Rapid tranquillisation in psychiatric emergency settings in India: pragmatic randomised controlled trial of intramuscular olanzapine versus intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine. Rapid tranquillisation in psychiatric emergency settings in Brazil: pragmatic randomised controlled trial of intramuscular haloperidol versus intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine. Rapid tranquillisation for agitated patients in emergency psychiatric rooms: a randomised trial of midazolam versus haloperidol plus promethazine.
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 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 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.
All treatments evaluated within the included studies are effective. Benzodiazepines, however, have the potential to cause respiratory depression, probably midazolam more so than lorazepam, and use of this group of drugs outside of services fully confident of observing for and managing the consequences of respiratory distress is difficult to justify. Haloperidol used on its own is at such risk of generating preventable adverse effects that unless it is the only choice, this evidence directs that this sole treatment should be avoided. Olanzapine IM is valuable when compared with haloperidol plus promethazine but its duration of action is short and re-injection is frequently needed. Haloperidol plus promethazine used in two diverse situations in Brazil and India has much evidence to support its swift and safe clinically valuable effects.