Pharmacological control of acute agitation: focus on intramuscular preparations.

Acute agitation in the psychiatric emergency setting is a common presentation, which can endanger the patient, caregivers and professional staff. Rapid and effective treatment, followed by ongoing evaluation and maintenance treatment where appropriate, is key to circumvent negative outcomes. Nonpharmacological measures are the first step in treating the acutely agitated patient, and include verbal intervention and physical restraint. Pharmacological treatment is often required to ensure the safety of the patient, caregivers and the treatment team. The need for drug delivery in uncooperative patients favours the use of intramuscular preparations for the acutely agitated patient. Intramuscular treatment options include benzodiazepines, conventional antipsychotics and atypical antipsychotics. Each of these medications offers a unique pharmacological profile that must be considered when treating acutely agitated patients, who may be unwilling or unable to accurately communicate their co-morbid conditions and concomitant medications.

Intramuscular aripiprazole in the control of agitation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate response to intramuscular (IM) aripiprazole injections using secondary analyses from clinical trials. METHODS: Data from one trial in patients with bipolar I disorder and two trials in patients with schizophrenia were assembled and used for three secondary analyses. Analysis 1 looked at data from "nonsedated" patients (i.e., patients with scores < 8 [deep sleep] or 9 [unarousable] on the Agitation-Calmness Evaluation Scale [ACES]). In analysis 2, patients were subdivided into "higher" and "lower" agitation groups according to a median split on the baseline score for the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) Excited Component (PEC) (median = 18). Analysis 3 looked at the patients who received a second injection within the 24-hour study period. In each analysis, the mean change from baseline in PEC scores was re-evaluated. RESULTS: Analysis 1 found that nonsedated patients with bipolar I disorder and schizophrenia showed significant decreases in PEC scores following treatment with aripiprazole IM (p < 0.005). Analysis 2 found that aripiprazole IM significantly reduced agitation compared with placebo in patients with bipolar I disorder who had lower baseline agitation (p < 0.01), while patients with bipolar I disorder who had higher baseline agitation showed similarly large PEC decreases with aripiprazole (-9.9) and placebo (-7.9). Patients with schizophrenia showed significant reductions in PEC scores compared with placebo regardless of baseline level of agitation (p < 0.01). Analysis 3 found that a second injection of aripiprazole IM significantly reduced agitation in patients with bipolar I disorder or schizophrenia (p < 0.05); repeated injections were safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Improvements with aripiprazole IM appeared to be specific to core agitation symptoms, as opposed to nonspecific sedation, and to be independent of baseline level of agitation. Furthermore, patients benefited from a repeated aripiprazole injection when clinically warranted. These results address important clinical issues regarding use of aripiprazole IM in treating agitation.

Efficacy and safety of oral aripiprazole compared with haloperidol in patients transitioning from acute treatment with intramuscular formulations.

OBJECTIVE: To report efficacy and safety of transitioning patients receiving intramuscular (IM) formulations of aripiprazole or haloperidol to their respective oral formulations. METHODS: 448 agitated patients with schizophrenia (73%) or schizoaffective disorder (27%) were randomized to receive aripiprazole IM 9.75 mg, haloperidol IM 6.5 mg, or placebo IM within 24 hours. Patients treated with aripiprazole IM or haloperidol IM who completed this 24-hour IM phase were transitioned to the respective blinded oral formulations for 4 days (aripiprazole 10-15 mg/day, n = 153; haloperidol 7.5-10 mg/day, n = 151). Patients treated with placebo IM were transitioned to oral aripiprazole (analysis not included). The primary efficacy measure was mean change in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component (PEC) score from baseline of oral phase (last value from 24-hour IM phase) to endpoint (study day 5, last observation carried forward). RESULTS: During the oral phase, aripiprazole 15 mg and haloperidol 10 mg were both effective in maintaining responses achieved on all efficacy measures during the 24-hour IM phase. Mean improvements in PEC scores from study day 1 to 5 were -1.37 for aripiprazole and -1.40 for haloperidol (p = NS for aripiprazole versus haloperidol). Oral aripiprazole was well tolerated. Extrapyramidal symptom-related adverse events were lower for aripiprazole (1.3%) than haloperidol (8.0%). Nausea and vomiting occurred more frequently in patients receiving aripiprazole (3.9% and 2.6%, respectively) than in those receiving haloperidol (0.7% and 1.3%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder treated with aripiprazole IM or haloperidol IM demonstrated similar effective and safe transition to their respective oral formulations. Initial benefits of reduced agitation and improved clinical status during the IM phase of the study were maintained throughout the oral phase of the study with good tolerability.

