-promethazine mix (with or without other drugs) was used for the majority of patients (83%). Conclusion The haloperidol-promethazine mix, given intramuscularly for rapid tranquilization, is prevalent in Rio, where it is considered both safe and efficient. However, scientific evaluation of all pharmacological approaches to rapid tranquilization of psychotic people is inadequate or incomplete and a randomized trial of IM haloperidol-promethazine is overdue.

Background: Severe psychomotor agitation and aggression often require immediate pharmacological intervention, but clear evidence-based recommendations for choosing among the multiple options are lacking. To address this gap, we plan a systematic review and individual-participant-data network meta-analysis to investigate their comparative effectiveness in real-world emergency settings with increased precision., Methods: We will include randomized controlled trials investigating intramuscular or intravenous pharmacological interventions, as monotherapy or in combination, in adults with severe psychomotor agitation irrespective of the underlying diagnosis and requiring rapid tranquilization in general or psychiatric emergency settings. We will exclude studies before 2002, those focusing on specific reasons for agitation and placebo-controlled trials to avoid concerns related to the transitivity assumption and potential selection biases. We will search for eligible studies in BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL Plus, Embase, LILACS, MEDLINE via Ovid, PubMed, ProQuest, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO-ICTRP. Individual-participant data will be requested from the study authors and harmonized into a uniform format, and aggregated data will also be extracted from the studies. At least two independent reviewers will conduct the study selection, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment using RoB 2, and applicability evaluation using the RITES tool. The primary outcome will be the number of patients achieving adequate sedation within 30 min after treatment, with secondary outcomes including the need for additional interventions and adverse events, using odds ratios as the effect size. If enough individual-participant data will be collected, we will synthesize them in a network meta-regression model within a Bayesian framework, incorporating study- and participant-level characteristics to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. In cases where individual-participant data are unavailable, potential data availability bias will be explored, and models allowing for the inclusion of studies reporting only aggregated data will be considered. We will assess the confidence in the evidence using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approach., Discussion: This individual-participant-data network meta-analysis aims to provide a fine-tuned synthesis of the evidence on the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for severe psychomotor agitation in real-world emergency settings. The findings from this study can greatly be provided clearer evidence-based guidance on the most effective treatments., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023402365., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Health services often manage agitated or violent people, and such behaviour is particularly prevalent in emergency psychiatric services (10%). The drugs used in such situations should ensure that the person becomes calm swiftly and safely., Objectives: To examine whether haloperidol plus promethazine is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression., Search Methods: On 6 May 2015 we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of Trials, which is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, BIOSIS, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings., Selection Criteria: All randomised clinical trials with useable data focusing on haloperidol plus promethazine for psychosis-induced aggression., Data Collection and Analysis: We independently extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE., Main Results: We found two new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the 2015 update searching. The review now includes six studies, randomising 1367 participants and presenting data relevant to six comparisons.When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with haloperidol alone for psychosis-induced aggression for the outcome not tranquil or asleep at 30 minutes, the combination treatment was clearly more effective (n=316, 1 RCT, RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.87, high-quality evidence). There were 10 occurrences of acute dystonia in the haloperidol alone arm and none in the combination group. The trial was stopped early as haloperidol alone was considered to be too toxic.When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with olanzapine, high-quality data showed both approaches to be tranquillising. It was suggested that the combination of haloperidol plus promethazine was more effective, but the difference between the two approaches did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance (n=300, 1 RCT, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.61, high-quality evidence). Lower-quality data suggested that the risk of unwanted excessive sedation was less with the combination approach (n=116, 2 RCTs, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.84).When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with ziprasidone all data were of lesser quality. We identified no binary data for the outcome tranquil or asleep. The average sedation score (Ramsay Sedation Scale) was lower for the combination approach but not to conventional levels of statistical significance (n=60, 1 RCT, MD -0.1, 95% CI - 0.58 to 0.38). These data were of low quality and it is unclear what they mean in clinical terms. The haloperidol plus promethazine combination appeared to cause less excessive sedation but again the difference did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance (n=111, 2 RCTs, RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.43).We found few data for the comparison of haloperidol plus promethazine versus haloperidol plus midazolam. Average Ramsay Sedation Scale scores suggest the combination of haloperidol plus midazolam to be the most sedating (n=60, 1 RCT, MD - 0.6, 95% CI -1.13 to -0.07, low-quality evidence). The risk of excessive sedation was considerably less with haloperidol plus promethazine (n=117, 2 RCTs, RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.49, low-quality evidence). Haloperidol plus promethazine seemed to decrease the risk of needing restraints by around 12 hours (n=60, 1 RCT, RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.55, low-quality evidence). It may be that use of midazolam with haloperidol sedates swiftly, but this effect does not last long.When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with lorazepam, haloperidol plus promethazine seemed to more effectively cause sedation or tranquillisation by 30 minutes (n=200, 1 RCT, RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.68, high-quality evidence). The secondary outcome of needing restraints or seclusion by 12 hours was not clearly different between groups, with about 10% in each group needing this intrusive intervention (moderate-quality evidence). Sedation data were not reported, however, the combination group did have less 'any serious adverse event' in 24-hour follow-up, but there were not clear differences between the groups and we are unsure exactly what the adverse effect was. There were no deaths.When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with midazolam, there was clear evidence that midazolam is more swiftly tranquillising of an aggressive situation than haloperidol plus promethazine (n=301, 1 RCT, RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.75 to 4.8, high-quality evidence). On its own, midazolam seems to be swift and effective in tranquillising people who are aggressive due to psychosis. There was no difference in risk of serious adverse event overall (n=301, 1 RCT, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.95, high-quality evidence). However, 1 in 150 participants allocated haloperidol plus promethazine had a swiftly reversed seizure, and 1 in 151 given midazolam had swiftly reversed respiratory arrest., Authors' Conclusions: Haloperidol plus promethazine is effective and safe, and its use is based on good evidence. Benzodiazepines work, with midazolam being particularly swift, but both midazolam and lorazepam cause respiratory depression. Olanzapine intramuscular and ziprasidone intramuscular do seem to be viable options and their action is swift, but resumption of aggression with subsequent need to re-inject was more likely than with haloperidol plus promethazine. Haloperidol used on its own without something to offset its frequent and serious adverse effects does seem difficult to justify.

