Search

Objective: Prolonged and repetitive cycles of pharmacological coma, with midazolam or other general anaesthetics, is often the mainstay for seizure control in febrile infection-related epilepsy syndrome (FIRES). Here we present our experience of enteral lorazepam as an effective weaning substitute in midazolam-dependent patients., Methods: This was a retrospective study based on a review of medical records of all FIRES patients who had received enteral lorazepam as a weaning substitute for midazolam, between January 2020 and July 2021. The patients were divided into an early group (lorazepam initiated after one failed attempt to wean off midazolam) and late group (lorazepam initiated after two or more failed attempts). The conversion from intravenous midazolam to enteral lorazepam was also calculated, and epilepsy outcome at follow-up was also assessed., Results: Seven patients (five males) were eligible. The median age at onset of FIRES was seven years (range: 4-14). A median of six (range: 6-8) anti-seizure medications (ASMs) had failed (including clobazam in two and clonazepam in one) to control seizures. The early and late lorazepam groups were comparable regarding the maximum midazolam dose for seizure control, total ASMs tried and days to wean off midazolam. The median (range) duration of hospital stay was 27 days (22-46) in the early group, compared to 51 days (40-78) in the late group. The early group patients were also on fewer ASMs (median: 3;range: 3-5) compared to the late group (median: 5; range: 4-6) at discharge. Five patients were sedated with initial lorazepam dose, but this side effect resolved on dosage reduction. On follow-up, all seven patients had seizure recurrence. In four, seizures recurred on reducing lorazepam, however, in three of these patients, this was resolved by escalating the dose., Significance: Enteral lorazepam can be an effective weaning substitute for midazolam-dependent children with FIRES. Early introduction of enteral lorazepam was associated with reduced duration of hospital stay.

Polypharmacy is common among patients taking prescription opioids long-term, and the codispensing of interacting medications may further increase opioid overdose risk. To identify nonopioid medications that may increase opioid overdose risk in this population, we conducted a case-crossover-based screening of electronic claims data from IBM MarketScan and Optum Clinformatics Data Mart spanning 2003 through 2019. Eligible patients were 18 years of age or older and had at least 180 days of continuous enrollment and 90 days of prescription opioid use immediately before an opioid overdose resulting in an emergency room visit or hospitalization. The main analysis quantified the odds ratio (OR) between opioid overdose and each nonopioid medication dispensed in the 90 days immediately before the opioid overdose date after adjustment for prescription opioid dosage and benzodiazepine codispensing. Additional analyses restricted to patients without cancer diagnoses and individuals who used only oxycodone for 90 days immediately before the opioid overdose date. The false discovery rate (FDR) was used to account for multiple testing. We identified 24,866 individuals who experienced opioid overdose. Baclofen (OR 1.56; FDR < 0.01; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.29 to 1.89), lorazepam (OR 1.53; FDR < 0.01; 95% CI, 1.25 to 1.88), and gabapentin (OR 1.16; FDR = 0.09; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.28), among other nonopioid medications, were associated with opioid overdose. Similar patterns were observed in noncancer patients and individuals who used only oxycodone. Interventions may focus on prescribing safer alternatives when a potential for interaction exists., (© 2021 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2021 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

The objective of this study was to develop an in-situ gel containing lorazepam (LZM) loaded nanostructured lipid carriers (NLCs) for direct nose-to-brain delivery in order to increase drug therapeutic efficacy in the treatment of epilepsy. Accordingly, LZM loaded NLCs were formulated using emulsification solvent diffusion and evaporation method; then the effects of the formulation variables on different physicochemical characteristics of NLCs were investigated. Thermosensitive in-situ gels containing LZM-NLCs were prepared using a combination of chitosan and β-glycerol phosphate (β-GP). The anticonvulsant efficacy of LZM-NLCs-Gel was then examined using the pentylenetetrazole (PTZ) model. The optimised NLCs were spherical, showing the particle size of 71.70 ± 5.16 nm and the zeta potential of -20.06 ± 2.70 mV. The pH and gelation time for the chitosan solution with 15% (w/v) β-GP were determined to be 7.12 ± 0.03 and 5.33 ± 0.58 min, respectively. The in-vivo findings showed that compared with the control group and the group that received LZM-Gel, the occurrence of PTZ-induced seizures in the rats was significantly reduced by LZM-NLCs-Gel after intranasal administration. These results, therefore, suggested that the LZM-NLCs-Gel system could have potential applications for brain targeting through nasal route and might increase LZM therapeutic efficacy in the treatment of epilepsy.