Management of acute agitation in patients with bipolar disorder: efficacy and safety of intramuscular aripiprazole.

To investigate the efficacy and safety of intramuscular (IM) aripiprazole for the treatment of agitation in patients with bipolar I disorder, manic or mixed episodes. In total, 301 patients experiencing acute agitation were randomized to IM aripiprazole 9.75 mg per injection (n = 78), IM aripiprazole 15 mg per injection (n = 78), IM lorazepam 2 mg per injection (n = 70), or IM placebo (n = 75) in this double-blind multicenter study. Patients could receive up to 3 injections over 24 hours. Primary efficacy measure was mean change in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale Excited Component score from baseline at 2 hours after first injection. Mean improvements in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale Excited Component score at 2 hours were significantly greater with IM aripiprazole (9.75 mg, -8.7; 15 mg, -8.7) and IM lorazepam (-9.6) versus IM placebo (-5.8; P

Selegiline transdermal system for the treatment of major depressive disorder: an 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, flexible-dose titration trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the selegiline transdermal system (STS) administered in a dose range of 6 mg/24 hours to 12 mg/24 hours for treating major depressive disorder (MDD). METHOD: Patients meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD (N = 265) were randomly assigned to blinded treatment with STS or a matching placebo patch for 8 weeks. Patients failing to meet or maintain protocol-defined therapeutic response criteria at predetermined time points had their STS (or placebo) dose increased. Assessments were conducted at weeks 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8. Patients were not required to follow a tyramine-restricted diet. The study ran from September 2001 through August 2002. RESULTS: Selegiline transdermal system treatment resulted in significantly greater improvement (p < or = .05) compared with placebo treatment on the 3 depression rating scales: the 28-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D28) (primary outcome measure), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, and the Inventory for Depressive Symptomatology-Self Rated. The treatment effect measured by the HAM-D28 was modest, primarily due to insomnia side effects. The antidepressant efficacy of STS was substantiated further by the significantly greater improvement in core depression symptoms (HAM-D Bech-6 subscale). The side effects of highest incidence were application site reactions and insomnia. There were no safety concerns based on routine clinical laboratory and electrocardiogram monitoring, and there were no occurrences of hypertensive crisis. CONCLUSION: Results of this double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose titration trial provide evidence of short-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of STS in the dose range of 6 mg/24 hours to 12 mg/24 hours for treatment of MDD. Selegiline transdermal system has an improved margin of safety compared with oral monoamine oxidase inhibitors and represents a useful addition to the existing array of antidepressants.

Best clinical practice with ziprasidone IM: update after 2 years of experience.

