Rapid tranquillisation in psychiatric emergency settings in Brazil: pragmatic randomised controlled trial of intramuscular haloperidol versus intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine. Rapid tranquillisation in psychiatric emergency settings in India: pragmatic randomised controlled trial of intramuscular olanzapine versus intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine. Rapid tranquillisation for agitated patients in emergency psychiatric rooms: a randomised trial of midazolam versus haloperidol plus promethazine. Rapid tranquillisation of violent or agitated patients in a psychiatric emergency setting. Pragmatic randomised trial of intramuscular lorazepam v. haloperidol plus promethazine. Parenteral haloperidol for rapid control of severe, disruptive symptoms of acute schizophrenia. Rapid tranquilization for agitated patients in emergency psychiatric rooms: a randomized trial of olanzapine, ziprasidone, haloperidol plus promethazine, haloperidol plus midazolam and haloperidol alone. Efficacy of combinations of intramuscular antipsychotics and sedative-hypnotics for control of psychotic agitation. Intramuscular flunitrazepam versus intramuscular haloperidol in the emergency treatment of aggressive psychotic behavior. Effects of carbamazepine and valproate on haloperidol plasma levels and on psychopathologic outcome in schizophrenic patients. Combined treatment of schizophrenic psychoses with haloperidol and valproate. Risperidone versus haloperidol in psychotic patients with disturbing neuroleptic-induced extrapyramidal symptoms: a double-blind, multi-center trial. Initial improvement as a criterion for drug choice in acute schizophrenia. Experimental comparison of the effectivity of individually adapted and standardized dosages of haloperidol. Risperidone versus haloperidol in the treatment of chronic schizophrenic patients: a parallel group double-blind comparative trial. Some methodological considerations for the clinical evaluation of neuroleptics--comparative effects of clozapine and haloperidol on schizophrenics. A comparison of parenteral loxapine and haloperidol in hostile and aggressive acutely schizophrenic patients. Addition of lithium to haloperidol in non-affective, antipsychotic non-responsive schizophrenia: a double blind, placebo controlled, parallel design clinical trial. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of extract of Ginkgo biloba added to haloperidol in treatment-resistant patients with schizophrenia. A multicentre, double-blind, randomized comparison of quetiapine (ICI 204,636, 'Seroquel') and haloperidol in schizophrenia. A double-blind controlled study of intramuscular zuclopenthixol acetate and liquid oral haloperidol in the treatment of schizophrenic patients with acute exacerbation. Pimozide versus Haloperidol in acute schizophrenia. A double blind controlled study.
To determine whether haloperidol alone results in swifter and safer tranquillisation and sedation than haloperidol plus promethazine.
                Pragmatic randomised open trial (January-July 2004).
                Psychiatric emergency room, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
                316 patients who needed urgent intramuscular sedation because of agitation, dangerous behaviour, or both.
                Open treatment with intramuscular haloperidol 5-10 mg or intramuscular haloperidol 5-10 mg plus intramuscular promethazine up to 50 mg; doses were at the discretion of the prescribing clinician.
                The primary outcome was proportion tranquil or asleep by 20 minutes. Secondary outcomes were asleep by 20 minutes; tranquil or asleep by 40, 60, and 120 minutes; physically restrained or given additional drugs within 2 hours; severe adverse events; another episode of agitation or aggression; additional visit from the doctor during the subsequent 24 hours; overall antipsychotic load in the first 24 hours; and still in hospital after 2 weeks.
                Primary outcome data were available for 311 (98.4%) people, 77% of whom were thought to have a psychotic illness. Patients allocated haloperidol plus promethazine were more likely to be tranquil or asleep by 20 minutes than those who received intramuscular haloperidol alone (relative risk 1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.10 to 1.55; number needed to treat 6, 95% confidence interval 4 to 16; P=0.002). No differences were found after 20 minutes. However, 10 cases of acute dystonia occurred, all in the haloperidol alone group.
                Haloperidol plus promethazine is a better option than haloperidol alone in terms of speed of onset of action and safety. Enough data are now available to change guidelines that continue to recommend treatments that leave people exposed to longer periods of aggression than necessary and patients vulnerable to distressing and unsafe adverse effects.
                Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN83261243 [controlled-trials.com]. To compare the effect of intramuscular olanzapine with intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine on rapid tranquillisation of agitated or violent people with mental illness.
                Pragmatic, allocation concealed, randomised controlled trial.
                Emergency services of a general hospital psychiatry department in Vellore, south India.
                300 adults with agitated or violent behaviour as a result of mental illness; 150 randomised to intramuscular olanzapine and 150 randomised to intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine.
                Open treatment with intramuscular olanzapine or intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine.
                Primary outcome was proportion of patients who were tranquil or asleep at 15 minutes and 240 minutes. Secondary outcomes were proportion of patients who were tranquil, asleep, restrained, absconding, or clinically improved at 15, 30, 60, 120, and 240 minutes; additional medical interventions and adverse effects over four hours; and compliance with oral drugs and adverse effects over two weeks.
                Of 300 people randomised to receive either intramuscular olanzapine or intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine, follow-up data were available for primary outcomes for 298 (99%). Both treatments resulted in similar proportions of people being tranquil or asleep at 15 minutes (olanzapine 131/150 (87%), haloperidol plus promethazine 136/150 (91%); relative risk 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 1.47) and 240 minutes (olanzapine 144/150 (96%), haloperidol plus promethazine 145/150 (97%); relative risk 0.99, 0.95 to 1.03). However, more people given olanzapine than those given haloperidol plus promethazine required additional drugs over four hours (65/150 (43%) v 31/150 (21%); relative risk 2.07, 1.43 to 2.97). Adverse effects were uncommon with both treatments.
                Intramuscular olanzapine and intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine were effective at rapidly tranquillising or sedating agitated or violent patients with mental illness but the combination resulted in fewer additional medical interventions within four hours of intervention.
                Clinical trials NCT00455234 [ClinicalTrials.gov]. To compare two widely used drug treatments for people with aggression or agitation due to mental illness.
                Pragmatic, randomised clinical trial.
                Three psychiatric emergency rooms in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
                301 aggressive or agitated people.
                Open treatment with intramuscular midazolam or intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine.
                Patients tranquil or sedated at 20 minutes. Secondary outcomes: patients tranquil or asleep by 40, 60, and 120 minutes; restrained or given extra drugs within 2 hours; severe adverse events; another episode of agitation or aggression; needing extra visits from doctor during first 24 hours; overall antipsychotic load in first 24 hours; and not discharged by two weeks.
                151 patients were randomised to midazolam, and 150 to haloperidol-promethazine mix. Follow up for the primary outcome was available for 298 (99%): 134/151 (89%) of patients given midazolam were tranquil or asleep after 20 minutes compared with 101/150 (67%) of those given haloperidol plus promethazine (relative risk 1.32 (95% confidence interval 1.16 to 1.49)). By 40 minutes, midazolam still had a statistically and clinically significant 13% relative advantage (1.13 (1.01 to 1.26)). After 1 hour, about 90% of both groups were tranquil or asleep. One important adverse event occurred in each group: a patient given midazolam had transient respiratory depression, and one given haloperidol-promethazine had a grande mal seizure.
                Both treatments were effective. Midazolam was more rapidly sedating than haloperidol-promethazine, reducing the time people are exposed to aggression. Adverse effects and resources to deal with them should be considered in the choice of the treatment. The pharmacological management of violence in people with psychiatric disorders is under-researched.
                To compare interventions commonly used for controlling agitation or violence in people with serious psychiatric disorders.
                We randomised 200 people to receive intramuscular lorazepam (4 mg) or intramuscular haloperidol (10 mg) plus promethazine (25-50 mg mix).
                At blinded assessments 4 h later (99.5% follow-up), equal numbers in both groups (96%) were tranquil or asleep. However, 76% given the haloperidol-promethazine mix were asleep compared with 45% of those allocated lorazepam (RR=2.29,95% CI 1.59-3.39; NNT=3.2,95% CI 2.3-5.4). The haloperidol-promethazine mix produced a faster onset of tranquillisation/sedation and more clinical improvement over the first 2 h. Neither intervention differed significantly in the need for additional intervention or physical restraints, numbers absconding, or adverse effects.