Background: Delirium is a very common condition associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and costs. Current critical care guidelines recommend first and foremost the use of nonpharmacological strategies in both the prevention and treatment of delirium. Pharmacological interventions may augment these approaches and they are currently used widely in clinical practice to manage the symptoms of delirium. Benzodiazepines are currently used in clinical practice to treat behavioural disturbances associated with delirium but current guidelines do not recommend their use for this indication. The use of these medicines is controversial because there is uncertainty about whether they are effective for patients or have the potential to harm them., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of benzodiazepines in the treatment of delirium (excluding delirium related to withdrawal from alcohol or benzodiazepines) in any healthcare settings other than intensive care units (ICU)., Search Methods: We searched ALOIS: the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register up to 10 April 2019. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of a number of major healthcare databases (including MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS), numerous trial registries (including national, international and pharmaceutical registries), and grey literature sources., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in healthcare settings that ranged from nursing homes and long-term care facilities to any hospital setting except for ICUs, involving adult patients with delirium excluding those with delirium related to alcohol or benzodiazepine withdrawal. Included RCTs had to assess the effect of benzodiazepines, at any dose and given by any route, compared with placebo or another drug intended to treat delirium., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We decided whether or not to pool data on the basis of clinical heterogeneity between studies. We used GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods to assess the quality of evidence., Main Results: We identified only two trials that satisfied the selection criteria. We did not pool the data because of the substantial clinical differences between the trials. In one trial, participants (n = 58) were patients in an acute palliative care unit with advanced cancer who had a mean age of 64 years. All of the participants had delirium, were treated with haloperidol, and were randomised to receive either lorazepam or placebo in combination with it. Due to very serious imprecision, all evidence was of low certainty. We were unable to determine whether there were clinically important differences in the severity of delirium (mean difference (MD) 2.10, 95% CI -0.96 to 5.16; n = 50), length of hospital admission (MD 0.00, 95% CI -3.45 to 3.45; n = 58), mortality from all causes (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.02; participants = 58) or any of a number of adverse events. Important effects could not be confirmed or excluded. The study authors did not report the length of the delirium episode. In the other trial, participants (n = 30) were patients in general medical wards with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) who had a mean age of 39.2 years. Investigators compared three drug treatments: all participants had delirium, and were randomised to receive lorazepam, chlorpromazine, or haloperidol. Very low-certainty evidence was identified, and we could not determine whether lorazepam differed from either of the other treatments in the effect on severity of delirium, any adverse event, or mortality from all causes. The study authors did not report the length of the delirium episode or the length of hospital admission., Authors' Conclusions: There is no enough evidence to determine whether benzodiazepines are effective when used to treat patients with delirium who are cared for in non-ICU settings. The available evidence does not support their routine use for this indication. Because of the scarcity of data from randomised controlled trials, further research is required to determine whether or not there is a role for benzodiazepines in the treatment of delirium in non-ICU settings., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Delirium is a syndrome characterised by an acute disturbance of attention and awareness which develops over a short time period and fluctuates in severity over the course of the day. It is commonly experienced during inpatient admission in the terminal phase of illness. It can cause symptoms such as agitation and hallucinations and is distressing for terminally ill people, their families and staff. Delirium may arise from any number of causes and treatment should aim to address these causes. When this is not possible, or treatment is unsuccessful, drug therapy to manage the symptoms may become necessary. This is the second update of the review first published in 2004., Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of drug therapies to manage delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO from inception to July 2019, reference lists of retrieved papers, and online trial registries., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials of drug therapies in any dose by any route, compared to another drug therapy, a non-pharmacological approach, placebo, standard care or wait-list control, for the management of delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults (18 years or older)., Data Collection and Analysis: We independently screened citations, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were delirium symptoms; agitation score; adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: use of rescue medication; cognitive status; survival. We applied the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome and we include eight 'Summary of findings' tables., Main Results: We included four studies (three new to this update), with 399 participants. Most participants had advanced cancer or advanced AIDS, and mild- to moderate-severity delirium. Meta-analysis was not possible because no two studies examined the same comparison. Each study was at high risk of bias for at least one criterion. Most evidence was low to very low quality, downgraded due to very serious study limitations, imprecision or because there were so few data. Most studies reported delirium symptoms; two reported agitation scores; three reported adverse events with data on extrapyramidal effects; and none reported serious adverse events. 1. Haloperidol versus placebo There may be little to no difference between placebo and haloperidol in delirium symptoms within 24 hours (mean difference (MD) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.07 to 0.75; 133 participants). Haloperidol may slightly worsen delirium symptoms compared with placebo at 48 hours (MD 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.88; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Haloperidol may reduce agitation slightly compared with placebo between 24 and 48 hours (MD -0.14, 95% -0.28 to -0.00; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Haloperidol probably increases extrapyramidal adverse effects compared with placebo (MD 0.79, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.41; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). 2. Haloperidol versus risperidone There may be little to no difference in delirium symptoms with haloperidol compared with risperidone within 24 hours (MD -0.42, 95% CI -0.90 to 0.06; 126 participants) or 48 hours (MD -0.36, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.20; 106 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Agitation scores and adverse events were not reported for this comparison. 3. Haloperidol versus olanzapine We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with olanzapine within 24 hours (MD 2.36, 95% CI -0.75 to 5.47; 28 participants) or 48 hours (MD 1.90, 95% CI -1.50 to 5.30, 24 participants). Agitation scores and adverse events were not reported for this comparison. 4. Risperidone versus placebo Risperidone may slightly worsen delirium symptoms compared with placebo within 24 hours (MD 0.76, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.22; 129 participants); and at 48 hours (MD 0.85, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.38; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). There may be little to no difference in agitation with risperidone compared with placebo between 24 and 48 hours (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.09; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Risperidone may increase extrapyramidal adverse effects compared with placebo (MD 0.73 95% CI 0.09 to 1.37; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). 5. Lorazepam plus haloperidol versus placebo plus haloperidol We are uncertain whether lorazepam plus haloperidol compared with placebo plus haloperidol improves delirium symptoms within 24 hours (MD 2.10, 95% CI -1.00 to 5.20; 50 participants with moderate to severe delirium), reduces agitation within 24 hours (MD 1.90, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.80; 52 participants), or increases adverse events (RR 0.70, 95% CI -0.19 to 2.63; 31 participants with moderate to severe delirium). 6. Haloperidol versus chlorpromazine We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with chlorpromazine at 48 hours (MD 0.37, 95% CI -4.58 to 5.32; 24 participants). Agitation scores were not reported. We are uncertain whether haloperidol increases adverse events compared with chlorpromazine (MD 0.46, 95% CI -4.22 to 5.14; 24 participants). 7. Haloperidol versus lorazepam We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with lorazepam at 48 hours (MD -4.88, 95% CI -9.70 to 0.06; 17 participants). Agitation scores were not reported. We are uncertain whether haloperidol increases adverse events compared with lorazepam (MD -6.66, 95% CI -14.85 to 1.53; 17 participants). 8. Lorazepam versus chlorpromazine We are uncertain whether lorazepam reduces delirium symptoms compared with chlorpromazine at 48 hours (MD 5.25, 95% CI 0.38 to 10.12; 19 participants), or increases adverse events (MD 7.12, 95% CI 1.08 to 15.32; 18 participants). Agitation scores were not reported., Secondary Outcomes: use of rescue medication, cognitive impairment, survival There were insufficient data to draw conclusions or assess GRADE., Authors' Conclusions: We found no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of drug therapy for delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults. We found low-quality evidence that risperidone or haloperidol may slightly worsen delirium symptoms of mild to moderate severity for terminally ill people compared with placebo. We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that haloperidol and risperidone may slightly increase extrapyramidal adverse events for people with mild- to moderate-severity delirium. Given the small number of studies and participants on which current evidence is based, further research is essential., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Acute agitation in the emergency department (ED) represents a danger to both patients and their caregivers. Medication is often needed, and few high-quality randomized trials have evaluated the optimal drugs for this vulnerable population. In the United States, as of 2017, randomized trials of drugs typically cannot be conducted under Waiver of Consent (46 CFR 45.116), and Exception From Informed Consent trials (21 CFR 50.24) are limited to life-threatening conditions, are onerous, and require filing an investigational new drug application with the FDA. We sought to conduct a randomized double-dummy trial of inhaled loxapine versus intramuscular haloperidol + lorazepam for acute agitation in the ED by obtaining consent in advance ("preconsent") in patients at risk of future agitation, allowing study drug administration up to 3 years later if the patient presented with acute agitation., Objective: We sought to report the successful enrollment rate of patients preconsented at an earlier ED visit for this trial., Methods: This was an analysis of patients age 18 to 64 with bipolar I disorder or schizophrenia preconsented for enrollment in the trial (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02877108) conducted at a single urban academic center seeing approximately 60,000 patients per year. Eligible patients were assessed for capacity to consent by trained research associates, and informed consent was obtained at an ED visit for the possibility of administering drugs for agitation within the next 3 years. In the event the patient later presented to the ED and the attending physician deemed the patient required treatment for acute agitation, preconsent was confirmed and study drug would be administered., Results: Over 67 days, 1,461 patients were screened in the ED, 269 had bipolar I or schizophrenia, 194 of whom had a contraindication to inhaled loxapine leaving 75 eligible patients; preconsent was obtained in 43 patients. Four additional patients who had not preconsented were consented for the trial in real time (three by surrogate, one patient had capacity while agitated) resulting in a total of 47 consented patients. Of these 47, a total of 12 were later removed from the study: 10 patients had unrecognized exclusion criteria for inhaled loxapine, one preconsented patient contacted the investigators at a later date and asked to be removed, and one surrogate revoked consent immediately after providing it. Only two patients were successfully enrolled, neither by preconsent: one was enrolled via a surrogate the day of enrollment, and the other was mildly agitated and had capacity to consent. The remaining patient with a valid surrogate consent did not receive study medication., Conclusions: Utilization of preconsent to enroll patients in a randomized trial of treatments for acute agitation in the ED requires substantial resources and may not be feasible., (© 2018 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Absence status epilepticus (ASE) is a prolonged generalized absence seizure that usually lasts for hours and can even last for days. The main symptom is the altered content of consciousness while the patient may be alert and partly responsive. We describe the electroclinical features, treatment, and evolution of three paediatric patients with de novo ASE with an excellent response to valproic acid (VPA). Three paediatric patients presented with non-convulsive status epilepticus and an acute confusional state with impaired consciousness and EEG abnormalities compatible with typical ASE, associated with generalized spike-and-wave paroxysms at 2.5-4 Hz, as the first epileptic manifestation at eight, three, and nine years of age, respectively. No significant personal and/or family history was reported. None of the patients had absence seizures or any other type of seizure before the occurrence of the ASE. All of them responded well to VPA and had a benign disease course. Neuroradiological imaging was normal in all patients. These three cases presented with ASE as the first manifestation of their epilepsy; none of them had any other type of seizure before the event or during their follow-up, which was long-term in one. All patients had an excellent response to VPA. Our three cases presented with generalized typical ASE as the first manifestation of their epilepsy. De novo ASE might be considered as a well-defined idiopathic epilepsy syndrome or a variant of an idiopathic generalized epilepsy syndrome, such as a particular type or variant of childhood absence epilepsy.

Diazepam is labeled for status epilepticus (SE) in children, but there are limited data characterizing its disposition in pediatric patients. We developed a population pharmacokinetic (PK) model of i.v. diazepam in children with SE. We evaluated relationships between PK parameters and both safety and efficacy, and simulated exposures using dosing regimens from the product label and clinical practice. The model was developed using prospective data from a pediatric clinical trial comparing diazepam to lorazepam for treatment of SE. Altogether, 87 patients aged ≥ 3 months to < 18 years contributed 162 diazepam concentrations. Diazepam PKs were well characterized by a two-compartment model scaled by body size. No significant or clinically important relationships were observed between diazepam PKs and safety or efficacy. Simulations demonstrated that, compared with label dosing, the study dose (0.2 mg/kg i.v., maximum 8 mg) resulted in greater frequency in rapidly achieving the target therapeutic range of 200-600 ng/mL., (© 2018 The Authors CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Background: The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) is commonly used to assess psychomotor activity; however, to the authors' knowledge, its minimal clinically important difference (MCID) has not been determined to date. The objective of the current study was to identify the MCID for RASS using 2 anchor-based approaches., Methods: The current study was a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial to compare the effect of lorazepam versus placebo as an adjuvant to haloperidol for persistent agitation in patients with delirium. The primary outcome was change in RASS (10-point numeric rating scale ranging from -5 [unarousable] to +4 [combative]) from baseline to 8 hours after treatment administration. The sensitivity-specificity and within-patient change methods were used to identify the MCID, with the anchor being patient comfort after the study intervention as perceived by caregivers and nurses., Results: A total of 90 patients were randomized and 58 (64%) received the study medication for restlessness/agitation (mean baseline RASS, 1.6). A total of 23 caregivers (61%) and 23 nurses (55%) perceived that the patient was more comfortable after treatment. Using the sensitivity-specificity method, the optimal RASS reduction was ≥4 points according to both caregivers (sensitivity of 61% and specificity of 80%; area under the curve, 0.71) and nurses (sensitivity of 73% and specificity of 84%; area under the curve, 0.78). The RASS cutoff value based on the within-patient change method was similar (-4.2 for caregivers and -4.0 for nurses)., Conclusions: For patients with persistent restlessness/agitation, a reduction of ≥4 points in RASS was considered to be the MCID for both nurses and caregivers. These preliminary findings may have implications for sample size calculation and the interpretation of treatment effect in future delirium trials. Cancer 2018;124:2246-52. © 2018 American Cancer Society., (© 2018 American Cancer Society.)