Background: The use of liquid medium (MGIT960) for tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis was recommended by WHO in 2007. However, there has been no evaluation of its effectiveness on clinically important outcomes., Methods and Findings: A pragmatic trial was carried out in a tertiary hospital and a secondary health care unit in Rio de Janeiro City, Brazil. Participants were 16 years or older, suspected of having TB. They were excluded if only cerebral spinal fluid or blood specimens were available for analysis. MGIT960 technique was compared with the Lowenstein-Jensen (LJ) method for laboratory diagnosis of active TB. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients who had their initial medical management changed within 2 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were: mean time for changing the procedure, patient satisfaction with the overall treatment and adverse events. Data were analysed by intention-to-treat. Between April 2008 and September 2011, 693 patients were enrolled (348 to MGIT, 345 to LJ). Smear and culture results were positive for 10% and 15.7% of participants, respectively. Patients in the MGIT arm had their initial medical management changed more frequently than those in the LJ group (10.1% MGIT vs 3.8% LJ, RR 2.67 95% CI 1.44-.96, p = 0.002, NNT 16, 95% CI 10-39). Mean time for changing the initial procedure was greater in LJ group at both sites: 20.0 and 29.6 days in MGIT group and 52.2 and 64.3 in LJ group (MD 33.5, 95% CI 30.6-36.4, p = 0.0001). No other important differences were observed., Conclusions: This study suggests that opting for the MGIT960 system for TB diagnosis provides a promising case management model for improving the quality of care and control of TB., Trial Registration: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN79888843.

