Search

The association between stressful childhood experiences (SCE) and psychotic symptoms is still not clearly understood, and different causal pathways have been proposed. Generalized estimating equation modeling was used to test the dose-response relationship between SCE and delusions and hallucinations at baseline and follow-up periods and the possible confounding effects of dissociation on this relationship. The prevalence of SCE in individuals with psychotic disorders was high, with more co-occurring SCE categories being positively associated with more types of delusions and hallucinations. Each additional SCE was associated with a 1.20 increase in the incidence rate ratio (95% confidence interval [CI; 1.09, 1.32]) for hallucinations and a 1.19 increase (CI [1.09, 1.29]) for delusions, supporting a dose-response association. After we controlled for the mediating effects of dissociative symptoms at follow-up, SCE remained independently associated with delusions. We propose that cumulative SCE can result in complex trauma reactions that present with a broad range of symptomatology, including dissociative, posttraumatic stress disorder, and psychotic symptoms.

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.

Current illicit drug and alcohol users were identified by laboratory evaluation of urine samples from nonpsychotic patients without a primary clinical diagnosis of a substance use disorder seen in a psychiatric emergency room. Urine screens revealed that 32 of 93 nonpsychotic patients (34 percent) had used a substance just before visiting the emergency room. Compared with nonusers, users were more often Caucasian females with adjustment disorders who admitted their previous substance use. The prevalence of concurrent use among nonpsychotic patients was higher than among psychotic patients. Nonpsychotic and psychotic users differed in gender, marital status, level of suicidality, self-report of use, the clinician's suspicion of use, use of seclusion during the visit, admitting status, level of care, and disposition.

Rapid tranquilization is a routinely practiced method of calming agitated psychotic patients by use of neuroleptics, benzodiazepines, or both in combination. Although several studies have examined the efficacy of the three approaches, none have compared these treatments in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial. Ninety-eight psychotic, agitated, and aggressive patients (73 men and 25 women) were prospectively enrolled during an 18-month period in emergency departments in five university or general hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned to receive intramuscular injections of lorazepam (2 mg), haloperidol (5 mg), or both in combination. Patients in each treatment group received 1 to 6 injections of the same study drug within 12 hours, based on clinical need. They were evaluated hourly after the first injection until at least 12 hours after the last. Efficacy was assessed on the Agitated Behavior Scale (ABS), a modified Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (MBPRS), Clinical Global impressions (CGI) scale, and an Alertness Scale. Effective symptom reduction was achieved in each treatment group with significant (P < .01) mean decreases from baseline at every hourly ABS evaluation. Significant (P < .05) mean differences on the ABS (hour 1) and MBPRS (hours 2 and 3) suggest that tranquilization was most rapid in patients receiving the combination treatment. Study event incidence (side effects) did not differ significantly between treatment groups, although patients receiving haloperidol alone tended to have more extrapyramidal system symptoms. The superior results produced by the combination treatment support the use of lorazepam plus haloperidol as the treatment of choice for acute psychotic agitation.

Objective: This study used laboratory tests to identify current drug and alcohol users among psychotic patients seeking treatment in an urban psychiatric emergency room. Rates of clinician-suspected use and self-reported use were compared, as were treatment and disposition of users and nonusers., Methods: Logistic regression modeling was used to identify factors that differentiated current substance users from nonusers in a sample of 112 psychotic patients., Results: Laboratory analyses revealed that 24 of the 112 psychotic patients (21 percent) had used alcohol or an illegal substance before visiting the emergency room. Younger age, male gender, African-American ethnicity, clinician-suspected substance use, and presentation in the emergency room between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. were associated with a higher likelihood of positive results on the urine test. Only five of the patients who had positive results (21 percent) self-reported substance use. Clinicians suspected that 59 patients (53 percent) were under the influence; however, only 17 of those suspected (29 percent) had positive laboratory results. Patients with positive laboratory results required more intense care in the psychiatric emergency room and were more often hospitalized., Conclusions: Some demographic and clinical factors were associated with concurrent substance use among psychotic patients in the emergency room. Clinicians' suspicions of use in this sample of psychotic patients lacked specificity due to the fact that potential use was suspected in a large number of cases for which laboratory results were negative. In contrast, self-reported use was uncommon among patients with positive results. Because neither clinician judgment nor patient self-report meaningfully predicts current substance use, routine urine drug screens may be appropriate.