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: Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms in patients with terminal, incurable illnesses. Both nausea and vomiting can be distressing. Haloperidol is commonly prescribed to relieve these symptoms. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 2, 2009, of Haloperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients., Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events associated with the use of haloperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients., Search Methods: For this updated review, we performed updated searches of CENTRAL, EMBASE and MEDLINE in November 2013 and in November 2014. We searched controlled trials registers in March 2015 to identify any ongoing or unpublished trials. We imposed no language restrictions. For the original review, we performed database searching in August 2007, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and AMED, using relevant search terms and synonyms. Handsearching complemented the electronic searches (using reference lists of included studies, relevant chapters and review articles) for the original review., Selection Criteria: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of haloperidol for the treatment of nausea or vomiting, or both, in any setting, for inclusion. The studies had to be conducted with adults receiving palliative care or suffering from an incurable progressive medical condition. We excluded studies where nausea or vomiting, or both, were thought to be secondary to pregnancy or surgery., Data Collection and Analysis: We imported records from each of the electronic databases into a bibliographic package and merged them into a core database where we inspected titles, keywords and abstracts for relevance. If it was not possible to accept or reject an abstract with certainty, we obtained the full text of the article for further evaluation. The two review authors independently assessed studies in accordance with the inclusion criteria. There were no differences in opinion between the authors with regard to the assessment of studies., Main Results: We considered 27 studies from the 2007 search. In this update we considered a further 38 studies from the 2013 search, and two in the 2014 search. We identified one RCT of moderate quality with low risk of bias overall which met the inclusion criteria for this update, comparing ABH (Ativan®, Benadryl®, Haldol®) gel, applied to the wrist, with placebo for the relief of nausea in 22 participants. ABH gel includes haloperidol as well as diphenhydramine and lorazepam. The gel was not significantly better than placebo in this small study; however haloperidol is reported not to be absorbed significantly when applied topically, therefore the trial does not address the issue of whether haloperidol is effective or well-tolerated when administered by other routes (e.g. by mouth, subcutaneously or intravenously). We identified one ongoing trial of haloperidol for the management of nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer, with initial results published in a conference abstract suggesting that haloperidol is effective for 65% of patients. The trial had not been fully published at the time of our review. A further trial has opened, comparing oral haloperidol with oral methotrimeprazine (levomepromazine) for patients with cancer and nausea unrelated to their treatment, which we aim to include in the next review update., Authors' Conclusions: Since the last version of this review, we found one new study for inclusion but the conclusion remains unchanged. There is incomplete evidence from published RCTs to determine the effectiveness of haloperidol for nausea and vomiting in palliative care. Other than the trial of ABH gel vs placebo, we did not identify any fully published RCTs exploring the effectiveness of haloperidol for nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients for this update, but two trials are underway.

Objectives: The objectives were to describe the frequency of repeat enrollment within a specific exception from informed consent trial testing benzodiazepine treatment of prehospital status epilepticus and to estimate the effect of repeat enrollments on the analysis of the primary outcome., Methods: This was a secondary analysis of data collected as part of the Rapid Anticonvulsant Medication Prior to Arrival Trial (RAMPART), a study comparing intramuscular midazolam to intravenous lorazepam given by paramedics to patients with prehospital status epilepticus. Subjects in RAMPART achieved a successful primary outcome if they had cessation of seizures by the time of emergency department arrival. Data were collected on all subjects, but only the first enrollment for each individual was used in the primary analysis. The patterns of repeat enrollment are described, along with the demographics of these subjects. In addition, an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was estimated to assess the amount of within-subject correlation and its effect on the estimated treatment effect when all enrollments are included in the analysis., Results: A total of 1,023 enrollments occurred in RAMPART among 893 unique individuals (range of repeat enrollment observed = two to 14). The ICC for seizure cessation within individual was low at 0.119; when excluding subjects with benzodiazepine crossover, the ICC was 0.094., Conclusions: In clinical trials of emergency conditions with interval complete resolution, accounting for repeat enrollments is feasible. The RAMPART experience demonstrated that in this setting the within-subject correlation is low and can be accounted for at relatively low statistical cost., (© 2015 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Background: Sedation reduces patient levels of anxiety and stress, facilitates the delivery of care and ensures safety. Alpha-2 agonists have a range of effects including sedation, analgesia and antianxiety. They sedate, but allow staff to interact with patients and do not suppress respiration. They are attractive alternatives for long-term sedation during mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients., Objectives: To assess the safety and efficacy of alpha-2 agonists for sedation of more than 24 hours, compared with traditional sedatives, in mechanically-ventilated critically ill patients., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 10, 2014), MEDLINE (1946 to 9 October 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 9 October 2014), CINAHL (1982 to 9 October 2014), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (1982 to 9 October 2014), ISI Web of Science (1987 to 9 October 2014), Chinese Biological Medical Database (1978 to 9 October 2014) and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (1979 to 9 October 2014), the World Health Organization international clinical trials registry platform (to 9 October 2014), Current Controlled Trials metaRegister of controlled trials active registers (to 9 October 2014), the ClinicalTrials.gov database (to 9 October 2014), the conference proceedings citation index (to 9 October 2014) and the reference lists of included studies and previously published meta-analyses and systematic reviews for relevant studies. We imposed no language restriction., Selection Criteria: We included all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing alpha-2 agonists (clonidine or dexmedetomidine) versus alternative sedatives for long-term sedation (more than 24 hours) during mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We performed meta-analyses when more than three studies were included, and selected a random-effects model due to expected clinical heterogeneity. We calculated the geometric mean difference for continuous outcomes and the risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes. We described the effects by values and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We considered two-sided P < 0.05 to be statistically significant., Main Results: Seven studies, covering 1624 participants, met the inclusion criteria. All included studies investigated adults and compared dexmedetomidine with traditional sedatives, including propofol, midazolam and lorazepam. Compared with traditional sedatives, dexmedetomidine reduced the geometric mean duration of mechanical ventilation by 22% (95% CI 10% to 33%; four studies, 1120 participants, low quality evidence), and consequently the length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) by 14% (95% CI 1% to 24%; five studies, 1223 participants, very low quality evidence). There was no evidence that dexmedetomidine decreased the risk of delirium (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.14; seven studies, 1624 participants, very low quality evidence) as results were consistent with both no effect and appreciable benefit. Only one study assessed the risk of coma, but lacked methodological reliability (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.86, very low quality evidence). Of all the adverse events included, the most commonly reported one was bradycardia, and we observed a doubled (111%) increase in the incidence of bradycardia (RR 2.11; 95% CI 1.39 to 3.20; six studies, 1587 participants, very low quality evidence). Our meta-analysis provided no evidence that dexmedetomidine had any impact on mortality (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.24; six studies, 1584 participants, very low quality evidence). We observed high levels of heterogeneity in risk of delirium (I² = 70%), but due to the limited number of studies we were unable to determine the source of heterogeneity through subgroup analyses or meta-regression. We judged six of the seven studies to be at high risk of bias., Authors' Conclusions: In this review, we found no eligible studies for children or for clonidine. Compared with traditional sedatives, long-term sedation using dexmedetomidine in critically ill adults reduced the duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay. There was no evidence for a beneficial effect on risk of delirium and the heterogeneity was high. The evidence for risk of coma was inadequate. The most common adverse event was bradycardia. No evidence indicated that dexmedetomidine changed mortality. The general quality of evidence ranged from very low to low, due to high risks of bias, serious inconsistency and imprecision, and strongly suspected publication bias. Future studies could pay more attention to children and to using clonidine

