Gamcsik Sarah, Adams Katie S
Clinical Pharmacy Specialist, Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University Health Department of Pharmacy Services, Richmond, Virginia.
Ment Health Clin. 2024 Aug 2;14(4):242-246. doi: 10.9740/mhc.2024.08.242. eCollection 2024 Aug.
There is no consensus on the optimal antipsychotic for acute agitation. Whereas haloperidol is frequently used and has proven efficacy, second generation antipsychotics show similar efficacy and improved safety and tolerability. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of short-acting intramuscular (IM) haloperidol versus other IM antipsychotics for acute agitation in adults admitted to an inpatient psychiatry unit.
This was a retrospective medical record review of patients who received 1 or more doses of a short-acting IM antipsychotic, including chlorpromazine, haloperidol, olanzapine, or ziprasidone. The primary endpoint was the need for subsequent IM antipsychotic(s) or physical restraint within 2 hours of the initial IM antipsychotic. Secondary endpoints assessed outcomes at 24 hours and adverse events.
One hundred six patients were included. Four patients in the haloperidol group and 0 patients in the other antipsychotic group received an additional IM antipsychotic or required physical restraints within 2 hours (5.3% versus 0%, = .319). More patients in the other antipsychotic group required an additional dose of IM antipsychotic within 24 hours compared with the haloperidol group ( = .0096). More adverse events were seen in patients who received haloperidol.
Haloperidol was used more frequently than other short-acting IM antipsychotics. Whereas the effectiveness at 2 hours was not significantly different between groups, patients who received haloperidol were more likely to experience adverse events and were more often subjected to polypharmacy with benzodiazepines and/or diphenhydramine. This study further supports the use of olanzapine and ziprasidone for acute agitation in patients hospitalized in inpatient psychiatry.
对于急性激越状态,最佳抗精神病药物尚无共识。虽然氟哌啶醇常用且已证实有效,但第二代抗精神病药物显示出相似的疗效以及更好的安全性和耐受性。本研究旨在确定速效肌内注射氟哌啶醇与其他肌内注射抗精神病药物相比,对入住精神科病房的成人急性激越状态的有效性。
这是一项对接受一剂或多剂速效肌内注射抗精神病药物(包括氯丙嗪、氟哌啶醇、奥氮平或齐拉西酮)的患者的回顾性病历审查。主要终点是在首次肌内注射抗精神病药物后2小时内是否需要后续肌内注射抗精神病药物或身体约束。次要终点评估24小时时的结局和不良事件。
纳入106例患者。氟哌啶醇组有4例患者,其他抗精神病药物组有0例患者在2小时内接受了额外的肌内注射抗精神病药物或需要身体约束(5.3% 对0%,P = 0.319)。与氟哌啶醇组相比,其他抗精神病药物组有更多患者在24小时内需要额外一剂肌内注射抗精神病药物(P = 0.0096)。接受氟哌啶醇治疗的患者出现更多不良事件。
氟哌啶醇的使用频率高于其他速效肌内注射抗精神病药物。虽然两组在2小时时的有效性无显著差异,但接受氟哌啶醇治疗的患者更易出现不良事件,且更常与苯二氮䓬类药物和/或苯海拉明联合用药。本研究进一步支持在精神科住院患者中使用奥氮平和齐拉西酮治疗急性激越状态。