Search

Background: Digital approaches may be helpful in augmenting care to address unmet mental health needs, particularly for schizophrenia and severe mental illness (SMI). Objective: An international multidisciplinary group was convened to reach a consensus on the challenges and potential solutions regarding collecting data, delivering treatment, and the ethical challenges in digital mental health approaches for schizophrenia and SMI. Methods: The consensus development panel method was used, with an in-person meeting of 2 groups: the expert group and the panel. Membership was multidisciplinary including those with lived experience, with equal participation at all stages and coproduction of the consensus outputs and summary. Relevant literature was shared in advance of the meeting, and a systematic search of the recent literature on digital mental health interventions for schizophrenia and psychosis was completed to ensure that the panel was informed before the meeting with the expert group. Results: Four broad areas of challenge and proposed solutions were identified: (1) user involvement for real coproduction; (2) new approaches to methodology in digital mental health, including agreed standards, data sharing, measuring harms, prevention strategies, and mechanistic research; (3) regulation and funding issues; and (4) implementation in real-world settings (including multidisciplinary collaboration, training, augmenting existing service provision, and social and population-focused approaches). Examples are provided with more detail on human-centered research design, lived experience perspectives, and biomedical ethics in digital mental health approaches for SMI. Conclusions: The group agreed by consensus on a number of recommendations: (1) a new and improved approach to digital mental health research (with agreed reporting standards, data sharing, and shared protocols), (2) equal emphasis on social and population research as well as biological and psychological approaches, (3) meaningful collaborations across varied disciplines that have previously not worked closely together, (4) increased focus on the business model and product with planning and new funding structures across the whole development pathway, (5) increased focus and reporting on ethical issues and potential harms, and (6) organizational changes to allow for true communication and coproduction with those with lived experience of SMI. This study approach, combining an international expert meeting with patient and public involvement and engagement throughout the process, consensus methodology, discussion, and publication, is a helpful way to identify directions for future research and clinical implementation in rapidly evolving areas and can be combined with measurements of real-world clinical impact over time. Similar initiatives will be helpful in other areas of digital mental health and similarly fast-evolving fields to focus research and organizational change and effect improved real-world clinical implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Aripiprazole augmentation is proven effective for antidepressant-refractory depression, but its licensed dose range is wide and optimal dosage remains unclear.Aims: To find the optimal dosage of aripiprazole augmentation.Method: Multiple electronic databases were searched (from inception to 16 February 2021) to identify all assessor-masked randomised controlled trials evaluating aripiprazole augmentation therapy in adults (≥18 years old, both genders) with major depressive disorder showing inadequate response to at least one antidepressant treatment. A random-effects, one-stage dose-effect meta-analysis with restricted cubic splines was conducted. Outcomes were efficacy (treatment response: ≥50% reduction in depression severity), tolerability (drop-out due to adverse effects) and acceptability (drop-out for any reason) after 8 weeks of treatment (range 4-12 weeks).Results: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. All were individually randomised, placebo-controlled, multi-centre, parallel studies including 2625 participants in total. The maximum target dose-efficacy curve showed an increase up to doses between 2 mg (odds ratio OR = 1.46, 95% CI 1.15-1.85) and 5 mg (OR = 1.93, 95% CI 1.33-2.81), and then a non-increasing trend through the higher licensed doses up to 20 mg (OR = 1.90, 95% CI 1.52-2.37). Tolerability showed a similar trend with greater uncertainty. Acceptability showed no significant difference through the examined dose range. Certainty of evidence was low to moderate.Conclusions: Low-dose aripiprazole as augmentation treatment might achieve the optimal balance between efficacy, tolerability and acceptability in the acute treatment of antidepressant-refractory depression. However, the small number of included studies and the overall moderate to high risk of bias seriously compromise the reliability of the results. Further research is required to investigate the benefits of low versus high dose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Pharmacotherapy plays an important role in the treatment of major depression. At the initiation of antidepressant treatment, both improvement of symptoms in the short term and relapse prevention in the long term should be taken into account. However, there is insufficient evidence regarding the efficacy and the acceptability of continuation/maintenance treatments and the relative efficacy/acceptability of antidepressants. Objective We will conduct a pairwise meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis (NMA) to examine the relative efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants in the long-term treatment of major depression. Methods and analysis We will include double-blind randomised controlled trials comparing any of the following