Background: Status epilepticus is a medical emergency associated with significant mortality and morbidity that requires immediate and effective treatment., Objectives: (1) To determine whether a particular anticonvulsant is more effective or safer to use in status epilepticus compared to another and compared to placebo.(2) To delineate reasons for disagreement in the literature regarding recommended treatment regimens and to highlight areas for future research., Search Methods: For the latest update of this review, the following electronic databases were searched on 15/08/2013: the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register, CENTRAL The Cochrane Library July 2013, Issue 7, and MEDLINE (Ovid) 1946 to 15/08/2013., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials of participants with premonitory, early, established or refractory status epilepticus using a truly random or quasi-random allocation of treatments were included., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data., Main Results: Eighteen studies with 2755 participants were included. Few studies used the same interventions. Intravenous diazepam was better than placebo in reducing the risk of non-cessation of seizures (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.92), requirement for ventilatory support (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.94), or continuation of status epilepticus requiring use of a different drug or general anaesthesia (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.92). Intravenous lorazepam was better than placebo for risk of non-cessation of seizures (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.71) and for risk of continuation of status epilepticus requiring a different drug or general anaesthesia (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.71). Intravenous lorazepam was better than intravenous diazepam for reducing the risk of non-cessation of seizures (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.90) and had a lower risk for continuation of status epilepticus requiring a different drug or general anaesthesia (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.88). Intravenous lorazepam was better than intravenous phenytoin for risk of non-cessation of seizures (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). Diazepam gel was better than placebo gel in reducing the risk of non-cessation of seizures (RR 0.43 95% CI 0.30 to 0.62)For pre-hospital treatment, intramuscular midazolam is at least as effective as (probably more effective than) intravenous lorazepam in control of seizures (RR1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.27) and frequency of hospitalisation (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.97) or intensive care admissions (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.96). It was uncertain whether Intravenous valproate was better than intravenous phenytoin in reducing risk of non-cessation of seizures (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.00). Both levetiracetam and lorazepam were equally effective in aborting seizures (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.13). Results for other comparisons of anticonvulsant therapies were uncertain due to single studies with few participants.The body of randomised evidence to guide clinical decisions is small. It was uncertain whether any anticonvulsant therapy was better than another in terms of adverse effects, due to few studies and participants identified. The quality of the evidence from the included studies is not strong but appears acceptable. We were unable to make judgements for risk of bias domains incomplete outcome reporting (attrition bias) and selective outcome reporting (selection bias) due to unclear reporting by the study authors., Authors' Conclusions: Intravenous lorazepam is better than intravenous diazepam or intravenous phenytoin alone for cessation of seizures. Intravenous lorazepam also carries a lower risk of continuation of status epilepticus requiring a different drug or general anaesthesia compared with intravenous diazepam. Both intravenous lorazepam and diazepam are better than placebo for the same outcomes. For pre hospital management, midazolam IM seemed more effective than lorazepam IV for cessation of seizures, frequency of hospitalisation and ICU admissions however,it was unclear whether the risk of recurrence of seizures differed between treatments. The results of other comparisons of anticonvulsant therapies versus each other were also uncertain. Universally accepted definitions of premonitory, early, established and refractory status epilepticus are required. Diazepam gel was better than placebo gel in reducing the risk of non-cessation of seizures. Results for other comparisons of anticonvulsant therapies were uncertain due to single studies with few participants.

Background: Acute psychotic illness, especially when associated with agitated or violent behaviour, can require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. In several countries, clinicians often use benzodiazepines (either alone or in combination with antipsychotics) for this outcome., Objectives: To estimate the effects of benzodiazepines, alone or in combination with antipsychotics, when compared with placebo or antipsychotics, alone or in combination with antihistamines, to control disturbed behaviour and reduce psychotic symptoms., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (January 2012), inspected reference lists of included and excluded studies and contacted authors of relevant studies., Selection Criteria: We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing benzodiazepines alone or in combination with any antipsychotics, versus antipsychotics alone or in combination with any other antipsychotics, benzodiazepines or antihistamines, for people with acute psychotic illnesses., Data Collection and Analysis: We reliably selected studies, quality assessed them and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of relative risk (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) between groups. If heterogeneity was identified, this was explored using a random-effects model., Main Results: We included 21 trials with a total of n = 1968 participants. There was no significant difference for most outcomes in the one trial that compared benzodiazepines with placebo, although there was a higher risk of no improvement in people receiving placebo in the medium term (one to 48 hours) (n = 102, 1 RCT, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.97, very low quality evidence). There was no difference in the number of participants who had not improved in the medium term when benzodiazepines were compared with antipsychotics (n = 308, 5 RCTs, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.42, low quality evidence); however, people receiving benzodiazepines were less likely to experience extrapyramidal effects (EPS) in the medium term (n = 536, 8 RCTs, RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.39, moderate quality of evidence). Data comparing combined benzodiazepines and antipsychotics versus benzodiazepines alone did not yield any significant results. When comparing combined benzodiazepines/antipsychotics (all studies compared haloperidol) with the same antipsychotics alone (haloperidol), there was no difference between groups in improvement in the medium term (n = 155, 3 RCTs, RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.70, very low quality evidence) but sedation was more likely in people who received the combination therapy (n = 172, 3 RCTs, RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.67, very low quality evidence). However, more participants receiving combined benzodiazepines and haloperidol had not improved by medium term when compared to participants receiving olanzapine (n = 60,1 RCT, RR 25.00, 95% CI 1.55 to 403.99, very low quality evidence) or ziprasidone (n = 60, 1 RCT, RR 4.00, 95% CI 1.25 to 12.75 very low quality evidence). When haloperidol and midazolam were compared with olanzapine, there was some evidence the combination was superior in terms of improvement, sedation and behaviour., Authors' Conclusions: The evidence from trials for the use of benzodiazepines alone is not good. There were relatively little good data and most trials are too small to highlight differences in either positive or negative effects. Adding a benzodiazepine to other drugs does not seem to confer clear advantage and has potential for adding unnecessary adverse effects. Sole use of older antipsychotics unaccompanied by anticholinergic drugs seems difficult to justify. Much more high quality research is needed in this area.

Background: Delirium is a syndrome characterised by a disturbance of consciousness (often fluctuating), cognition and perception. In terminally ill patients it is one of the most common causes of admission to clinical care. Delirium may arise from any number of causes and treatment should be directed at addressing these causes rather than the symptom cluster. In cases where this is not possible, or treatment does not prove successful, the use of drug therapy to manage the symptoms may become necessary. This is an update of the review published on 'Drug therapy for delirium in terminally ill adult patients' in The Cochrane Library 2004, Issue 2 ( Jackson 2004)., Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of drug therapies to treat delirium in adult patients in the terminal phase of a disease., Search Methods: We searched the following sources: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1966 to 2012), EMBASE (1980 to 2012), CINAHL (1982 to 2012) and PSYCINFO (1990 to 2012)., Selection Criteria: Prospective trials with or without randomisation or blinding involving the use of drug therapies for the treatment of delirium in adult patients in the terminal phase of a disease., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently assessed trial quality using standardised methods and extracted trial data. We collected outcomes related to efficacy and adverse effects., Main Results: One trial met the criteria for inclusion. In the 2012 update search we retrieved 3066 citations but identified no new trials. The included trial evaluated 30 hospitalised AIDS patients receiving one of three agents: chlorpromazine, haloperidol and lorazepam. The trial under-reported key methodological features. It found overall that patients in the chlorpromazine group and those in the haloperidol group had fewer symptoms of delirium at follow-up (to below the diagnostic threshold using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) and that both were equally effective (at two days mean difference (MD) 0.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.58 to 5.32; between two and six days MD -0.21; 95% CI -5.35 to 4.93). Chlorpromazine and haloperidol were found to be no different in improving cognitive status in the short term (at 48 hours) but at subsequent follow-up cognitive status was reduced in those taking chlorpromazine. Improvements from baseline to day two for patients randomised to lorazepam were not apparent. All patients on lorazepam (n = 6) developed adverse effects, including oversedation and increased confusion, leading to trial drug discontinuation., Authors' Conclusions: There remains insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the role of drug therapy in the treatment of delirium in terminally ill patients. Thus, practitioners should continue to follow current clinical guidelines. Further research is essential.

Stimulus-induced rhythmic, periodic or ictal discharges (SIRPIDs) are EEG epileptiform periodic discharges (PD) induced by arousal. SIRPIDs lie along an ictal-interictal continuum with debate regarding urgency of treatment. In a patient with SIRPIDs, aphasia and confusion, i.v. lorazepam during EEG resulted in improved level of consciousness, return of verbal interaction and regression of SIRPIDs. This suggests that some forms of SIRPIDs may be associated with an ictal confusional state.