Acute agitation is a common psychiatric emergency often treated with intramuscular (i.m.) medication when rapid control is necessary or the patient refuses to take an oral agent. Conventional i.m. antipsychotics are associated with side effects, particularly movement disorders, that may alarm patients and render them unreceptive to taking these medications again. Ziprasidone (Geodon) is the first second-generation, or atypical, antipsychotic to become available in an i.m. formulation. Ziprasidone IM was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2002 for the treatment of agitation in patients with schizophrenia. In October 2004, a roundtable panel of physicians with extensive experience in the management of acutely agitated patients met to review the first 2 years of experience with this agent. This monograph, a product of that meeting, discusses clinical experience to date with ziprasidone IM and offers recommendations on its use in various settings. In clinical trials, patients treated with ziprasidone IM demonstrated significant and rapid (within 15-30 minutes) reduction in agitation and improvement in psychotic symptoms, agitation, and hostility to an extent greater than or equal to that attained with haloperidol i.m. Tolerability of ziprasidone IM was superior to that of haloperidol IM, with a lower burden of movement disorders. Clinical trials have also shown that ziprasidone IM can be administered with benzodiazepines without adverse consequences. Transition from i.m. to oral ziprasidone has been well tolerated, with maintenance of symptom control. The most common adverse events associated with ziprasidone IM were insomnia, headache, and dizziness in fixed-dose trials and insomnia and hypertension in flexible-dose trials. No consistent pattern of escalating incidence of adverse events with escalating ziprasidone doses has been observed. Changes in QTc interval associated with ziprasidone at peak serum concentrations are modest and comparable to those seen with haloperidol IM. Results of randomized clinical trials of ziprasidone IM have been corroborated in studies in real-world treatment settings involving patients with extreme agitation or a recent history of alcohol or substance abuse. In these circumstances, clinically significant improvement was seen within 30 minutes of ziprasidone IM administration, without regard to the suspected underlying etiology of agitation. Agents with a good safety/tolerability profile, such as ziprasidone IM, may be more cost effective long term than older agents, due to reduced incidence of acute adverse effects (eg, acute dystonia) that often require extended periods of observation. Additional trials of ziprasidone IM in agitated patients in a variety of clinical setting are warranted to generate comparative risk/benefit data with conventional agents and other second-generation antipsychotics.

The tolerability of intramuscular ziprasidone and haloperidol treatment and the transition to oral therapy.

The intramuscular (i.m.) formulation of ziprasidone offers promise as an alternative to conventional i.m. agents for the short-term management of agitated patients with psychosis. This 7-day, randomized, open-label study evaluated the tolerability of ziprasidone i.m. and haloperidol i.m. in hospitalized patients with a psychotic disorder and moderate psychopathology. Patients received three fixed doses of ziprasidone i.m. 5 mg qid (n=69), 10mg qid (currently maximum recommended daily dose in USA; n=71), 20mg qid (n=66), or flexible-dose/ flexible-schedule haloperidol i.m. up to 10 mg bid-qid (n=100) for 3 days. This was followed by oral treatment with the same medication for 4 days. Ziprasidone i.m. was associated with a notably lower burden of movement disorders than haloperidol i.m. (mean 11 mg/day). No bradycardia, sinus pauses, disinhibition, confusion, excessive sedation or respiratory depression was observed with ziprasidone. No safety issues were identified with the coadministration of lorazepam with the i.m. formulations of either agent. All three ziprasidone i.m. doses and haloperidol i.m. maintained control of symptoms and, following the transition to oral treatment, symptoms remained controlled. Ziprasidone i.m. 5,10, and 20 mg qid, given for 3 days were well tolerated. The transition from i.m. to oral ziprasidone was well tolerated with continuing maintenance of symptom control.

Pregabalin in generalized anxiety disorder: a placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Current drug therapies for generalized anxiety disorder have limitations. In a controlled trial, the novel agent pregabalin was studied for the treatment of patients with generalized anxiety disorder. METHOD: In this double-blind study, patients with DSM-IV generalized anxiety disorder were randomly assigned to receive pregabalin (150 mg/day or 600 mg/day), lorazepam (6 mg/day), or placebo. A 1-week placebo lead-in was followed by 4 weeks of treatment and then a 1-week dose taper. The primary efficacy measure was the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale score at endpoint. RESULTS: A total of 276 patients were randomly assigned to a treatment group and received at least one dose of their assigned medication. Fewer patients given lorazepam (59%, N=40 of 68) completed the trial than did those given placebo (73%, N=50 of 69), 600 mg/day of pregabalin (71%, N=50 of 70), or 150 mg/day or pregabalin (90%, N=62 of 69). The mean baseline-to-endpoint decreases in total Hamilton anxiety scale score in the patients given 150 mg/day of pregabalin (-9.2), 600 mg/day of pregabalin (-10.3), and lorazepam (-12.0) were significantly greater than the decrease in those given placebo (-6.8). As early as the week 1 observation, pregabalin significantly reduced the total Hamilton anxiety scale score compared with placebo. The most frequent adverse events reported for pregabalin and lorazepam were somnolence and dizziness. There were no serious adverse events reported by patients given pregabalin, and no withdrawal syndrome was associated with pregabalin treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that pregabalin is an effective, rapidly acting, and safe treatment for generalized anxiety disorder. In short-term treatment, pregabalin does not appear to have the withdrawal symptoms associated with the benzodiazepines.