                Both interventions are effective for controlling violent/agitated behaviour. If speed of sedation is required, the haloperidol-promethazine combination has advantages over lorazepam. Intramuscular haloperidol, at three dose levels, (5 mg, 2 mg, and 1 mg) chlorpromazine (25 mg), and placebo were compared for efficacy, rapidity of therapeutic onset, and safety in 50 acute psychotic patients requiring rapid control. The drugs were administered parenterally under double-blind conditions at half-hour intervals until successful control of moderate to very severe symptomatology was achieved or a maximum of four injections had been given. Global evaluation, BPRS, and target symptom ratings were performed. The overall results indicated that the 5 mg and 2 mg haloperidol doses were significantly superior to the 1 mg haloperidol and 25 mg chlorpromazine doses and to placebo. Transfer of patients to oral haloperidol was satisfactorily accomplished. Side effects for all medications were minimal and included slight to moderate EPS and drowsiness. The use of antiparkinson drugs completely controlled the extrapyramidal symptoms. To compare the effectiveness of intramuscular olanzapine, ziprasidone, haloperidol plus promethazine, haloperidol plus midazolam and haloperidol alone as the first medication(s) used to treat patients with agitation and aggressive behavior.
                One hundred fifty patients with agitation caused by psychotic or bipolar disorder were randomly assigned under double-blind conditions to receive olanzapine, ziprasidone, haloperidol plus midazolam, haloperidol plus promethazine or haloperidol alone. The Overt Agitation Severity Scale, Overt Aggression Scale and Ramsay Sedation Scale were applied within 12 hours after the first dosage.
                All medications produced a calming effect within one hour of administration, but only olanzapine and haloperidol reduced agitation by less than 10 points, and only olanzapine reduced aggression by less than four points in the first hour. After twelve hours, only patients treated with haloperidol plus midazolam had high levels of agitation and aggression and also more side effects. Ziprasidone, olanzapine and haloperidol alone had more stable results for agitation control, while ziprasidone, haloperidol plus promethazine and olanzapine had stable results for aggression control.
                Olanzapine, ziprasidone, haloperidol plus promethazine, haloperidol plus midazolam and haloperidol were effective in controlling agitation and aggression caused by mental illness over 12 hours. Although all the drugs had advantages and disadvantages, haloperidol plus midazolam was associated with the worst results in all the observed parameters. The combination of haloperidol, 5 mg, and lorazepam, 4 mg, was both effective and safe for managing agitated behavior in an open trial with acutely psychotic patients. The combination also appeared to be superior to its individual components when studied in a randomized, nonblind trial. The principle of the combined use of antipsychotics and sedative-hypnotics was further tested by comparing two new combinations: thiothixene, 5 mg, and lorazepam, 4 mg, versus haloperidol, 5 mg, and phenobarbital sodium, 130 mg. These combinations had comparable efficacy and safety, and the level of transquilization approached that produced by the haloperidol-lorazepam combination in the preceding studies. The authors examined the efficacy of intramuscular flunitrazepam compared with intramuscular haloperidol for the immediate control of agitated or aggressive behavior in acutely psychotic patients.
                Twenty-eight actively psychotic inpatients, aged 20-60 years, who were under treatment with neuroleptic agents were selected for the study. Each was randomly assigned on a double-blind basis to receive either 5 mg i.m. of haloperidol (N=13) or 1 mg i.m. of flunitrazepam (N=15) during an aggressive event. Verbal and physical aggression was measured over time with the Overt Aggression Scale. Patients were also rated with the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and the Clinical Global Impression scale.
                Both flunitrazepam and haloperidol exhibited acute antiaggressive activity. This beneficial effect, as assessed by the Overt Aggression Scale, was obtained within 30 minutes.