antidepressants, which we included in our previous NMA of the acute treatment for major depression, with placebo or with another active drug for long-term treatment of major depression: agomelatine, amitriptyline, bupropion, citalopram, clomipramine, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, levomilnacipran, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, trazodone, venlafaxine, vilazodone and vortioxetine. Our primary outcomes will be sustained response and all-cause dropouts. We will include four types of designs that are used to investigate long-term treatment. We will conduct two main analyses. First, we will conduct a pairwise meta-analysis comparing all antidepressants versus placebo to investigate whether continuing antidepressants after achieving a positive response in the acute-phase treatment is beneficial and/or safe. Second, we will conduct an NMA to examine the comparative efficacy and acceptability of the drugs. We will use a novel approach that will combine the results of acute-phase treatment NMA with long-term treatment studies to include all related designs in the NMA. We will ensure the validity of combining different designs and our new approach by checking the distribution of important effect modifiers and consistency of network. Ethics and dissemination This study did not require ethical approval. We will disseminate our findings by publishing results in a peer-reviewed journal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Psychotherapy is a complex intervention, consisting of various components and being implemented flexibly in consideration of individual patient's characteristics. It is then of utmost importance to know which of the various components or combinations thereof are more efficacious, what their specific effect sizes are and which types of patients may benefit more from different components or their combinations. Methods and analysis Internet-delivered cognitive-behavioural therapy (iCBT) offers a unique opportunity to systematically review and quantitatively disentangle the efficacy of various components because, unlike face-to-face cognitive-behavioural therapy, it allows identification of constituent components that are actually delivered to patients. We will systematically identify all randomised controlled trials that compared any form of iCBT against another form or a control intervention in the acute phase treatment of adult depression. We will apply component network meta-analysis (cNMA) to dismantle efficacy of individual components. We will use individual participant data in the cNMA to identify participant-level prognostic factors and effect modifiers for different components. Ethics and dissemination The investigators of the primary trials will have obtained ethical approval for the data used in the present study and for sharing the data, if this was necessary, according to local requirements and was not covered from the initial ethic assessment. Results from this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences. PROSPERO registration number CRD42018104683. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Anhedonia is a key symptom of depression, and it has been suggested as a potential target for future individualised treatments. However, much is unknown about how interventions enhancing dopaminergic pathways may affect anhedonia symptoms in the context of depression. Methods: We will perform independent searches in multiple electronic databases to identify clinical and animal experimental studies on pro-dopaminergic interventions in individuals with depression or animal models for depression. The primary outcomes will be overall anhedonia symptoms and their behavioural proxies in animals. Secondary outcomes will include side effects and neurobiological measures. At least two independent reviewers will conduct the study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments using pre-defined tools according to each record's study design. We will develop ontologies to facilitate study identification and data extraction. We will synthesise data from clinical and animal studies separately. If appropriate, we will use random-effects meta-analyses, or synthesis without meta-analyses. We will investigate study characteristics as potential sources of heterogeneity. We will evaluate the confidence in the evidence for each outcome and source of evidence, considering the summary of the association, potential concerns regarding internal and external validity, and reporting biases. When multiple sources of evidence are available for an outcome, we will draw an overall conclusion in a triangulation meeting involving a multidisciplinary team of experts. We plan updates of the review every 6 months, and any future modifications to the protocol will be documented. We will co-produce this review with multiple stakeholders. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023451821., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Edoardo G. Ostinelli received research and consultancy fees from Angelini Pharma. Carmen Moreno received honoraria as a consultant and/or advisor and/or for lectures from Angelini, Compass, Esteve, Exeltis Janssen, Lundbeck, Neuraxpharm, Nuvelution, Otsuka, Pfizer, Servier and Sunovion outside the submitted work. Toshi A Furukawa received personal fees from Boehringer- Ingelheim, DT Axis, Kyoto University Original, Shionogi, and SONY, and a grant from Shionogi outside the submitted work; in addition, TAF has patents 2020-548587 and 2022-082495 pending, and intellectual properties for Kokoro-app licensed to Mitsubishi-Tanabe. Andrea Cipriani received research, educational and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Paediatric Trials, CARIPLO Foundation, Lundbeck, and Angelini Pharma., (Copyright: © 2023 Ostinelli EG et al.)