Objective: To compare two electrosurgical techniques, straight-wire excision of transformation zone (SWETZ) with large loop excision of transformation zone, as a cone procedure (LLETZ-cone), for the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), when disease is present at the cervical canal., Design: Randomised controlled trial., Setting: Two public hospitals, one in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and one in Dublin, Ireland., Population: One hundred and three women with indication to treat CIN located at cervical canal., Methods: Women were randomised to receive LLETZ-cone or SWETZ., Outcomes: Main outcome was the incidence of complete excision of disease at endocervical margin of the surgical specimen. Secondary outcomes were complete excision at ectocervical and stromal margins, time to complete the procedure, specimen fragmentation, blood loss and death after 1 year., Results: Fifty-two women were allocated to LLETZ-cone and 51 to SWETZ. Ten women were lost for main outcome because of damaged specimens. Forty-two women in the LLETZ-cone group had free endocervical margin versus 43 women in the SWETZ group (relative risk 1.04, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.87-1.25; P = 0.64). For secondary outcomes related to margins, we observed a relative risk of 1.15 (95% CI 0.95-1.39; P = 0.15) for ectocervical free margin. For free stromal margin, the relative risk was 1.07 (95% CI 0.89-1.29; P = 0.47). No death was observed., Conclusions: This study was inconclusive; SWETZ and LLETZ-cone were equally effective to treat endocervical disease, with no difference in protecting against margin involvement. Higher, but not severe, blood loss and longer surgical time were observed in the SWETZ group., (© 2014 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Objective: To compare the accuracy of the amplified Mycobacterium tuberculosis direct (AMTD) test with reference methods for the laboratory diagnosis of tuberculosis in HIV-infected patients., Methods: This was a study of diagnostic accuracy comparing AMTD test results with those obtained by culture on Löwenstein-Jensen (LJ) medium and by the BACTEC Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube 960 (BACTEC MGIT 960) system in respiratory samples analyzed at the Bioassay and Bacteriology Laboratory of the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation Evandro Chagas Clinical Research Institute in the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil., Results: We analyzed respiratory samples collected from 118 patients, of whom 88 (74.4%) were male. The mean age was 36.6 ± 10.6 years. Using the AMTD test, the BACTEC MGIT 960 system, and LJ culture, we identified M. tuberculosis complex in 31.0%, 29.7%, and 27.1% of the samples, respectively. In comparison with LJ culture, the AMTD test had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 87.5%, 89.4%, 75.7%, and 95.0%, respectively, for LJ culture, whereas, in comparison with the BACTEC MGIT 960 system, it showed values of 88.6%, 92.4%, 83.8%, and 94.8%, respectively., Conclusions: The AMTD test showed good sensitivity and specificity in the population studied, enabling the laboratory detection of M. tuberculosis complex in paucibacillary respiratory specimens.

Introduction: This paper is part of a study that investigates the quality of cosmetic products and evaluates the cosmetic surveillance system., Objective: This study presents the results of a research that aimed to describe the point of view of the population in terms of the prevalence of Adverse Reactions (AR) and information about the surveillance system., Methods: A structured questionnaire was applied to a random sample of 200 people from the administrative staff of the Municipal Guard of Rio de Janeiro., Results: 38% of the participants declared AR to some cosmetic product used in the past two years., Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is an unpublished study in Brazil, which presents results regarding the estimated prevalence of AR similarly to international studies.

In view of the fact that the World Health Organization has recommended the use of the mycobacteria growth indicator tube (MGIT) 960 system for the diagnosis of tuberculosis and that there is as yet no evidence regarding the clinical impact of its use in health care systems, we conducted a pragmatic clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance and cost-effectiveness of the use of MGIT 960 at two health care facilities in the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where the incidence of tuberculosis is high. Here, we summarize the methodology and preliminary results of the trial. (ISRCTN.org Identifier: ISRCTN79888843 [http://isrctn.org/]) In view of the fact that the World Health Organization has recommended the use of the mycobacteria growth indicator tube (MGIT) 960 system for the diagnosis of tuberculosis and that there is as yet no evidence regarding the clinical impact of its use in health care systems, we conducted a pragmatic clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance and cost-effectiveness of the use of MGIT 960 at two health care facilities in the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where the incidence of tuberculosis is high. Here, we summarize the methodology and preliminary results of the trial. (ISRCTN.org Identifier: ISRCTN79888843 [http://isrctn.org/]).

In this manuscript, we report the current situation of tuberculosis globally and in Brazil, the need for new strategies toward tuberculosis control, focusing on new diagnostic technologies. Critical comments are given on the state of the art regarding the evaluation of new health technologies, degree of scientific evidence needed, evaluation of clinical impact, cost-effectiveness of incorporation into the health system and the social impact., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Editora Ltda. All rights reserved.)