                Intramuscular flunitrazepam may serve as a convenient, rapid, safe, and effective adjunct to neuroleptics in reducing aggressive behavior in emergency psychiatric settings. The objective of this study was to compare the effects of carbamazepine (CBZ) and valproate (VPA) cotreatment on the plasma levels of haloperidol and on the psychopathologic outcome in schizophrenic disorders. In this controlled clinical trial, 27 patients with an ICD-10 diagnosis of schizophrenia (N = 24) or schizoaffective disorder (N = 3) were randomly assigned to receive 4 weeks of treatment with either haloperidol alone, haloperidol with CBZ, or haloperidol with VPA. Whereas the haloperidol dose remained stable, the antiepileptic drug doses were adjusted to achieve therapeutic plasma levels. Clinical state was rated by the Positive subscale of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and the Inpatient Multidimensional Psychiatric Scale. The use of CBZ was associated with significantly lower haloperidol plasma levels and with a worse clinical outcome compared with antipsychotic monotherapy. VPA had no significant effect on either plasma levels or on psychopathology. Our results suggest that comedication with haloperidol and CBZ is associated with a high risk for treatment failure. This might be a result of a pharmacokinetic interaction on the hepatic level. The concomitant use of VPA with neuroleptic therapy is not impaired by clinically significant drug interactions, but it is not associated with a better outcome under our conditions. In accordance with a previous study of adjuvant effects of the anticonvulsant carbamazepine (CBZ) on the neuroleptic treatment of schizophrenic psychoses, the effects of valproate (VPA) were tested in a randomly assigned double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Apart from a (statistically nonsignificant) psychopathological deterioration following discontinuation of VPA while on continuous neuroleptic mediation after four weeks and a statistically significant effect on "hostile belligerence", no overall therapeutic effects of the combination of haloperidol (HPD) with VPA were observed under controlled conditions. Unlike the results with CBZ, concomitant use of VPA led to an even higher consumption of haloperidol and biperiden and to a higher rate of extrapyramidal symptoms compared with the corresponding placebo group, although these differences did not attain statistical significance. In regard to use of the sedative neuroleptic chlorprothixene, there was a trend toward lower doses in the VPA group than in the placebo group. From these results, adjuvant effects like those of carbamazepine in the neuroleptic treatment of schizophrenic psychoses could not be confirmed for valproate in the present study. However, the trend toward lower doses of sedative medication and observed effects on "hostile belligerence" may indicate sedative and/or antimanic properties of valproate which have recently been demonstrated in several controlled studies. A randomized, double-blind, multi-center trial was started to compare the severity of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) during risperidone and haloperidol treatment in schizophrenic patients who had disturbing EPS during their previous neuroleptic treatment. Additional objectives of this trial were comparing the antipsychotic effectiveness of the two treatments and the use of antiparkinsonian medication.
                Effects of flexible doses of risperidone and haloperidol were compared in 77 psychotic patients (83% with chronic schizophrenia) with disturbing neuroleptic-induced EPS (risperidone 40 patients, haloperidol 37). The trial was completed by 47 patients: 25 in the risperidone group (12 women, 13 men), and 22 in the haloperidol group (10 women, 12 men).
                An adequate antipsychotic effect was obtained in most patients by both treatments. The primary aim of this trial was comparing parkinsonism measured with the extrapyramidal syndrome rating scale (ESRS) during treatment with risperidone and haloperidol. Two primary parameters were selected: the change from baseline to the worst score during treatment of ESRS II (parkinsonism) and ESRS VI (clinical global impression of severity of parkinsonism). The CGI of severity of parkinsonism was better with risperidone (P=0.025), while the parkinsonism total score tended to be better with risperidone (P<0. 10). Before the double-blind treatment, 34 (of the 77) had used antiparkinson medication (risperidone 18, haloperidol 16). During the double-blind treatment phase, 21 patients had used antiparkinson medication (risperidone 11, haloperidol 10). The larger reduction of parkinsonism in the risperidone group was not due to a difference in the use of anti-parkinsonian medication.