We report a case of a patient with status migrainosus unresponsive to analgesic therapy in whom electroencephalographic recording revealed an epileptic origin. Intravenous administration of lorazepam induced the prompt resolution of the symptoms., (© 2010 American Headache Society.)

There are some indications that seizure activity promotes the development of stroke-like episodes, or vice versa, in patients with mitochondrial encephalopathy, lactic acidosis and stroke-like episodes (MELAS) syndrome or other syndromic mitochondrial disorders. A 41-year-old Caucasian female with MELAS syndrome, presenting with short stature, microcytic anaemia, increased blood-sedimentation rate, myopathy, hyper-gammaglobulinaemia, an iron-metabolism defect, migraine-like headaches, and stroke-like episodes, developed complex partial and generalised seizures at age 32 years. Valproic acid was ineffective but after switching to lamotrigine and lorazepam, she became seizure-free for five years and stroke-like episodes did not recur. Cerebral MRI initially showed enhanced gyral thickening and a non-enhanced T2-hyperintensity over the left parieto-temporo-occipital white matter and cortex and enhanced caudate heads. After two years without seizures, the non-enhanced hyperintense parieto-temporo-occipital lesion had disappeared, being attributed to consequent seizure control. The caudate heads, however, remained hyperintense throughout the observational period. This case indicates that adequate seizure control in a patient with MELAS syndrome may prevent the recurrence of stroke-like episodes and may result in the disappearance of stroke-like lesions on MRI.

This study was carried out to compare the efficacy of intravenous sodium valproate with intramuscular haloperidol in patients with acute mania. A total of 30 patients meeting DSM-IV criteria for acute manic episodes were enrolled. They were randomly assigned to 2 groups of 15 patients each. Both groups were treated twice daily with haloperidol (10 mg, intramuscular) and sodium valproate (500 mg, intravenous). The patients were assessed on days 1, 5, 9, and 13. Improvement in symptoms was assessed by reduction in the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS). Outcome criterions for analysis were latency of response and remission; additional drugs were required for sedation. At the end of the 2-week study period, overall response rate in both the groups was similar (P > .1). In comparison to haloperidol group, patients treated with sodium valproate showed faster response, and on day 5, significant reduction in YMRS score was observed in the group treated with sodium valproate (P < .05). Total amount of lorazepam was less in patients treated with sodium valproate. Extrapyramidal symptom episodes were observed in 60% of patients treated with haloperidol. Sodium valproate in the treatment of acute mania is as efficacious as haloperidol but provides a faster response. It is safer compared to haloperidol.

There is an increasing interest in the health risks related to the use of herbal remedies. Although most consumers think that phytomedicines are safe and without side effects, interactions between complementary alternative and conventional medicines are being described. The aim of this clinical case report is to highlight the importance of the safe use of herbal remedies by providing a clinical interaction study between pharmaceutical medicines and herbal medicinal products. The case of a patient self-medicated with Valeriana officinalis L. and Passiflora incarnata L. while he was on lorazepam treatment is described. Handshaking, dizziness, throbbing and muscular fatigue were reported within the 32 h before clinical diagnosis. The analysis of family medical history ruled out essential tremor, Parkinson's disease, Wilson's disease and other symptom-related pathologies. His medical history revealed a generalized anxiety disorder and medicinal plant consumption but no neurological disorder. Appropriate physical examination was carried out. An additive or synergistic effect is suspected to have produced these symptoms. The active principles of Valerian and passionflower might increase the inhibitory activity of benzodiazepines binding to the GABA receptors, causing severe secondary effects. Due to the increase in herbal product self-medication, the use of herbal remedies should be registered while taking the personal clinical history. Multidisciplinary teams should be created to raise studies on medicinal plants with impact on medical praxis., (Copyright (c) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Delirium occurs in 30% of hospitalised patients and is associated with prolonged hospital stay and increased morbidity and mortality. The results of uncontrolled studies have been unclear, with some suggesting that benzodiazepines may be useful in controlling non-alcohol related delirium., Objectives: To determine the effectiveness and incidence of adverse effects of benzodiazapines in the treatment of non-alcohol withdrawal related delirium., Search Strategy: The trials were identified from a search of the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group on 26 February 2008 using the search terms: (deliri* or confusion) and (benzo* or lorazepam," or "alprazolam" or "ativan" or diazepam or valium or chlordiazepam).The CDCIG Specialized Register contains records from major health databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, LILACS) as well as many ongoing trial databases and grey literature sources., Selection Criteria: Trials had to be unconfounded, randomized and with concealed allocation of subjects. Additionally, selected trials had to have assessed patients pre- and post-treatment. Where crossover design was present, only data from the first part of the trial were to be examined., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers extracted data from included trials. Data were pooled where possible, and were to be analysed using appropriate statistical methods. Odd ratios or average differences were to be calculated. Only "intention to treat" data were to be included., Main Results: Only one trial satisfying the selection criteria could be identified. In this trial, comparing the effect of the benzodiazepine, lorazepam, with dexmedetomidine, a selective alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonist, on delirium among mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients, dexmedetomidine treatment was associated with an increased number of delirium- and coma-free days compared with lorazepam treated patients (dexmedetomidine patients, average seven days; lorazepam patients, average three days; P = 0.01). One partially controlled study showed no advantage of a benzodiazepine (alprazolam) compared with neuroleptics in treating agitation associated with delirium, and another partially controlled study showed decreased effectiveness of a benzodiazepine (lorazepam), and increased adverse effects, compared with neuroleptics (haloperidol, chlorpromazine) for the treatment of acute confusion., Authors' Conclusions: No adequately controlled trials could be found to support the use of benzodiazepines in the treatment of non-alcohol withdrawal related delirium among hospitalised patients, and at this time benzodiazepines cannot be recommended for the control of this condition. Because of the scarcity of trials with randomization of patients, placebo control, and adequate concealment of allocation of subjects, it is clear that further research is required to determine the role of benzodiazepines in the treatment of non-alcohol withdrawal related delirium.

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: Delirium occurs in 30% of hospitalised patients and is associated with prolonged hospital stay and increased morbidity and mortality. The results of uncontrolled studies have been unclear, with some suggesting that benzodiazepines may be useful in controlling non-alcohol related delirium., Objectives: To determine the effectiveness and incidence of adverse effects of benzodiazapines in the treatment of non-alcohol withdrawal related delirium., Search Strategy: The trials were identified from a search of the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group on 26 February 2008 using the search terms: (deliri* or confusion) and (benzo* or lorazepam," or "alprazolam" or "ativan" or diazepam or valium or chlordiazepam).The CDCIG Specialized Register contains records from major health databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, LILACS) as well as many ongoing trial databases and grey literature sources., Selection Criteria: Trials had to be unconfounded, randomized and with concealed allocation of subjects. Additionally, selected trials had to have assessed patients pre- and post-treatment. Where crossover design was present, only data from the first part of the trial were to be examined., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers extracted data from included trials. Data were pooled where possible, and were to be analysed using appropriate statistical methods. Odd ratios or average differences were to be calculated. Only "intention to treat" data were to be included., Main Results: Only one trial satisfying the selection criteria could be identified. In this trial, comparing the effect of the benzodiazepine, lorazepam, with dexmedetomidine, a selective alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonist, on delirium among mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients, dexmedetomidine treatment was associated with an increased number of delirium- and coma-free days compared with lorazepam treated patients (dexmedetomidine patients, average seven days; lorazepam patients, average three days; P = 0.01). One partially controlled study showed no advantage of a benzodiazepine (alprazolam) compared with neuroleptics in treating agitation associated with delirium, and another partially controlled study showed decreased effectiveness of a benzodiazepine (lorazepam), and increased adverse effects, compared with neuroleptics (haloperidol, chlorpromazine) for the treatment of acute confusion., Authors' Conclusions: No adequately controlled trials could be found to support the use of benzodiazepines in the treatment of non-alcohol withdrawal related delirium among hospitalised patients, and at this time benzodiazepines cannot be recommended for the control of this condition. Because of the scarcity of trials with randomization of patients, placebo control, and adequate concealment of allocation of subjects, it is clear that further research is required to determine the role of benzodiazepines in the treatment of non-alcohol withdrawal related delirium.