Background: There is an urgent need to develop more effective and safer antipsychotics beyond dopamine 2 receptor antagonists. An emerging and promising approach is TAAR1 agonism. Therefore, we will conduct a living systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize and triangulate the evidence from preclinical animal experiments and clinical studies on the efficacy, safety, and underlying mechanism of action of TAAR1 agonism for psychosis., Methods: Independent searches will be conducted in multiple electronic databases to identify clinical and animal experimental studies comparing TAAR1 agonists with licensed antipsychotics or other control conditions in individuals with psychosis or animal models for psychosis, respectively. The primary outcomes will be overall psychotic symptoms and their behavioural proxies in animals. Secondary outcomes will include side effects and neurobiological measures. Two independent reviewers will conduct study selection, data extraction using predefined forms, and risk of bias assessment using suitable tools based on the study design. Ontologies will be developed to facilitate study identification and data extraction. Data from clinical and animal studies will be synthesized separately using random-effects meta-analysis if appropriate, or synthesis without meta-analysis. Study characteristics will be investigated as potential sources of heterogeneity. Confidence in the evidence for each outcome and source of evidence will be evaluated, considering the summary of the association, potential concerns regarding internal and external validity, and reporting biases. When multiple sources of evidence are available for an outcome, an overall conclusion will be drawn in a triangulation meeting involving a multidisciplinary team of experts. We plan trimonthly updates of the review, and any modifications in the protocol will be documented. The review will be co-produced by multiple stakeholders aiming to produce impactful and relevant results and bridge the gap between preclinical and clinical research on psychosis., Protocol Registration: PROSPERO-ID: CRD42023451628., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Spyridon Siafis: None Robert McCutcheon: RM received speaker/consultancy fees from Karuna, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim and Otsuka, and is director of a company that hosts psychotropic prescribing decision tools. Virginia Chiocchia: None. Edoardo G. Ostinelli: EGO has received research and consultancy fees from Angelini Pharma. Simonne Wright: None. Claire Stansfield: None. Damian Omari Juma: None. Ioannis Mantas: None. Oliver D. Howes: ODH is a part-time employee of H. Lundbeck A/S and has received investigator-initiated research funding from and/or participated in advisory/speaker meetings organized by Angellini, Autifony, Biogen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Heptares, Global Medical Education, Invicro, Jansenn, Lundbeck, Neurocrine, Otsuka, Sunovion, Rand, Recordati, Roche and Viatris/Mylan. Neither Howes or his family have holdings/a financial stake in any pharmaceutical company Grazia Rutigliano: None. Fiona Ramage: None. Francesca Tinsdeall: None. Claire Friedrich: None. Lea Milligan: None. Carmen Moreno: CM received honoraria as a consultant and/or advisor and/or for lectures from Angelini, Compass, Esteve, Exeltis Janssen, Lundbeck, Neuraxpharm, Nuvelution, Otsuka, Pfizer, Servier and Sunovion outside the submitted work. Julian H Elliott: None. James Thomas: None. Emily Sena: None. Malcolm R. MacLeod: None. Soraya Seedat: None Georgia Salanti: None. Jennifer Potts: None. Andrea Cipriani: AC received research, educational and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Paediatric Trials, CARIPLO Foundation, Lundbeck, and Angelini Pharma. Stefan Leucht: SL has received honoraria as advisor and/or for lectures and/or for educational material from Alkermes, Angelini, Apsen, Eisai, Gedeon Richter, Janssen, Karuna, Kynexis, Lundbeck, Medichem, Medscape, Merck Sharpp and Dome, Mitshubishi, Neurotorium, NovoNordisk, Otsuka, Recordati, Roche, Rovi, Sanofi Aventis, TEVA, (Copyright: © 2023 Siafis S et al.)