                In this group of schizophrenic patients with disturbing EPS during previous neuroleptic treatment, a stronger reduction of parkinsonism was observed with risperidone than with haloperidol. Several investigators have found that the initial improvement of acute schizophrenia after some days of neuroleptic treatment is correlated in a statistically significant way to the outcome after four weeks. In all these studies the question arises as to whether the correlation between early response and subsequent outcome is due to a specific response to a certain neuroleptic, or whether patients who respond early simply have a better prognosis. In order to isolate the specific drug effect from prognostic influences we performed a controlled double-blind study in 50 newly admitted schizophrenic inpatients. All patients were treated over three days with 15 mg haloperidol i.v., following which they were classified as 'early responders (ER)' (markedly improved or improved) or as 'early nonresponders (EN)' and then randomly assigned to group 1 (3 x 5 mg haloperidol p.o./d) or to group 2 (3 x 100 mg perazin p.o./d). If there was a specific drug effect on the correlation between early response and subsequent outcome a therapeutic superiority of perazin in EN and no superiority in ER was expected. Independently of the treatment condition the mean BPRS score had decreased from 61.2 (Sx = 12.1) to 38.1 (Sx = 13.9) at the end of the study. ER and EN were evenly distributed in the haloperidol and perazin group. The analysis of variance revealed no significant interactions of the factors 'treatment condition' x 'duration' x 'early response' (p = 0.27) and 'treatment condition' x 'early response' (p = 0.88) on the outcome (BPRS, CGI). This means that the initial hypothesis of this study has to be rejected.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) Experimental tests of whether an individual neuroleptic treatment for compensation of acute schizophrenic disorders is more effective and has fewer side effects than a standard therapy were performed under double-blind conditions. For this purpose, a group of 16 patients was treated with 10 mg haloperidol/day for the duration of 14 days, and another group of 16 patients was treated with 20 mg haloperidol/day for the same period. 16 patients of a third group were treated for 14 days with an individual haloperidol dose adapted to the psychopathological findings. Patients were randomly allocated to the treatment groups. The medication was laid down in accordance with the randomization plan without informing the ward staff and raters by a leading physician of the hospital who was not involved in the data collection in the investigation. The psychological findings were registered by means of the BPRS and the global appraisal by the doctor (CGI) on days 0, 7 and 14. Extrapyramidal side effects were registered by means of the Simpson scale on days 0, 7 and 14. A superiority of the individually adapted treatment over standardized treatment could be demonstrated neither for the therapeutic target parameters nor for the side effect variables. On the contrary, a tendency to superiority in the groups treated with fixed doses was found. The results are discussed in terms of their significance for treatment practice. A parallel group double-blind comparative trial was conducted to study the efficacy and safety of risperidone compared with haloperidol. After a one-week wash-out, 35 chronic schizophrenic patients (17 males, 18 females) were randomly assigned to one of two groups for eight weeks of double-blind treatment. The patients' psychopathology was assessed by means of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale for Schizophrenia (PANSS) and the Clinical Global Impression (CGI). Safety assessments included the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale (ESRS), the UKU Side Effect Rating Scale, vital signs, body weight, ECG and laboratory screening. Thirty-two patients completed the trial: there were 3 dropouts in the risperidone group. The results on the PANSS and CGI indicate that the mean changes from baseline on the total PANSS score and on the total BPRS score were comparable in both treatment groups. The number of patients where a clinical improvement at least 20% reduction in baseline score was also similar in both treatment groups. Risperidone caused less extrapyramidal symptoms and less side effects in UKU scale than haloperidol. No significant ECG changes were induced, no relevant changes in blood pressure or clinical laboratory parameters were observed. This study has demonstrated that the combined serotonin 5-HT2 and dopamine-D2 antagonist risperidone is an antipsychotic as potent as haloperidol. Risperidone causes less extrapyramidal symptoms, and is better tolerated than haloperidol. For the purpose of evaluating objectively the characteristics of clinical effects of clozapine and haloperidol, a double-blind comparative trial was conducted on 91 schizophrenic in-patients. The changes of symptoms were assessed by means of several psychiatric and behavioral rating scales. The results were analyzed by means of nonparametric statistical methods. Furthermore, application of multivariate analysis was considered. After 12 weeks of treatment, though no significant difference in general improvement rate