Ostinelli Edoardo G, Jajawi Salwan, Spyridi Styliani, Sayal Kamlaj, Jayaram Mahesh B
Department of Health Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Antonio di Rudinì 8, Milan, Italy, 20142.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 8;1(1):CD008074. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008074.pub2.
People experiencing psychosis may become aggressive. Antipsychotics, such as aripiprazole in intramuscular form, can be used in such situations.
To evaluate the effects of intramuscular aripiprazole in the treatment of psychosis-induced aggression or agitation (rapid tranquillisation).
On 11 December 2014 and 11 April 2017, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-based Register of Trials which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials.
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that randomised people with psychosis-induced aggression or agitation to receive either intramuscular aripiprazole or another intramuscular intervention.
We independently inspected citations and, where possible, abstracts, ordered papers and re-inspected and quality assessed these. We included studies that met our selection criteria. At least two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. We chose a fixed-effect model. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using mean differences (MD) and their CIs. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to create 'Summary of findings' tables.
Searching found 63 records referring to 21 possible trials. We could only include three studies, all completed over the last decade, with 885 participants, of which 707 were included for quantitative analyses in this systematic review. Due to limited comparisons, small size of trials and a paucity of investigated and reported 'pragmatic' outcomes, evidence was mostly graded as low or very low quality. No trials reported useful data for one of our primary outcomes of tranquil or asleep by 30 minutes. Economic outcomes were also not reported in the trials.When compared with placebo, fewer people in the aripiprazole group needed additional injections compared to the placebo group (2 RCTs, n = 382, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.85, very low-quality evidence). Clinically important improvement in agitation at two hours favoured the aripiprazole group (2 RCTs, n = 382, RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.92, very low-quality evidence). The numbers of non-responders after the first injection also favoured aripiprazole (1 RCT, n = 263, RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.71, low-quality evidence). Although no effect was found, more people in the aripiprazole compared to the placebo group experienced adverse effects (1 RCT, n = 117, RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.46, very low-quality evidence).Aripiprazole required more injections compared to haloperidol (2 RCTs, n = 477, RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.63, very low-quality evidence), with no significant difference in agitation (2 RCTs, n = 477, RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11, very low-quality evidence), and similar non-responders after first injection (1 RCT, n = 360, RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.79, low-quality evidence). Aripiprazole and haloperidol did not differ when taking into account the overall number of people that experienced at least one adverse effect (1 RCT, n = 113, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.35, very low-quality evidence).Compared to aripiprazole, olanzapine was better at reducing agitation (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.99, low-quality evidence) and had a more favourable effect on global state change scores (1 RCT, n = 80, MD 0.58, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.15, low-quality evidence), both at two hours. No differences were found in terms of experiencing at least one adverse effect during the 24 hours after treatment (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.24, very low-quality evidence). However, participants allocated to aripiprazole experienced less somnolence (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.82, low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is of poor quality but there is some evidence aripiprazole is effective compared to placebo and haloperidol, but not when compared to olanzapine. However, considering that evidence comes from only three studies, caution is required in generalising these results to real-world practice. This review firmly highlights the need for more high-quality trials on intramuscular aripiprazole in the management of people with acute aggression or agitation.
患有精神病的人可能会变得具有攻击性。抗精神病药物,如肌肉注射用阿立哌唑,可用于此类情况。
评估肌肉注射阿立哌唑治疗精神病性攻击或激越(快速镇静)的效果。
2014年12月11日和2017年4月11日,我们检索了Cochrane精神分裂症研究组基于试验的注册库,该注册库基于定期检索CINAHL、BIOSIS、AMED、Embase、PubMed、MEDLINE、PsycINFO以及临床试验注册库。
所有将患有精神病性攻击或激越的人随机分组,使其接受肌肉注射阿立哌唑或另一种肌肉注射干预措施的随机对照试验(RCT)。
我们独立检查了文献引用,并在可能的情况下检查了摘要,订购了论文,并对这些论文进行了重新检查和质量评估。我们纳入了符合我们入选标准的研究。至少两名综述作者独立从纳入研究中提取数据。我们选择了固定效应模型。我们使用风险比(RR)和95%置信区间(CI)分析二分数据。我们使用均值差(MD)及其CI分析连续数据。我们评估了纳入研究的偏倚风险,并使用GRADE创建“结果总结”表。
检索发现63条记录,涉及21项可能的试验。我们只能纳入三项研究,均在过去十年内完成,共有885名参与者,其中707名纳入本系统综述进行定量分析。由于比较有限、试验规模较小以及缺乏经调查和报告的“实用”结果,证据大多被评为低质量或极低质量。没有试验报告我们的主要结局之一“30分钟时安静或入睡”的有用数据。试验中也未报告经济结局。与安慰剂相比,阿立哌唑组需要额外注射的人数少于安慰剂组(2项RCT,n = 382,RR 0.69,95% CI 0.56至0.85,极低质量证据)。两小时时激越方面具有临床意义的改善有利于阿立哌唑组(2项RCT,n = 382,RR 1.50,95% CI 1.17至1.92,极低质量证据)。首次注射后无反应者的数量也有利于阿立哌唑(1项RCT,n = 263,RR 0.49,95% CI 0.34至0.71,低质量证据)。虽然未发现有效果,但与安慰剂组相比,阿立哌唑组有更多人出现不良反应(1项RCT,n = 117,RR 1.51,95% CI 0.93至2.46,极低质量证据)。与氟哌啶醇相比,阿立哌唑需要更多次注射(2项RCT,n = 477,RR 1.28,95% CI 1.00至1.63,极低质量证据),激越方面无显著差异(两项RCT,n = 477,RR 0.94,95% CI 0.80至1.11,极低质量证据),首次注射后无反应者情况相似(1项RCT,n = 360,RR 1.18,95% CI 0.78至1.79,低质量证据)。考虑到至少经历一次不良反应的总人数时,阿立哌唑和氟哌啶醇没有差异(1项RCT,n = 113,RR 0.91,95% CI 0.61至1.35,极低质量证据)。与阿立哌唑相比,奥氮平在两小时时在减轻激越方面效果更好(1项RCT,n = 80,RR 0.77,95% CI 0.60至0.99),对总体状态变化评分有更有利的影响(1项RCT,n = 80,MD 0.58,95% CI 0.01至1.15,低质量证据)。治疗后24小时内至少经历一次不良反应方面未发现差异(1项RCT,n = 80,RR 0.75,95% CI 0.45至1.24,极低质量证据)。然而,分配到阿立哌唑组的参与者嗜睡较少(1项RCT,n = 80,RR 0.25,95% CI 0.08至0.82,低质量证据)。
现有证据质量较差,但有一些证据表明与安慰剂和氟哌啶醇相比,阿立哌唑是有效的,但与奥氮平相比则不然。然而,鉴于证据仅来自三项研究,在将这些结果推广到实际临床实践时需要谨慎。本综述明确强调需要进行更多关于肌肉注射阿立哌唑治疗急性攻击或激越患者的高质量试验。