Tuberculosis is one of the major infectious diseases in developing countries, and the length of time for which the chain of transmission is maintained has been implicated as a major factor in the perpetuation of the disease. In this context, regulatory agencies in such countries have approved new diagnostic tools, which have been almost immediately incorporated into the national tuberculosis control programs. Health interventions have been increasingly investigated in clinical trials, including explanatory trials (in order to evaluate the beneficial effects of such interventions) and pragmatic trials (in order to aid in the decision-making process). We argue that the evaluation of new diagnostic techniques for the detection of tuberculosis should not escape this same logic of evaluation.

Background: Thousands of people whose aggression is thought due to serious mental illness are secluded or restrained every day. Without fair testing these techniques will continue to be used outside of a rigorous evidence base. With such coercive treatment this leaves all concerned vulnerable to abuse and criticism. This paper presents the protocol for a randomised trial comparing seclusion with restraints for people with serious mental illnesses., Methods/design: Setting-General psychiatric wards of a large psychiatric hospital in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Participants-Anyone aggressive or violent suspected or known to have serious mental illness for whom restriction is felt to be indicated by nursing and medical staff, but also for whom they are unsure whether seclusion or restraint would be indicated. Interventions-The standard care of either strong cotton banding to edge of bed with medications as indicated and close observation or the other standard care of use of a minimally furnished seclusion room but with open but barred windows onto the nursing station. Outcomes-time to restrictions lifted, early change of treatment, additional episodes, adverse effects/events, satisfaction with care during episode. Duration-2 weeks. Identifier: ISRCTN 49454276 http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN49454276.

Background: Vancomycin is an antibiotic of growing importance in the treatment of hospital infections, with particular emphasis on its value in the fight against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. However its usage profile must be evaluated to assure maximum benefit and minimum risk., Findings: A cross-sectional retrospective study was carried out among inpatients that received vancomycin in a Brazilian quaternary hospital. The occurrence of adverse reactions reported was evaluated in medical records relating to patients taking vancomycin during a one year period. Males comprised 52% (95% CI: 41.7-60.2%) of the sample population, with a mean age of 50.6 (95% CI: 47.2-54.0) years and mean treatment period of 9.7 (95% CI: 8.0-11.5) Days. It was verified that nephrotoxicity occurred in 18.4% (95% CI: 11.3-27.5) of patients, Red man syndrome occurred in 2% (95% CI 0.2-7.2), while the occurrence of thrombocytopenia was 7.1% (95% CI: 2.9-14.2)., Conclusions: It may be noted that even after 50 years of use, adverse reactions associated with vancomycin continue with high frequency, presenting a public health problem, especially considering its current use in cases of multidrug resistant infections. In this context, we emphasize the importance of intensive pharmacovigilance in hospital as a surveillance tool after drug approval by the sanitary authority.

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.