was noted between the two groups, a marked different spectrum of clinical effects was observed according to the rating scales. Clozapine is superior in anti-delusional, contact-promoting and sedative anxiolytic effect, while haloperidol is superior in anti-autistic effect. Among the side-effects, extrapyramidal symptoms appeared significatly more severe in the haloperidol group. The frequency of appearance of fever, was significantly greater in the clozapine group than the other. The four dropout cases of the clozapine group were all caused by fever. Through this clinical trial, clinical availability and validity of various statistical analytical methods were reconsidered. In a parallel groups, double-blind study, 54 acutely psychotic schizophrenics were given loxapine or haloperidol parenterally for 24 to 72 hours, then orally for a total study period of up to 10 days. Dosage ratios of loxapine to haloperidol ranged from a minimum of 2.7:1 to a maximum of 4.4:1. Both groups showed significant and rapid improvement from baseline. Forty-eight percent of the loxapine patients and 33% of the haloperidol patients achieved and maintained a global severity of illness rating of mild or better. By the end of the study, 84% of the loxapine patients and 63% of the haloperidol patients had achieved an improvement rating of moderate or marked. This difference approached significance (p less than .10). The most frequently reported adverse experiences were dystonic reactions and akathisia. The number and severity of adverse experiences did not differ significantly between drug groups. Intramuscular loxapine was at least as effective as haloperidol in the initial management of hostile and aggressive schizophrenic patients. The maintenance of therapeutic response after conversion to oral concentrate was comparable with the two drugs. This double-blind placebo controlled, parallel design clinical trial compared the therapeutic effects of the addition of lithium or placebo to haloperidol in 21 seriously ill state hospital patients with DSM-III-R schizophrenia, who did not have concurrent affective disorders and who had not responded to previous trials of conventional antipsychotic medication. During a baseline period of 6 weeks, patients were switched to a stable dose of haloperidol (mean +/- SD dose = 13.6 +/- 8.1 mg/day). Patients were then randomized to receive either lithium or placebo in addition to haloperidol for 8 weeks (mean +/- SD lithium level = 0.98 +/- 0.13 mEq/l). Symptoms and side effects were assessed weekly. Improvement in symptoms correlated with the non-blind adjustment of antipsychotic dose, but not with lithium or placebo treatment. Side effects ratings did not differ between the two groups, but one patient developed a reversible delirium associated with combined lithium/haloperidol treatment. For these long-term, severely ill patients, combined treatment afforded no advantage over treatment with haloperidol alone. Many studies have indicated that excess free radical formation may be involved in the pathogenesis of patients with schizophrenia. Some investigators suggested that the use of free radical scavengers might provide improvement in schizophrenia. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness and to evaluate the side effects of extract of Ginkgo biloba (EGb) plus haloperidol in chronic, treatment-resistant inpatients with schizophrenia.
                One hundred nine patients meeting DSM-III-R criteria for schizophrenia completed a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of EGb plus haloperidol. Fifty-six of the patients were randomly assigned to receive a fixed dose of 360 mg/day of EGb plus a stable dose of haloperidol, 0.25 mg/kg/day, and 53 were assigned to receive placebo plus the same dose of haloperidol for 12 weeks. Patients were assessed using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS), and the Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms (SAPS) at baseline, week 6, and week 12 and the Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale (TESS) for side effects at week 12.
                There was a significant reduction in both groups in BPRS total score after 12 weeks of treatment (p < .05). However, a significant reduction in total SAPS and SANS scores was noted in the EGb group (p < .05), but not in the placebo group. There was a lower SAPS total score in the EGb group than in the placebo group at the end of 12 weeks of treatment (p < .05). Of those treated with EGb plus haloperidol, 57.1% were rated as responders as compared with only 37.7% of those receiving placebo plus haloperidol when assessed by the SAPS (chi2 = 4. 111, p = .043). After 12 weeks of treatment, TESS subscore 1 (behavioral toxicity) and subscore 3 (symptoms of nerve system) were significantly decreased in the EGb group compared with the placebo group (p < .05).
                EGb treatment may enhance the effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs and reduce their extrapyramidal side effects. Quetiapine (ICI 204,636, 'Seroquel') is a new atypical antipsychotic agent with a similar binding profile to the original atypical antipsychotic, clozapine. Its clinical efficacy has already been demonstrated at multiple fixed doses (150-750 mg/day) and has been suggested to be comparable with haloperidol (12 mg/day).