Background: Acute psychotic illness, especially when associated with agitated or violent behaviour, can require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. In several countries, clinicians often use benzodiazepines (either alone or in combination with antipsychotics) for this outcome., Objectives: To estimate the effects of benzodiazepines, alone or in combination with antipsychotics, when compared to placebo or antipsychotics, to control disturbed behaviour and reduce psychotic symptoms., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (October 2002 and April 2005), inspected reference lists of included and excluded studies and contacted authors of relevant studies., Selection Criteria: We included all randomised clinical trials comparing benzodiazepines, alone or in combination with antipsychotics, with placebo or sole use of antipsychotics, for people with acute psychotic illnesses., Data Collection and Analysis: We reliably selected studies, quality assessed them and extracted data. For binary outcomes we calculated standard estimates of relative risk (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI), and weighted number needed to treat or harm (NNT/NNH) statistics. For continuous outcomes we estimated a weighted mean difference between groups. If heterogeneity was found, we used a random effects model., Main Results: We included eleven studies with a total of 648 participants. When comparing benzodiazepines with placebo, sedation was equally prevalent (n=102, 1 RCT, RR 1.67 CI 0.4 to 6.6), however, fewer people allocated lorazepam remained excited at 24 hours (n=102, RR 0.62 CI 0.4 to 1.0, NNT 5 CI 3 to 59). The lorazepam and placebo group experienced similar non-significant, low levels of adverse effects. In the comparison of benzodiazepines versus use of antipsychotics without use of anticholinergics/antihistamines, people allocated benzodiazepines did not clearly need additional medication compared with those given antipsychotics (n=216, 2 RCTs, RR 1.28 CI 0.5 to 3.2). Numbers sedated were also equivocal between groups (n=324, 6 RCTs, RR 0.76 CI 0.5 to 1.2) as were mental state ratings. Extrapyramidal symptoms were significantly higher in the antipsychotic treatment group (n=391, 7 RCTs, RR 0.17 CI 0.1 to 0.4, NNT 6 CI 2 to 17). Two trials (total n=83) comparing lorazepam plus haloperidol with lorazepam alone found no clear difference for the need of additional medication (n=83, 2 RCTs, RR 1.02 CI 0.8 to 1.3) or 'not improved' at one hour (n=20, 1 RCT, RR 1.47 CI 0.66 to 3.25). There was no difference in the incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms (n=83, 2 RCTs, RR 1.94 CI 0.2 to 20.3). Finally when the benzodiazepine plus antipsychotic combination was compared with antipsychotics alone (2 RCTs, n=95) there was no difference between groups in the need for additional medications (n=67, 1 RCT, RR 0.95 CI 0.8 to 1.2) or for mental state measures. Extrapyramidal symptoms were significantly lower for people receiving both benzodiazepines and antipsychotics compared with those receiving antipsychotics alone (n=95, 2 RCTs, RR 0.45 CI 0.2 to 0.9, NNH 2 CI 1 to 5). There was no significant difference in the number of participants unfit for early discharge (n=28, 1 RCT, RR 0.90 CI 0.54 to 1.5)., Authors' Conclusions: There is insufficient data from these studies to support or refute the use of benzodiazepines with or without antipsychotics where emergency drugs are needed. The sole use of older antipsychotics unaccompanied by anticholinergic drugs may be problematic, but studies in this review are not large enough to identify any serious adverse effects of benzodiazepines such as respiratory depression. Larger, more informative studies are needed before definite conclusions can be drawn as to the efficacy of benzodiazapines.

Background: Status epilepticus is a medical emergency associated with significant mortality and morbidity, which requires immediate and effective treatment., Objectives: (1) To determine whether a particular anticonvulsant is more effective or safer to use in status epilepticus compared to another and compared to placebo.(2) To delineate reasons for disagreement in the literature regarding recommended treatment regimens and to highlight areas for future research., Search Strategy: We searched the following electronic databases using the highly sensitive search strategy for identifying published randomised controlled trials: (1) Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (July 2005); (2) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2,2005); (3) MEDLINE (1966 - August 2004); (4) EMBASE (1966 - January 2003)., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials of participants with premonitory, early, established or refractory status epilepticus using a truly random or quasi-random allocation of treatments were included., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data., Main Results: Eleven studies with 2017 participants were included. Few studies used the same interventions. Diazepam was better than placebo in reducing the risk of non-cessation of seizures (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.92), requirement for ventilatory support (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.94) or continuation of status epilepticus requiring use of a different drug or general anaesthesia (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.92). Lorazepam was better than placebo for risk of non-cessation of seizures (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.71) and for risk of continuation of status epilepticus requiring a different drug or general anaesthesia (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.71). Lorazepam was better than diazepam for reducing risk of non-cessation of seizures (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.90) and had a lower risk for continuation of status epilepticus requiring a different drug or general anaesthesia (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.88). Lorazepam was better than phenytoin for risk of non-cessation of seizures (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). Diazepam (30 mg intrarectal gel) was better than a lower dose (20 mg intrarectal gel) in premonitory status epilepticus for the risk of seizure continuation (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.86)., Authors' Conclusions: Lorazepam is better than diazepam or phenytoin alone for cessation of seizures and carries a lower risk of continuation of status epilepticus requiring a different drug or general anaesthesia. Both lorazepam and diazepam are better than placebo for the same outcomes. In the treatment of premonitory seizures, diazepam 30 mg in an intrarectal gel is better than 20 mg for cessation of seizures without a statistically significant increase in adverse effects. Universally accepted definitions of premonitory, early, established and refractory status epilepticus are required.

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.

Objectives: To determine if midazolam is superior to lorazepam or haloperidol in the management of violent and severely agitated patients in the emergency department. Superiority would be determined if midazolam resulted in a significantly shorter time to sedation and shorter time to arousal., Methods: This was a randomized, prospective, double-blind study of a convenience sample of patients from an urban, county teaching emergency department. Participants included 111 violent and severely agitated patients. Patients were randomized to receive intramuscular midazolam (5 mg), lorazepam (2 mg), or haloperidol (5 mg)., Results: The mean (+/-SD) age was 40.7 (+/-13) years. The mean (+/-SD) time to sedation was 18.3 (+/-14) minutes for patients receiving midazolam, 28.3 (+/-25) minutes for haloperidol, and 32.2 (+/-20) minutes for lorazepam. Midazolam had a significantly shorter time to sedation than lorazepam and haloperidol (p < 0.05). The mean difference between midazolam and lorazepam was 13.0 minutes (95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 5.1 to 22.8 minutes) and that between midazolam and haloperidol was 9.9 minutes (95% CI = 0.5 to 19.3 minutes). Time to arousal was 81.9 minutes for patients receiving midazolam, 126.5 minutes for haloperidol, and 217.2 minutes for lorazepam. Time to arousal for midazolam was significantly shorter than for both haloperidol and lorazepam (p < 0.05). The mean difference in time to awakening between midazolam and lorazepam was 135.3 minutes (95% CI = 89 to 182 minutes) and that between midazolam and haloperidol was 44.6 minutes (95% CI = 9 to 80 minutes). There was no significant difference over time by repeated-measures analysis of variance between groups in regard to changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (p = 0.8965, p = 0.9581), heart rate (p = 0.5517), respiratory rate (p = 0.8191), and oxygen saturation (p = 0.8991)., Conclusions: Midazolam has a significantly shorter time to onset of sedation and a more rapid time to arousal than lorazepam or haloperidol. The efficacies of all three drugs appear to be similar.

Background: Delirium is a common disorder that often complicates treatment in patients with life-limiting disease. Delirium is described using a variety of terms such as agitation, acute confusional states, encephalopathy, organic mental disorders, and terminal restlessness. Delirium may arise from any number of causes, and treatment should be directed at addressing these causes. In cases where this is not possible, or does not prove successful, the use of drug therapy may become necessary., Objectives: The primary objective of this review was to identify and evaluate studies examining medications used to treat patients suffering from delirium during the terminal phases of disease., Search Strategy: We searched the following sources: MEDLINE (1966 to July 2003), EMBASE 1980 to July 2003), CINAHL (1982 to July 2003), PSYCH LIT (1974 to July 2003), PSYCHINFO (1990 to July 2003) and the Cochrane Library Volume 2, 2003) for literature pertaining to this topic., Selection Criteria: Prospective trials with or without randomization and/or blinding involving the use of pharmacological agents for the treatment of delirium at the end of life were considered., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality using standardized methods and extracted data for evaluation. Outcomes related to both efficacy and adverse effects were collected., Main Results: Thirteen potential studies were identified by the search strategy. Of these, only one study met the criteria for inclusion in this review. This study evaluated 30 hospitalized AIDS patients receiving one of three different agents: chlorpromazine, haloperidol, and lorazepam. Analysis of this trial found chlorpromazine and haloperidol to be equally effective. Chlorpromazine was noted to slightly worsen cognitive function over time but this result was not significant. The lorazepam arm of the study was stopped early as a consequence of excessive sedation., Reviewers' Conclusions: The data from one study of 30 patients would perhaps suggest that haloperidol is the most suitable drug therapy for the treatment of patients with delirium near the end of life. Chlorpromazine may be an acceptable alternative if a small risk of slight cognitive impairment is not a concern. However, there is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions about the role of pharmacotherapy in terminally ill patients with delirium, and further research is essential.

