Search

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

Objective: Rapid and safe tranquillisation is sometimes unavoidable. We conducted this systematic review to determine the value of the combination haloperidol plus promethazine, frequently used in Brazil., Method: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register and included all randomised clinical trials involving aggressive people with psychosis for which haloperidol plus promethazine was being used. We reliably selected, quality assessed and extracted data from all relevant studies., Results: We identified four relevant high quality studies. The combination haloperidol plus promethazine mix was compared with midazolam, lorazepam, haloperidol alone and olanzapine Intramuscular. In Brazil, haloperidol plus promethazine was effective with over 2/3 of people being tranquil by 30 minutes, but midazolam was more swift and in India, compared with lorazepam, the combination was more effective. Over the next few hours reported differences are negligible. Haloperidol given without promethazine in this situation causes frequent serious adverse effects. Olanzapine is as rapidly tranquillising as haloperidol plus promethazine, but did not have an enduring effect and more people needed additional drugs within 4 hours., Conclusion: All treatments evaluated are effective, but this review provides compelling evidence as to clear advantages of the haloperidol plus promethazine combination.

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

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