Background: Health services often manage agitated or violent people, and for emergency psychiatric services such behaviour is particularly prevalent (10%). The drugs used in this situation should ensure that the person swiftly and safely regains composure., Objectives: To examine whether haloperidol plus promethazine is an effective treatment for psychosis induced agitation/aggression., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (January 2008)., Selection Criteria: We included all randomised clinical trials involving aggressive people with psychosis for which haloperidol plus promethazine was being used., Data Collection and Analysis: We reliably selected, quality assessed and extracted data from all relevant studies. For binary outcomes we calculated standard estimations of risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where possible we estimated weighted number needed to treat or harm (NNT/H)., Main Results: We identified four relevant high quality studies. One compared the haloperidol plus promethazine mix with midazolam (n=301), one with lorazepam (n=200), one with haloperidol alone (n=316) and one with olanzapine IM (n=300). In Brazil, haloperidol plus promethazine was an effective means of tranquillisation with over two thirds of people being tranquil or sedated by 30 minutes, but midazolam was more swift (n=301, RR 2.9 CI 1.75 to 4.80, NNH 5 CI 3 to 12). In India, compared with lorazepam, more people were tranquil or sedated by 30 minutes if allocated to the combination treatment (n=200, RR 0.26 CI 0.10 to 0.68, NNT 8 CI 6 to 17). Over the next few hours of treatment reported differences are negligible. One person given midazolam had respiratory depression (0.7%, reversed by flumazenil); one given lorazepam (1%) had respiratory difficulty. About 1% of people given any haloperidol treatment experienced a seizure. By 20 minutes intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine was more tranquillising than intramuscular haloperidol (1 RCT, n=316, RR 0.65 CI 0.49 to 0.87, NNT 7 CI 5 to 17). Haloperidol given without promethazine in this situation causes frequent serious adverse effects (NNH 15 CI 14 to 40). Olanzapine is as rapidly tranquillising as the haloperidol/promethazine combination (1 RCT, n=300, RR tranquil or asleep at 15 mins 0.74 CI 0.38 to 1.41), but did not have an enduring effect and more people needed additional drugs within four hours (1 RCT, n=300, RR 0.48 CI 0.33 to 0.69, NNT 5 CI 4 to 8) and to be re-assessed by the doctor (1 RCT, n=300, RR 0.47 CI 0.30 to 0.73, NNT 6 CI 5 to 12)., Authors' Conclusions: All treatments evaluated within the included studies are effective. Benzodiazepines, however, have the potential to cause respiratory depression, probably midazolam more so than lorazepam, and use of this group of drugs outside of services fully confident of observing for and managing the consequences of respiratory distress is difficult to justify. Haloperidol used on its own is at such risk of generating preventable adverse effects that unless it is the only choice, this evidence directs that this sole treatment should be avoided. Olanzapine IM is valuable when compared with haloperidol plus promethazine but its duration of action is short and re-injection is frequently needed. Haloperidol plus promethazine used in two diverse situations in Brazil and India has much evidence to support its swift and safe clinically valuable effects.

Background: Sildenafil is a cyclic guanosine monophosphate-specific phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor used for treating pulmonary hypertension. Although the use of sildenafil in patients under 18 years old is off-label, this inhibitor has been widely prescribed for children treatment at hospitals in Brazil. In this work we evaluated the current practices in using sildenafil in the three main reference hospitals of Rio de Janeiro to design a clinical trial. Then we analyzed the content of sildenafil in powder paper preparations used in these institutions., Methods and Results: We assessed the data about the use of sildenafil in three reference hospitals including Instituto Nacional de Cardiologia - INC, Instituto Estadual de Cardiologia Aloysio de Castro - IECAC and Hospital Pro-Cardíaco - HPC. The pharmacy records were analyzed from April 1st, 2008 to April 30th, 2008 and interviews with the pharmacists were also performed. Our results showed that INC used the greatest amount of sildenafil in: treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), management of transient PAH during surgery, preparation for cardiac transplantation and haemodynamic studies during cardiac catheterization. Meanwhile IECAC and HPC used sildenafil only for treating PAH in few patients during the period evaluated. In INC and IECAC, sildenafil was available in tablets, and powder papers prepared by two private pharmacies and one public hospital pharmacy. In contrast all patients of HPC received sildenafil in tablets with no external manipulation. Our quantification analysis results using reverse-phase high performance liquid chromatography method showed that powder papers prepared by the private pharmacies from the sildenafil tablets presented only 58.5 to 89.3% of the declared concentration in contrast to samples from the public hospital pharmacy (104.4 to 105.3%)., Conclusion: Few patients received the prescribed sildenafil dose at the reference hospitals evaluated in Rio de Janeiro, which may importantly compromise this inhibitor effect in the current treatment. This study reinforced the need of checking the practices of preparing and administering sildenafil continually.

Objective: To examine factors associated with physical restraint in psychiatric emergency rooms., Method: We extracted variables likely to predict use of physical restraints from a large randomised trial undertaken in three psychiatric emergency rooms in Rio de Janeiro. We fitted a Bayesian binary multivariate model using only variables clearly preceding the restraints., Results: Of 301 agitated, aggressive people admitted to emergency rooms, 73 (24%) were restrained during the first 2 h of admission. In Rio, younger people (OR=1.03 for each year younger), exhibiting intense (OR=2.53) or extreme agitation (OR=7.71), thought to result from substance misuse (OR=1.75) or diagnoses other than psychosis (OR=1.88), arriving in the morning (OR=1.64) were at greater risk of physical restraints than older, less severely aggressive or agitated people, arriving at the hospital during the afternoon or night. Hospital, gender, first admission to hospital and medication were not associated with risk of being restrained., Conclusion: Restraint practices in Rio are predictable and based on a limited clinical assessment. Predictive factors for physical restraint may vary worldwide, but should be monitored and studied to assist training, and to establish programs to evaluate and refine this controversial practice.