Introduction: Information on the off-label use of Long-Acting Injectable (LAI) antipsychotics in the real world is lacking. In this study, we aimed to identify the sociodemographic and clinical features of patients treated with on- vs off-label LAIs and predictors of off-label First- or Second-Generation Antipsychotic (FGA vs. SGA) LAI choice in everyday clinical practice., Method: In a naturalistic national cohort of 449 patients who initiated LAI treatment in the STAR Network Depot Study, two groups were identified based on off- or on-label prescriptions. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to test several clinically relevant variables and identify those associated with the choice of FGA vs SGA prescription in the off-label group., Results: SGA LAIs were more commonly prescribed in everyday practice, without significant differences in their on- and off-label use. Approximately 1 in 4 patients received an off-label prescription. In the off-label group, the most frequent diagnoses were bipolar disorder (67.5%) or any personality disorder (23.7%). FGA vs SGA LAI choice was significantly associated with BPRS thought disorder (OR = 1.22, CI95% 1.04 to 1.43, p = 0.015) and hostility/suspiciousness (OR = 0.83, CI95% 0.71 to 0.97, p = 0.017) dimensions. The likelihood of receiving an SGA LAI grew steadily with the increase of the BPRS thought disturbance score. Conversely, a preference towards prescribing an FGA was observed with higher scores at the BPRS hostility/suspiciousness subscale., Conclusion: Our study is the first to identify predictors of FGA vs SGA choice in patients treated with off-label LAI antipsychotics. Demographic characteristics, i.e. age, sex, and substance/alcohol use co-morbidities did not appear to influence the choice towards FGAs or SGAs. Despite a lack of evidence, clinicians tend to favour FGA over SGA LAIs in bipolar or personality disorder patients with relevant hostility. Further research is needed to evaluate treatment adherence and clinical effectiveness of these prescriptive patterns., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Psychotherapy is a complex intervention, consisting of various components and being implemented flexibly in consideration of individual patient's characteristics. It is then of utmost importance to know which of the various components or combinations thereof are more efficacious, what their specific effect sizes are and which types of patients may benefit more from different components or their combinations., Methods and Analysis: Internet-delivered cognitive-behavioural therapy (iCBT) offers a unique opportunity to systematically review and quantitatively disentangle the efficacy of various components because, unlike face-to-face cognitive-behavioural therapy, it allows identification of constituent components that are actually delivered to patients. We will systematically identify all randomised controlled trials that compared any form of iCBT against another form or a control intervention in the acute phase treatment of adult depression. We will apply component network meta-analysis (cNMA) to dismantle efficacy of individual components. We will use individual participant data in the cNMA to identify participant-level prognostic factors and effect modifiers for different components., Ethics and Dissemination: The investigators of the primary trials will have obtained ethical approval for the data used in the present study and for sharing the data, if this was necessary, according to local requirements and was not covered from the initial ethic assessment. Results from this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42018104683., Competing Interests: Competing interests: TAF has received lecture fees from Meiji, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, MSD and Pfizer. He has received research support from Mitsubishi-Tanabe. He has a patent 2018-177688 pending. All the other authors report no conflict of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Aggressive, agitated or violent behaviour due to psychosis constitutes an emergency psychiatric treatment where fast-acting interventions are required. Risperidone is a widely accessible antipsychotic that can be used to manage psychosis-induced aggression or agitation., Objectives: To examine whether oral risperidone alone is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (up to April 2017); this register is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including AMED, BIOSIS CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rapid use of risperidone and other drugs, combinations of drugs or placebo for people exhibiting aggression or agitation (or both) thought to be due to psychosis., Data Collection and Analysis: We independently inspected all citations from searches, identified relevant abstracts, and independently extracted data from all included studies. For binary data we calculated risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated mean difference (MD), all with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and used a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and used the GRADE approach to produce a 'Summary of findings' tables., Main Results: The review now contains data from nine trials (total n = 582) reporting on five comparisons. Due to risk of bias, small size of trials, indirectness of outcome measures and a paucity of investigated and reported 'pragmatic' outcomes, evidence was graded as very-low quality. None of the included studies provided useable data on our primary outcome 'tranquillisation or asleep' by 30 minutes, repeated need for tranquillisation or any economic outcomes. Data were available for our other main outcomes of agitation or aggression, needing restraint, and incidence of adverse effects.Risperidone versus haloperidol (up to 24 hours follow-up)For the outcome, specific behaviour - agitation, no clear difference was found between risperidone and haloperidol in terms of efficacy, measured as at least 50% reduction in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - Psychotic Agitation Sub-score (PANSS-PAS) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.26; participants = 124; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) and no effect was observed for need to use restraints (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 9.21; participants = 28; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). Incidence of adverse effects was similar between treatment groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.66; participants = 124; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence).Risperidone versus olanzapineOne small trial (n = 29) reported useable data for the comparison risperidone versus olanzapine. No effect was observed for agitation measured as PANSS-PAS endpoint score at two hours (MD 2.50, 95% CI -2.46 to 7.46; very low-quality evidence); need to use restraints at four days (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.39 to 5.28; very-low quality evidence); specific movement disorders measured as Behavioural Activity Rating Scale (BARS) endpoint score at four days (MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.83; very low-quality evidence).Risperidone versus quetiapineOne trial reported (n = 40) useable data for the comparison risperidone versus quetiapine. Aggression was measured using the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS) endpoint score at two weeks. A clear difference, favouring quetiapine was observed (MD 1.80, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.40; very-low quality evidence). No evidence of a difference between treatment groups could be observed for incidence of akathisia after 24 hours (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 6.06; very low-quality evidence). Two participants allocated to risperidone and one allocated to quetiapine experienced myocardial ischaemia during the trial.Risperidone versus risperidone + oxcarbazepineOne trial (n = 68) measured agitation using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - Excited Component.