                This international, 6-week, multicentre, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group trial compared quetiapine with haloperidol (455 mg and 8 mg mean total daily doses, respectively) in 448 hospitalized patients with acute exacerbation of chronic or subchronic schizophrenia (DSM-III-R), in order to establish their equivalence in terms of efficacy, and the nature of their tolerability profiles, especially in terms of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) and serum prolactin levels.
                Both quetiapine and haloperidol produced a clear reduction in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) Severity of Illness and Global Improvement scores. At day 42, the PANSS total score was reduced by -18.7+/-1.63 in the quetiapine group, and -22.1+/-1.63 in the haloperidol group (P = 0.13, between-treatment). Quetiapine was better tolerated than haloperidol in terms of EPS as demonstrated by the significant differences in the Simpson Scale and Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale scores (P < 0.05). Although patients in both groups had elevated serum prolactin concentrations at baseline, mean serum prolactin concentration decreased (by 16.5 microg/l) in quetiapine-treated patients, yet increased (by 5.9 microg/l) in patients treated with haloperidol.
                Quetiapine is an effective and well tolerated antipsychotic of comparable efficacy to haloperidol and lacks the latter compound's effect on prolactin and EPS. We carried out a 9-day double-blind clinical trial comparing intramuscular zuclopenthixol acetate with liquid oral haloperidol in the treatment of 40 newly admitted schizophrenic patients with acute exacerbation. A parallel-group design was used with stratification by sex. Zuclopenthixol acetate (50 to 150 mg) was given intramuscularly every 3 days, whereas liquid haloperidol (10 to 30 mg daily) was given orally three times a day, with supplementary doses of each medication given under double-blind conditions when needed for agitation. No other sedative drugs, including benzodiazepines, were administered. The mean daily dose was 18.9 mg for haloperidol as compared with a mean dose per 3 days of 117.6 mg for zuclopenthixol. The two treatments were found to be equally efficacious on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and Clinical Global Impression Scale. Both drugs induced similar extrapyramidal side effects. However, more tremors were associated with zuclopenthixol as was a tendency for tardive dyskinesia to be unmasked at the end of the injection interval. Sedation was higher with zuclopenthixol acetate than with haloperidol. Serum creatinine phosphokinase levels were not significantly increased after zuclopenthixol injections. The results of this trial suggest that zuclopenthixol acetate given intramuscularly every second to third day offers an alternative to conventional liquid oral haloperidol in the management of acute schizophrenia. Thirty acutely hospitalized schizophrenic patients were treated under double blind condition with either haloperidol (40-60 mg/day) or pimozide (40-60 mg/day) for 30 days. Ten patients in the pimozide and eleven in the haloperidol group showed a very good or good clinical response. There were no definite differences of treatment results as assessed by the Global Clinical Impression. Both groups showed a statistically significant decrease of the global scores of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (p less than 0.01). There was a significant decrease of affective bluntedness and anergia in the pimozide but not in the haloperidol group. Extrapyramidal side effects were more pronounced in patients on pimozide who therefore needed more anticholinergic drugs. There was no consistent correlation between drug serum levels and global scores or single factors of the BPRS in either treatment group. It is concluded that pimozide in dose ranges from 40-60 mg has powerful antipsychotic properties indistinguishable from those of haloperidol but exerts stronger extrapyramidal side effects.
If no other alternative exists, sole use of intramuscular haloperidol could be life-saving. Where additional drugs to offset the adverse effects are available, sole use of haloperidol for the extreme emergency, in situations of coercion, could be considered unethical. Addition of the sedating promethazine has support from better-grade evidence from within randomised trials. Use of an alternative antipsychotic drug is only partially supported by fragmented and poor-grade evidence. Evidence for use of newer generation antipsychotic alternatives is no stronger than that for older drugs. Adding a benzodiazepine to haloperidol does not have strong evidence of benefit and carries a risk of additional harm.
After six decades of use for emergency rapid tranquillisation, this is still an area in need of good independent trials relevant to real world practice.