Objective: To determine whether clinical data available in the emergency department can accurately predict a subset of patients at low risk of developing recurrent seizures following one or more initial alcohol-related seizures in the out-of-hospital arena., Methods: This was a retrospective secondary analysis of data obtained from the placebo arms of two prospective, randomized trials of drug treatments for the prevention of recurrent alcohol-related seizures. Subjects with and without one or more recurrent alcohol-related seizures during the study period were compared according to the following characteristics: 1) age, 2) gender, 3) daily ethanol consumption, 4) years of ethanol abuse, 5) previous alcohol-related seizure, 6) previous seizure of other etiology, 7) temperature, 8) heart rate, 9) systolic blood pressure, 10) diastolic blood pressure, 11) respiratory rate, and 12) ethanol level. Data were analyzed with t-tests and chi-square where appropriate., Results: One hundred five placebo-treated patients were analyzed and 31 (30%) developed recurrent alcohol-related seizures. None of the listed characteristics were statistically different between the two groups except for the initial ethanol level. Subjects with an ethanol level higher than 100 mg/dL were less likely (0%) to develop recurrent seizures than patients with a level equal to or below 100 mg/dL (36%) (p < 0.01)., Conclusions: An initial ethanol level higher than 100 mg/dL was significantly associated with a low risk for recurrent alcohol-related seizures during the observation period. No other low-risk clinical characteristics could be identified.

Background: Highly emetogenic combination alkylator therapy is routinely used in autologous bone marrow transplantation for treatment of eligible patients with solid tumors. Antiemetic therapy remains less than optimal in this setting., Methods: One hundred twenty-six patients with cancer receiving high dose cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, and carmustine with autologous bone marrow support were randomized to receive one of four double-blinded antiemetic regimens: 4-day continuous infusion prochlorperazine (6 mg/m2 intravenous [i.v.] loading dose followed by 1.5 mg/m2/hour) or metoclopramide (80 mg/m2 iv loading dose followed by 20 mg/m2/hr) each with either dronabinol 5 mg/m2 or placebo capsules for two doses before carmustine on the last day of chemotherapy. All subjects received scheduled lorazepam and diphenhydramine throughout the 4-day study period. Efficacy was measured by the Emetic Process Rating Scale and the Rhodes Index of Nausea and Vomiting (INV) Form 2., Results: One hundred six patients completed the study and were fully evaluable. The median number of emetic episodes on the metoclopramide study arm were: 1 (0-7, day -6), 1 (0-6, day -5), 2 (0-9, day -4), and 2 (0-10, with dronabinol day -3) or 2 (0-7, no dronabinol day -3) and on the prochlorperazine study arm were: 4 (0-12, day -6), 0 (0-8, day -5), 0 (0-12, day -4) and 2.5 (0-9, with dronabinol day -3) or 2 (0-12, no dronabinol day -3). Metoclopramide was significantly better on the first day of therapy (day -6, P < .002) and prochlorperazine was significantly better on the third day of therapy (day -4, P < 0.002). There was no significant difference among any of the four arms on the last day of chemotherapy (day -3), or when the median number of emetic episodes over the total study period were compared. The patients' assessment of nausea, vomiting, and retching on the INV Form 2 was consistent with the observer ratings. Toxicities requiring dose reduction or discontinuation of antiemetic drugs included diarrhea, cardiac arrhythmias, sedation, anxiety, and akathisia., Conclusions: Both metoclopramide and prochlorperazine in combination with lorazepam and diphenhydramine offer good control of nausea and vomiting although the sedation and low risk for cardiac toxicity limit the regimen to an inpatient setting with close monitoring. No regimen was clearly superior during the entire treatment period but prochlorperazine offered more consistent control after the first day.

Thirty-seven patients with advanced incurable malignancies who were receiving their first course of cisplatin (greater than or equal to 90 mg/m2 bolus), alone or in combination with other antineoplastic agents, were entered in this randomized, double-blind study to determine the antiemetic efficacy of the addition of high-dose dexamethasone to lorazepam plus metoclopramide. All patients received lorazepam (1.5 mg/m2) and metoclopramide (2.0 mg/kg) intravenously (IV) 30 minutes before cisplatin, with the same dose of metoclopramide repeated 1.5, 3.5, 6.5, and 9.5 hours after the 30-minute cisplatin infusion. Patients were randomized to receive dexamethasone (0.5 mg/kg) or placebo by slow bolus injection 30 minutes before cisplatin. All patients were hospitalized for 24 hours and evaluated by observation after cisplatin and a patient questionnaire before discharge. Eighteen patients received metoclopramide and lorazepam without dexamethasone: six (33%) reported no vomiting and four (22%) reported no nausea or vomiting. Nineteen patients also received dexamethasone: 14 (74%) had no vomiting and 13 (68%) reported no nausea or vomiting. These differences were statistically significantly different (P = 0.013 and 0.005, respectively). The side effects attributable to the antiemetic regimen were somnolence (100%), confusion (8%), and diarrhea (46%), and were the same in both arms. Dexamethasone significantly improved the antiemetic efficacy of metoclopramide plus lorazepam without adding toxicity. This three-drug combination gave a high rate of control of acute emesis induced by high-dose cisplatin.

Diazepam, 10 and 20 mg, and 2 and 4 mg lorazepam were studied as intravenous surgical premedicants in 120 patients. Relief of anxiety, sedation, patient acceptance, lack of recall, and side effects were the variables evaluated. Both diazepam and lorazepam proved to be excellent surgical premedicants. The basic difference between the two drugs is temporal. Both medications produce similar relief of anxiety, sedation, patient acceptance, and lack of recall. The clinical effects of intravenous diazepam peaks in 2 to 3 minutes and diminishes thereafter. Intravenous lorazepam has a latent period of 8 to 15 minutes, with increasing effects at 15 to 30 minutes.

Lorazepam, a new benzodiazepine, was compared with a standard surgical premedicant, pentobarbital. In a double-blind study in 128 patients, lorazepam, 2 and 4 mg, and pentobarbital, 50 and 100 mg, were given intravenously in a randomized sequence. Significant differences were noted; lorazepam was found to provide greater sedation, lack of recall, and greater antianxiety effect than pentobarbital. No significant adverse effects were noted following either drug. Vital signs remained stable.

In a randomized crossover study, twelve patients presenting a generalized anxiety disorder received either a 1 mg oral tablet or a 1 mg sublingual tablet of lorazepam three times daily for 7 days. After a 7-day washout period, each patient received a 7-day treatment with the other tablet form. Treatments were administered in a double-blind manner using placebos of both the oral and sublingual tablets. Psychiatric evaluations were carried out before and following each of the three periods. Blood samples were drawn at intervals for 48 h following the last dose of each treatment. The plasma concentrations of lorazepam were measured by gas chromatography using an electron-capture detector. Both the oral and sublingual lorazepam produced a significant anxiolytic effect; there was no statistically significant difference between the therapeutic effectiveness of the two forms of lorazepam. The main pharmacokinetic parameters for the oral and sublingual tablets were, respectively: elimination half-life 15.6h and 11.7h; maximal concentration 40.8 ng ml-1 and 42.2 ng ml-1; time to reach maximal concentration 1.2h and 1.4h; corrected area under the curve 310.6 ng hml-1 and 313.6 ng hml-1. There was no statistically significant difference between the oral and sublingual tablets for any of the pharmacokinetic parameters measured.

The importance of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions in the treatment of alcohol withdrawal is not known. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted with 41 patients in alcohol withdrawal in an emergency department. The patients received either supportive care (10 min of standardized assessments, reassurance, reality orientation, and nursing care an hour) with three doses of sublingual lorazepam 2 mg every 2 hr (21 patients, drug group) or supportive care with three doses of sublingual placebo every 2 hr (20 patients, no-drug group). Immediately before each drug dose, the clinical course of alcohol withdrawal was assessed hourly by the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol (CIWA-A). Interraters reliability in using CIWA-A was high. After each assessment, supportive care was given for 10 min before each dose. After completion of a 7-hr initial phase, patients were discharged and reassessed daily for 5 days. Thirty-seven patients (90.2%) improved in the initial phase. Treatment failures (CIWA-A greater than 10) were more common in the patients treated without drug (3/20, 15%) than in those treated with drug (1/21, 4.8%). Overall variations in intergroup CIWA-A scores during the initial phase were not significant. The rate of improvement of CIWA-A scores over the first 2 hr after drug was slightly faster in patients receiving lorazepam than in the control group. CIWA-A scores were the same during follow-up. These results indicate that most outpatients in mild to moderate alcohol withdrawal without medical complications improve without drug therapy in the emergency department setting.