Objective: To determine whether haloperidol alone results in swifter and safer tranquillisation and sedation than haloperidol plus promethazine., Design: Pragmatic randomised open trial (January-July 2004)., Setting: Psychiatric emergency room, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil., Participants: 316 patients who needed urgent intramuscular sedation because of agitation, dangerous behaviour, or both., Interventions: Open treatment with intramuscular haloperidol 5-10 mg or intramuscular haloperidol 5-10 mg plus intramuscular promethazine up to 50 mg; doses were at the discretion of the prescribing clinician., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was proportion tranquil or asleep by 20 minutes. Secondary outcomes were asleep by 20 minutes; tranquil or asleep by 40, 60, and 120 minutes; physically restrained or given additional drugs within 2 hours; severe adverse events; another episode of agitation or aggression; additional visit from the doctor during the subsequent 24 hours; overall antipsychotic load in the first 24 hours; and still in hospital after 2 weeks., Results: Primary outcome data were available for 311 (98.4%) people, 77% of whom were thought to have a psychotic illness. Patients allocated haloperidol plus promethazine were more likely to be tranquil or asleep by 20 minutes than those who received intramuscular haloperidol alone (relative risk 1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.10 to 1.55; number needed to treat 6, 95% confidence interval 4 to 16; P=0.002). No differences were found after 20 minutes. However, 10 cases of acute dystonia occurred, all in the haloperidol alone group., Conclusions: Haloperidol plus promethazine is a better option than haloperidol alone in terms of speed of onset of action and safety. Enough data are now available to change guidelines that continue to recommend treatments that leave people exposed to longer periods of aggression than necessary and patients vulnerable to distressing and unsafe adverse effects., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN83261243 [controlled-trials.com].

Background: Health services often manage agitated or violent people and for emergency psychiatric services such behaviour is particularly prevalent (10%). The drugs used in this situation should ensure that the person swiftly and safely becomes calm., Objectives: To examine whether haloperidol plus promethazine is an effective treatment for psychosis induced agitation/aggression., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (July 2004)., Selection Criteria: We included all randomised clinical trials involving aggressive people with psychosis for which haloperidol plus promethazine was being used., Data Collection and Analysis: We reliably selected, quality assessed and extracted data from all relevant studies. For binary outcomes we calculated standard estimations of risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where possible we estimated weighted number needed to treat or harm (NNT/H)., Main Results: We identified two relevant high quality studies. One compared the haloperidol plus promethazine mix with midazolam (n=301) and one with lorazepam (n=200). The combined results were largely heterogeneous. In Brazil, haloperidol plus promethazine was an effective means of tranquillisation with over two thirds of people being tranquil or sedated by 30 minutes, but midazolam was more swift (n=301, RR 2.9 CI 1.75 to 4.80, NNH 5 CI 3 to 12). In India, however, 95% of people were tranquil or sedated by 30 minutes if allocated to the combination treatment (vs lorazepam, n=200, RR 0.26 CI 0.10 to 0.68, NNT 8 CI 6 to 17). Over the next few hours of treatment reported differences are negligible. One person given midazolam had respiratory depression (reversed by flumazenil), one given lorazepam had respiratory difficulty. A single person given haloperidol plus promethazine had an epileptic fit. Once the initial tranquillisation was administered, few needed additional medications for continued agitation (n=501, 2 RCTs, RR needing additional tranquillising drugs by four hours 1.67 CI 0.62 to 4.54, 4% vs 2%, I squared 50%) and there were no differences in the low levels of use of restraints. About 28% of people in Brazil in both groups had another episode of aggression in the first day after the initial injection (n=301, RR 0.89 CI 0.62 to 1.29). About half of all people in the Indian study were discharged by four hours (n=200, RR 1.13 CI 0.85 to 1.50) and a similar proportion in Brazil by 15 days (n=301, RR 1.05 CI 0.84 to 1.29). Both studies attained 99% follow up for their primary outcomes. Even by two weeks only 4% of people could not be accounted for (n=501, 2 RCTs, RR 0.91 CI 0.38 to 2.17)., Authors' Conclusions: This review suggests that both benzodiazepines work, but that midazolam has a faster onset and thereby reduces the risk of exposure to violence. Both benzodiazepines have the potential to cause respiratory depression, probably midazolam more so than lorazepam, and we would question the use of this group of drugs outside of those services fully confident of observing for and managing the consequences of respiratory distress. Most evidence, however, exists for the haloperidol plus promethazine mix, with currently more than 400 people randomised to the combination. The onset of action is swift and faster than lorazepam. The combination also seems safe with no clear longer term consequences. We would expect policy makers recommending other drug managements to have equally compelling evidence to support their guidance and hope that this would not be founded in conjecture or consensus, which may be more difficult to defend than evidence from high quality studies.