Management of acute psychosis: from emergency to stabilization.

In treating and managing acute psychosis in patients with schizophrenia, early intervention may be valuable. The need to quickly control severe symptoms, however, must be balanced with a treatment algorithm that is both safe and effective. The present management of acute psychotic agitation varies among clinicians. Key treatment goals have been to calm the agitated, assaultive, violent, or disruptive patient, minimize the danger to self and others, and achieve a smooth transition from intramuscular to oral maintenance. For many years, intramuscular treatment with benzodiazepines and/or conventional antipsychotics, such as haloperidol, has been the mainstay of treatment for acute psychosis. Unfortunately, the poor tolerability of conventional antipsychotics compromises their usefulness for both short- and long-term treatment. Although new antipsychotics have a more favorable side-effect profile, the transition from an intramuscular formulation has been problematic. Fortunately, the development of intramuscular formulations of olanzapine and ziprasidone offer new treatment options for patients experiencing acute psychotic episodes. This article will review the use of intramuscular agents, standard antipsychotics, and new antipsychotics in the emergency room setting. The strengths and limitations of each will be discussed.

Efficacy and safety of aripiprazole and haloperidol versus placebo in patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder.

BACKGROUND: Aripiprazole is an investigational agent for treating schizophrenia that has a novel pharmacologic profile. The present study investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of aripiprazole and haloperidol compared with placebo. METHOD: A 4-week, double-blind, randomized study, conducted at 36 U.S. centers between July 1997 and June 1998, compared aripiprazole (15 mg/day, 30 mg/day) to placebo, with haloperidol (10 mg/day) as an active control. Fixed doses of each agent were administered from day 1 throughout the study. A total of 414 patients with a primary DSM-IV diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were randomized. Efficacy measures included the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total, PANSS positive, PANSS negative, PANSS-derived Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) core, Clinical Global Impressions (CGI)-Severity of Illness, and mean CGI-Improvement scores. Safety and tolerability evaluations included extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), weight gain, serum prolactin level, and QTc interval. RESULTS: Both doses of aripiprazole and haloperidol, 10 mg, produced statistically significant (p < or = .05) improvements from baseline in PANSS total, PANSS positive, PANSS-derived BPRS core, and CGI-Severity scores and significantly lower CGI-Improvement scores at endpoint, compared with placebo. Aripiprazole, 15 mg, and haloperidol, 10 mg, significantly improved PANSS negative score compared with placebo. Both aripiprazole doses and haloperidol separated from placebo for PANSS total scores at week 2. Unlike haloperidol, aripiprazole was not associated with significant EPS or prolactin elevation at endpoint compared with placebo. There were no statistically significant differences in mean changes in body weight across the treatment groups versus placebo, and no patients receiving aripiprazole experienced clinically significant increases in QTc interval. CONCLUSION: Aripiprazole, effective against positive and negative symptoms, is a safe and well-tolerated potential treatment for schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder.

Best clinical practice with ziprasidone: update after one year of experience.

This article presents clinical recommendations for using ziprasidone based on information from a year of post-marketing experience. The recommendations are based on the clinical literature, the package insert, presentations at recent meetings, data on file with the manufacturer, and the consensus of a panel of expert psychiatrists. The article provides updates on efficacy and safety data and gives recommendations for dosing and switching strategies. With regard to the QTc issue, there has not been any case of torsades de pointes reported in the more than 150,000 patients who have received ziprasidone since its approval. Ziprasidone is weight neutral and does not appear to cause increases in glucose or lipid levels or in insulin resistance. The panel generally recommends beginning with an initial dose of 80 mg/day (40 mg b.i.d.) rather than the 40 mg/day dose recommended in the package insert. The ability to begin with a therapeutic dose and to titrate up rapidly is an advantage of ziprasidone, especially in treatment settings where admission time is short. In making an elective switch to ziprasidone, the panel recommends a variety of different switching strategies but stresses the importance of trying to maintain a therapeutic dose of one antipsychotic at all times.