(PANSS-EC) endpoint score and found a clear difference, favouring the combination treatment at one week (MD 2.70, 95% CI 0.42 to 4.98; very low-quality evidence), but no effect was observed for global state using Clinical Global Impression - Improvement (CGI-I) endpoint score at one week (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.21; very-low quality evidence). Incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms after 24 hours was similar between treatment groups (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.14; very-low quality evidence).Risperidone versus risperidone + valproic acidTwo trials compared risperidone with a combination of risperidone plus valproic acid. No clear differences between the treatment groups were observed for aggression (MOAS endpoint score at three days: MD 1.07, 95% CI -0.20 to 2.34; participants = 54; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) or incidence of akathisia after 24 hours: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.03; participants = 122; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: Overall, results for the main outcomes show no real effect for risperidone. The only data available for use in this review are from nine under-sampled trials and the evidence available is of very low quality. This casts uncertainty on the role of risperidone in rapid tranquillisation for people with psychosis-induced aggression. High-quality pragmatic RCTs are feasible and are needed before clear recommendations can be drawn on the use of risperidone for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.

Background: People experiencing psychosis may become aggressive. Antipsychotics, such as aripiprazole in intramuscular form, can be used in such situations., Objectives: To evaluate the effects of intramuscular aripiprazole in the treatment of psychosis-induced aggression or agitation (rapid tranquillisation)., Search Methods: On 11 December 2014 and 11 April 2017, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-based Register of Trials which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials., Selection Criteria: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that randomised people with psychosis-induced aggression or agitation to receive either intramuscular aripiprazole or another intramuscular intervention., Data Collection and Analysis: We independently inspected citations and, where possible, abstracts, ordered papers and re-inspected and quality assessed these. We included studies that met our selection criteria. At least two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. We chose a fixed-effect model. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using mean differences (MD) and their CIs. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to create 'Summary of findings' tables., Main Results: Searching found 63 records referring to 21 possible trials. We could only include three studies, all completed over the last decade, with 885 participants, of which 707 were included for quantitative analyses in this systematic review. Due to limited comparisons, small size of trials and a paucity of investigated and reported 'pragmatic' outcomes, evidence was mostly graded as low or very low quality. No trials reported useful data for one of our primary outcomes of tranquil or asleep by 30 minutes. Economic outcomes were also not reported in the trials.When compared with placebo, fewer people in the aripiprazole group needed additional injections compared to the placebo group (2 RCTs, n = 382, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.85, very low-quality evidence). Clinically important improvement in agitation at two hours favoured the aripiprazole group (2 RCTs, n = 382, RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.92, very low-quality evidence). The numbers of non-responders after the first injection also favoured aripiprazole (1 RCT, n = 263, RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.71, low-quality evidence). Although no effect was found, more people in the aripiprazole compared to the placebo group experienced adverse effects (1 RCT, n = 117, RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.46, very low-quality evidence).Aripiprazole required more injections compared to haloperidol (2 RCTs, n = 477, RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.63, very low-quality evidence), with no significant difference in agitation (2 RCTs, n = 477, RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11, very low-quality evidence), and similar non-responders after first injection (1 RCT, n = 360, RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.79, low-quality evidence). Aripiprazole and haloperidol did not differ when taking into account the overall number of people that experienced at least one adverse effect (1 RCT, n = 113, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.35, very low-quality evidence).Compared to aripiprazole, olanzapine was better at reducing agitation (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.99, low-quality evidence) and had a more favourable effect on global state change scores (1 RCT, n = 80, MD 0.58, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.15, low-quality evidence), both at two hours. No differences were found in terms of experiencing at least one adverse effect during the 24 hours after treatment (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.24, very low-quality evidence). However, participants allocated to aripiprazole experienced less somnolence (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.82, low-quality evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: The available evidence is of poor quality but there is some evidence aripiprazole is effective compared to placebo and haloperidol, but not when compared to olanzapine. However, considering that evidence comes from only three studies, caution is required in generalising these results to real-world practice. This review firmly highlights the need for more high-quality trials on intramuscular aripiprazole in the management of people with acute aggression or agitation.