Lorazepam, oxazepam, and methylprednisolone were compared for antiemetic efficacy in patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy. Three consecutive courses of cisplatin-containing chemotherapy were administered at equal doses so that each patient acted as his own control. Of 100 patients randomized, 85 received at least two of the three agents and were evaluable for analysis. Lorazepam significantly reduced the number of patients with more than ten vomits compared to either oxazepam (P less than 0.05) or methylprednisolone (P less than 0.001). Lorazepam also significantly reduced the number of patients with the most severe degrees of vomiting compared to either oxazepam or methylprednisolone (both P less than 0.005). The duration of vomiting was reduced significantly after the first 48 hours postchemotherapy for those patients receiving lorazepam over those receiving methylprednisolone (P less than 0.05). Lorazepam significantly reduced the number of patients with severe nausea compared to both oxazepam and methylprednisolone (both P less than 0.05), but there were no significant differences in duration of nausea among the groups. The results of linear analogue self-assessment scores indicated a strong patient preference for lorazepam over both oxazepam and methylprednisolone. Drowsiness was significantly more common with both lorazepam and oxazepam compared to methylprednisolone (both P less than 0.001). Patients who received lorazepam or oxazepam also experienced significantly more severe drowsiness than those patients receiving methylprednisolone (both P less than 0.001). Lack of recall was significantly more common with lorazepam than with oxazepam and methylprednisolone (both P less than 0.001) and was more profound when lorazepam was compared with oxazepam (P less than 0.05) and with methylprednisolone (P less than 0.001). Methylprednisolone was administered with minimal side effects. The results of this randomized cross-over study indicate that, in the dosage/schedule used, lorazepam is a significantly superior premedicant than is either oxazepam or methylprednisolone in alleviating the distress of cytotoxic-induced emesis in patients receiving cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.

Although anxiolytic sedatives are widely used in clinical practice, the methodology for assessing treatment effect of these compounds has not been well developed. The present double-blind study was designed to refine methodology for evaluating anxiolytics. Choice of rating scale, patient selection, maintenance of the double-blind status, the subjects' environment during the study, and the subjects' understanding of the study are discussed as considerations in reducing sources of variability and bias in the study of anxiolytics. After placebo prescreening, 14 subjects with diagnoses of anxiety recieved 3 to 6 mg lorazepam daily for four weeks, while 14 control subjects received placebo. The Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS) and the Wang Anxiety Rating Scale (WARS), with its Anxiolytic Adjunct Scale (AAS), were used to assess changes in anxiety. The Wang and Hamilton ratings correlated well at both comparison periods. Lorazepam demonstrated significant superiority to placebo and produced no serious adverse effects. Anxiolytic efficacy did not differ significantly among the four weekly ratings.

Hypnotic efficacy and safety of 3 weeks of daily doses of 2 mg lorazepam or 30 mg flurazepam were compared in a double-blind cross-over study in eight chronic insomniacs between the ages of 29 and 60 years. Subjects were monitored in the sleep laboratory twice weekly for a total of 25 nights. Also, subjective estimates of sleep, vigilance tests, and adverse effects were recorded throughout the study. Findings indicated lorazepam performed better than flurazepam in most sleep parameters. With lorazepam there was improvement from baseline in percentage of sleep time (P less than .05); in total wake time after sleep onset (P less than .01) and in last third of night (P less than .05); in percentage of stage 2 (P less than .05) (weeks 1, 2, 3) and in percentage of night in stage 4 (weeks 2 and 3). Only total wake time from baseline improved (P less than .05) with flurazepam (week 2). Objective and subjective sleep parameters did not correlate well for either drug. Neither drug impaired REM sleep or vigilance test performance. Side effects (grogginess, lethargy; flurazepam only) were few and none was unexpected; neither rebound insomnia nor early morning insomnia occurred with either drug. In summary, both lorazepam 2 mg at bedtime and flurazepam 30 mg at bedtime were found to be effective and safe for treating chronic insomnia, as measured by parameters of sleep and daytime functioning. Lorazepam had more favorable effects on sleep than did flurazepam.

In a double-blind crossover study involving 15 insomniac subjects, the hypnotic efficacy of lorazepam, 2 and 4 mg, was compared with flurazepam, 15 and 30 mg, and placebo. Five subjective measures were used: onset, length, and depth of sleep, number of times awakened, and satisfaction with the hypnotic. Lorazepam in 2- and 4-mg doses was comparable in hypnotic efficacy to flurazepam, 30 mg, according to most parameters of measurement. Side effects were minor, although relatively numerous at the 4-mg doses.

Sixty-four patients treated with cisplatin-containing regimens were entered into a randomized, double-blinded study examining the antiemetic efficacy of metoclopramide with and without lorazepam for control of cisplatin-induced emesis. Metoclopramide was administered to all patients at 2 mg/kg, intravenously, 30 minutes before chemotherapy and 1.5, 3.5, and 5.5 hours posttreatment. Patients randomized to receive combined antiemetic therapy were administered lorazepam at 2 mg/m2 (maximum, 4 mg dose) intravenously, 30 minutes before chemotherapy. Those patients not receiving lorazepam were given normal saline placebo. Degree of nausea and number of vomiting episodes were recorded on a data flow sheet with a visual analogue scale. Drug toxicities were evaluated before each administered dose. Patients receiving both metoclopramide and lorazepam experienced significantly less vomiting episodes (P less than 0.05) and nausea (P less than 0.01) when compared to patients given metoclopramide alone. Forty-four percent of those receiving the combined therapy reported no nausea or vomiting episodes compared to only 22% receiving metoclopramide alone. Sedation was significantly more common in patients receiving lorazepam (88%) as opposed to patients receiving only metoclopramide (43%), P less than 0.01. Amnesia was seen in 25% receiving lorazepam. No significant difference in diarrhea, dystonia, or disinhibition was observed between the two arms. The authors conclude that the combination of lorazepam and metoclopramide was superior to metoclopramide alone in the prevention of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting, with sedation and amnesia more commonly observed in the combined regimen.

Benzodiazepine derivatives are the most commonly prescribed anti-anxiety agents in clinical practice. Six benzodiazepine anxiolytics are now available in the United States. Additional drugs are used in other parts of the world, and many others are in various stages of clinical testing. All these benzodiazepine derivatives have similar neuropharmacological properties--they reduce anxiety, produce sedation and sleep, have anticonvulsant effects, and can produce muscle relaxation. Faced with this bewildering array of drugs from the same class which are very similar in intrinsic effects upon the brain, the clinician may well ask how best to make a rational choice among the available derivatives. Despite neuropharmacological similarities, there are differences among benzodiazepines in patterns of absorption, distribution, and elimination by the human body. These pharmacokinetic differences may in turn lead to apparent differences in clinical action. This review summarizes pertinent pharmacokinetic characteristics of benzodiazepine anti-anxiety agents.

A four-week double-blind comparison between lorazepam and placebo involving 60 patients with anxiety revealed that lorazepam in a mean dose of approximately 3 mg on a b.i.d. regimen is significantly and clinically more effective than placebo for almost all items of the Global, Hamilton, and 35-Item scales at nearly all evaluation periods. Moreover, lorazapem was associated with a 50% greater improvement rate than was placebo. Except for only one patient who was withdrawn from the study because of severe sedation, lorazepam was well tolerated and did not interact adversely with concomitant nonpsychoactive medication.

1 The sedative and antiulcer effects of chlordiazepoxide (5 to 50 mg/kg) and lorazepam (0.25 to 2.5 mg/kg) were investigated in the rat. 2 Sedation was measured by recording locomotor activity in a holeboard. Ulceration of the glandular stomach was induced by a 2 h period of restrain at 4 degrees C. 3 Acutely, both drugs produced significant sedation at all doses; high doses only (chlordiazepoxide 10 and 50 mg/kg; lorazepam 2.5 mg/kg) produced a significant reduction in ulcer formation. 4 With chronic treatment, after 5 and 10 days administration of chlordiazepoxide (50 mg/kg), tolerance to sedation was observed without a similar change in antiulcer action. 5 Cimetidine (20 mg/kg) and atropine (0.2 mg/kg) decreased ulcer formation without causing sedation. 6 The antisecretory profile of chlordiazepoxide (2 x 10(-4) M), in the rat isolated gastric mucosa, resembled that of atropine (10(-7) M) rather than cimetidine (10(-5) M). 7 These observations suggest that the antiulcer effect of benzodiazepines probably results from a combination of sedative, anxiolytic and antisecretory actions.