The authors present and discuss the potential of pragmatic clinical trials as an alternative to both explanatory trials and observational studies to support the use of therapeutic interventions with good evidence. They argue that this strategy, when properly applied, can be a powerful tool to obtain unbiased measures of effectiveness, with simpler logistics and lower costs than in current clinical trials.

Background: Agitated or violent patients constitute 10% of all emergency psychiatric treatment. Management guidelines, the preferred treatment of clinicians and clinical practice all differ. Systematic reviews show that all relevant studies are small and none are likely to have adequate power to show true differences between treatments. Worldwide, current treatment is not based on evidence from randomised trials. In Brazil, the combination haloperidol-promethazine is frequently used, but no studies involving this mix exist., Methods: TREC-Rio (Tranquilização Rápida-Ensaio Clínico [Translation: Rapid Tranquillisation-Clinical Trial]) will compare midazolam with haloperidol-promethazine mix for treatment of agitated patients in emergency psychiatric rooms of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. TREC-Rio is a randomised, controlled, pragmatic and open study. Primary measure of outcome is tranquillisation at 20 minutes but effects on other measures of morbidity will also be assessed. TREC-Rio will involve the collaboration of as many health care professionals based in four psychiatric emergency rooms of Rio as possible. Because the design of this trial does not substantially complicate clinical management, and in several aspects simplifies it, the study can be large, and treatments used in everyday practice can be evaluated.

Background: The medical management of aggressive and violent behaviour is a critical situation for which there is little evidence. In order to prepare for a randomised trial, due to start in the psychiatric emergency rooms of Rio de Janeiro in 2001, a survey of current practice was necessary., Methods: A seven day survey of pharmacological management of aggressive people with psychosis in the emergency rooms of all four public psychiatric hospitals in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil., Results: In one hospital data were not available. Of the 764 people with psychosis attending these ERs, 74 were given IM medication for rapid tranquillisation (9.7%, 2.1/week/100,000). A haloperidol-promethazine mix (with or without other drugs) was used for the majority of patients (83%)., Conclusion: The haloperidol-promethazine mix, given intramuscularly for rapid tranquilization, is prevalent in Rio, where it is considered both safe and efficient. However, scientific evaluation of all pharmacological approaches to rapid tranquilization of psychotic people is inadequate or incomplete and a randomized trial of IM haloperidol-promethazine is overdue.

While experts recommend caution against long-term benzodiazepine use in the elderly, survey data suggests that the use of benzodiazepine increase with age. The patterns of benzodiazepine use and factors associated with long-term use in population at risk were studied with a standarlized questionnaire applied to 634 women over 60, who attended a daycare center for older people in Rio de Janeiro between May, 1992 and December, 1995. Prevalence of benzodiazepine use in the last 15 days was 21.3% (CI 95% 18.1-24.5), and prevalence of daily use for 12 or more months was 7.4% (CI 95% 5.4-9.4). In a multivaried analysis the amount of drugs being consumed displayed an important and progressive association with long-term benzodiazepine use, with OR = 2.77 (CI 95% 1.17-6.57) for those who take from four to six drugs, and OR = 7.62 (CI 95% 3.18-18.26) for those who take more than seven drugs. Insomnia (OR = 8.87 CI 95% 2.53-31.06) and chronic headache (OR = 3.53 CI 95% 1.82-6.89) have also been associated with this pattern of use.