Background: Haloperidol used alone is recommended to help calm situations of aggression or agitation for people with psychosis. It is widely accessible and may be the only antipsychotic medication available in limited-resource areas., Objectives: To examine whether haloperidol alone is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation, wherein clinicians are required to intervene to prevent harm to self and others., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (26th May 2016). This register is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including AMED, BIOSIS CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings, with no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people exhibiting aggression and/or agitation thought to be due to psychosis, allocated rapid use of haloperidol alone (by any route), compared with any other treatment. Outcomes of interest included tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes, repeated need for rapid tranquillisation within 24 hours, specific behaviours (threat or injury to others/self), adverse effects. We included trials meeting our selection criteria and providing useable data., Data Collection and Analysis: We independently inspected all citations from searches, identified relevant abstracts, and independently extracted data from all included studies. For binary data we calculated risk ratio (RR), for continuous data we calculated mean difference (MD), and for cognitive outcomes we derived standardised mean difference (SMD) effect sizes, all with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and using a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and used the GRADE approach to produce 'Summary of findings' tables which included our pre-specified main outcomes of interest., Main Results: We found nine new RCTs from the 2016 update search, giving a total of 41 included studies and 24 comparisons. Few studies were undertaken in circumstances that reflect real-world practice, and, with notable exceptions, most were small and carried considerable risk of bias. Due to the large number of comparisons, we can only present a summary of main results.Compared with placebo, more people in the haloperidol group were asleep at two hours (2 RCTs, n=220, RR 0.88, 95%CI 0.82 to 0.95, very low-quality evidence) and experienced dystonia (2 RCTs, n=207, RR 7.49, 95%CI 0.93 to 60.21, very low-quality evidence).Compared with aripiprazole, people in the haloperidol group required fewer injections than those in the aripiprazole group (2 RCTs, n=473, RR 0.78, 95%CI 0.62 to 0.99, low-quality evidence). More people in the haloperidol group experienced dystonia (2 RCTs, n=477, RR 6.63, 95%CI 1.52 to 28.86, very low-quality evidence).Four trials (n=207) compared haloperidol with lorazepam with no significant differences with regard to number of participants asleep at one hour (1 RCT, n=60, RR 1.05, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.44, very low-quality of evidence) or those requiring additional injections (1 RCT, n=66, RR 1.14, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.43, very low-quality of evidence).Haloperidol's adverse effects were not offset by addition of lorazepam (e.g. dystonia 1 RCT, n=67, RR 8.25, 95%CI 0.46 to 147.45, very low-quality of evidence).Addition of promethazine was investigated in two trials (n=376). More people in the haloperidol group were not tranquil or asleep by 20 minutes (1 RCT, n=316, RR 1.60, 95%CI 1.18 to 2.16, moderate-quality evidence). Acute dystonia was too common in the haloperidol alone group for the trial to continue beyond the interim analysis (1 RCT, n=316, RR 19.48, 95%CI 1.14 to 331.92, low-quality evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: Additional data from new studies does not alter previous conclusions of this review. If no other alternative exists, sole use of intramuscular haloperidol could be life-saving. Where additional drugs are available, sole use of haloperidol for extreme emergency 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. Adding a benzodiazepine to haloperidol does not have strong evidence of benefit and carries 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.