Prospective study of haloperidol plus lorazepam versus droperidol plus midazolam for the treatment of acute agitation in the emergency department.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the combination of intramuscular (IM) droperidol/midazolam to haloperidol/lorazepam regarding time to sedation in patients with acute undifferentiated agitation in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This was a prospective, unblinded observational study in the ED of a university teaching hospital. Subjects with acute undifferentiated agitation refractory to verbal de-escalation were assigned to receive a combination of either haloperidol 5 mg/lorazepam 2 mg or droperidol 5 mg/midazolam 5 mg IM. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients adequately sedated at 10 min defined as ED Sedation Assessment Tool (SAT) score of 0 or less. Secondary outcomes included change in ED SAT score at 5, 15, 30, and 60 min, the need for oxygen supplementation, and the need for airway intervention. RESULTS: A total of 86 patients were enrolled in the study, with 43 patients receiving droperidol/midazolam and 43 patients receiving haloperidol/lorazepam. Ten minutes after receiving medication, 51.2% of patients in the droperidol/midazolam group were adequately sedated compared to 7% of patients in the haloperidol/lorazepam group (OR: 14; 95% CI: 3.7, 52.1). Median time to adequate sedation was 10 min for the droperidol/midazolam group and 30 min for the haloperidol/lorazepam group. Eleven patients (25.6%) in the droperidol/midazolam group received oxygen supplementation compared to four patients (9.3%) in the haloperidol/lorazepam group. No study patients experienced extrapyramidal symptoms or required endotracheal intubation. CONCLUSION: Intramuscular droperidol/midazolam was superior to intramuscular haloperidol/lorazepam in achieving adequate sedation at 10 min. Patients in the droperidol/midazolam arm may be more likely to receive oxygen supplementation than those in the haloperidol/lorazepam arm.

Expanding expedited partner therapy and HIV prophylaxis in the emergency department.

PURPOSE: Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) continue to have a disproportionate impact on individuals belonging to sexual, gender, and racial minorities. Across the nation, many emergency medicine pharmacists (EMPs) possess the skills and knowledge to expand the provision of expedited partner therapy (EPT) for STIs and provide HIV prophylaxis within existing practice frameworks. This report serves as a call to action for expanded provision of EPT and HIV prophylaxis by EMPs and highlights current barriers and solutions to increase pharmacist involvement in these practice areas. SUMMARY: Emergency medicine pharmacy practice continues to expand to allow for limited prescribing authority through collaborative practice agreements (CPAs). In recent years, CPA restrictions have been changed to facilitate treatment of more patients with less bureaucracy. This report addresses the unique challenges and opportunities for expanding EPT and HIV pre- and postexposure prophylaxis provision by pharmacists in emergency departments (EDs). Furthermore, current strategies and treatments for EPT, such as patient-delivered partner therapy and HIV prophylaxis, are discussed. Pharmacist involvement in STI treatment and HIV prevention is a key strategy to increase access to high-risk populations with high ED utilization and help close current gaps in care. CONCLUSION: Expanding EMP provision of EPT and HIV prophylaxis may be beneficial to reducing the incidence of STIs and HIV infection in the community. CPAs offer a feasible solution to increase pharmacist involvement in the provision of these treatments. Legislative efforts to expand pharmacist scope of practice can also contribute to increasing access to EPT and HIV prophylaxis. With these efforts, EMPs can play an essential role in the fight against STIs and HIV.