Yildiz A, Sachs G S, Turgay A
Dokuz Eylul Medical School, Department of Psychiatry, Izmir, Turkey.
Emerg Med J. 2003 Jul;20(4):339-46. doi: 10.1136/emj.20.4.339.
To review, firstly, published studies comparing classic antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, and/or combination of both; and secondly, available data on the use of atypical antipsychotic medications in controlling agitation and aggressive behaviour seen in psychiatric patients in emergency.
In the first review, studies comparing antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, and combination of both; and in the second review, efficacy trials of atypical antipsychotics that include an active and/or inactive comparator for the treatment of acute agitation were identified and reviewed. Data from clinical trials meeting the inclusion criteria were summarised by recording improvement rates, definition of improvement, and timing of defined improvement for individual studies.
In the first review, 11 trials were identified meeting the inclusion criteria, eight with a blind design. The total number of subjects was 701. These studies taken together suggest that combination treatment may be superior to the either agent alone with higher improvement rates and lower incidence of extrapyramidal side effects. In the review of atypical antipsychotic agents as acute antiagitation compounds, five studies were identified, three with a blind design. The total number of subjects was 711, of which 15% (104) was assigned to the placebo arm. This review found atypical antipsychotics to be as effective as the classic ones and more advantageous in many aspects.
Atypical antipsychotics such as risperidone, ziprasidone, and olanzapine with or without benzodiazepines should be considered first in the treatment of acute agitation. If these agents are not available the combination of a classic antipsychotic and a benzodiazepine would be a reasonable alternative. An oral treatment should always be offered first for building up an alliance with the patient and suggesting an internal rather than external locus of control.
首先,回顾已发表的比较经典抗精神病药物、苯二氮䓬类药物和/或两者联合使用的研究;其次,回顾关于使用非典型抗精神病药物控制急诊精神病患者激越和攻击行为的现有数据。
在第一次回顾中,检索比较抗精神病药物、苯二氮䓬类药物以及两者联合使用的研究;在第二次回顾中,检索非典型抗精神病药物治疗急性激越的疗效试验,这些试验需包含活性和/或非活性对照,并进行回顾。通过记录个体研究的改善率、改善的定义以及明确改善的时间,总结符合纳入标准的临床试验数据。
在第一次回顾中,确定了11项符合纳入标准的试验,其中8项采用盲法设计。受试者总数为701名。综合这些研究表明,联合治疗可能优于单独使用任何一种药物,改善率更高,锥体外系副作用发生率更低。在将非典型抗精神病药物作为急性抗激越药物的回顾中,确定了5项研究,其中3项采用盲法设计。受试者总数为711名,其中15%(104名)被分配到安慰剂组。该回顾发现非典型抗精神病药物与经典药物效果相当,且在许多方面更具优势。
在治疗急性激越时,应首先考虑使用利培酮、齐拉西酮和奥氮平这类非典型抗精神病药物,可联合或不联合苯二氮䓬类药物。如果没有这些药物,经典抗精神病药物和苯二氮䓬类药物的联合使用将是一个合理的选择。应始终首先提供口服治疗,以与患者建立联盟,并暗示其内控而非外控的观念。