Efficacy and Safety of Loxapine in Acute Agitation: A Systematic Review of Interventional Studies.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of loxapine in acute agitation.Data Sources: PubMed, Cochrane database, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to identify relevant articles published in English or French from inception to March 15, 2022. The term "Loxap*" was searched in titles and abstracts.Study Selection and Data Extraction: Interventional studies that compared the effectiveness of loxapine to any other intervention (including another administration route or dosage of loxapine, other drugs, and placebo) in acute agitation were included. From the 1,435 articles initially identified, and after the assessment of 73 full texts, 7 articles were selected, encompassing 1,276 participants. Two reviewers independently extracted data of interest using a predefined form.Results: Among included studies, 5 were double-blind, 2 were open-label, and all were randomized. The risk of bias was low for 2 studies, involving 658 participants. Four articles compared loxapine to placebo, and 3 compared it with haloperidol, aripiprazole, and droperidol. Loxapine was found to be more effective and faster regarding acute agitation control. Also, across included studies, loxapine was well-tolerated, with mildly or moderately severe adverse effects.Conclusions: Notwithstanding methodological limitations of the included studies, this systematic review provides reassuring results regarding the use of loxapine in acute agitation. However, further studies with methodological optimizations might be of interest.Prim Care Companion CNS Disord 2023;25(6):23r03552. Author affiliations are listed at the end of this article.

Exploring the implementation and underlying mechanisms of centralized referral systems to access specialized health services in Quebec.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, Quebec, a Canadian province, implemented a program to improve access to specialized health services (Accès priorisé aux services spécialisés (APSS)), which includes single regional access points for processing requests to such services via primary care (Centre de répartition des demandes de services (CRDS)). Family physicians fill out and submit requests for initial consultations with specialists using a standardized form with predefined prioritization levels according to listed reasons for consultations, which is then sent to the centralized referral system (the CRDS) where consultations with specialists are assigned. We 1) described the APSS-CRDS program in three Quebec regions using logic models; 2) compared similarities and differences in the components and processes of the APSS-CRDS models; and 3) explored contextual factors influencing the models' similarities and differences. METHODS: We relied on a qualitative study to develop logic models of the implemented APSS-CRDS program in three regions. Semi-structured interviews with health administrators (n = 9) were conducted. The interviews were analysed using a framework analysis approach according to the APSS-CRDS's components included in the initially designed program, Mitchell and Lewis (2003)'s logic model framework, and Chaudoir and colleagues (2013)'s framework on contextual factors' influence on an innovation's implementation. RESULTS: Findings show the APSS-CRDS program's regional variability in the implementation of its components, including its structure (centralized/decentralized), human resources involved in implementation and operation, processes to obtain specialists' availability and assess/relay requests, as well as monitoring methods. Variability may be explained by contextual factors' influence, like ministerial and medical associations' involvement, collaborations, the context's implementation readiness, physician practice characteristics, and the program's adaptability. INTERPRETATION: Findings are useful to inform decision-makers on the design of programs like the APSS-CRDS, which aim to improve access to specialists, the essential components for the design of these types of interventions, and how contextual factors may influence program implementation. Variability in program design is important to consider as it may influence anticipated effects, a next step for the research team. Results may also inform stakeholders should they wish to implement similar programs to increase access to specialized health services via primary care.