Search

Background: People experiencing acute psychotic illnesses, especially those associated with agitated or violent behaviour, may require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. Droperidol, a butyrophenone antipsychotic, has been used for this purpose in several countries., Objectives: To estimate the effects of droperidol, including its cost-effectiveness, when compared to placebo, other 'standard' or 'non-standard' treatments, or other forms of management of psychotic illness, in controlling acutely disturbed behaviour and reducing psychotic symptoms in people with schizophrenia-like illnesses., Search Methods: We updated previous searches by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (18 December 2015). We searched references of all identified studies for further trial citations and contacted authors of trials. We supplemented these electronic searches by handsearching reference lists and contacting both the pharmaceutical industry and relevant authors., Selection Criteria: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with useable data that compared droperidol to any other treatment for people acutely ill with suspected acute psychotic illnesses, including schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, mixed affective disorders, the manic phase of bipolar disorder or a brief psychotic episode., Data Collection and Analysis: For included studies, we assessed quality, risk of bias and extracted data. We excluded data when more than 50% of participants were lost to follow-up. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE., Main Results: We identified four relevant trials from the update search (previous version of this review included only two trials). When droperidol was compared with placebo, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found evidence of a clear difference (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31, high-quality evidence). There was a clear demonstration of reduced risk of needing additional medication after 60 minutes for the droperidol group (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.85, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular arrhythmia (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.31, moderate-quality evidence) and respiratory airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.52, low-quality evidence) than placebo. For 'being ready for discharge', there was no clear difference between groups (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48, high-quality evidence). There were no data for mental state and costs.Similarly, when droperidol was compared to haloperidol, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found evidence of a clear difference (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09, high-quality evidence). There was a clear demonstration of reduced risk of needing additional medication after 60 minutes for participants in the droperidol group (2 RCTs, N = 255, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.90, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular hypotension (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.30 to 26.49,moderate-quality evidence) and cardiovascular hypotension/desaturation (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.12 to 67.98, low-quality evidence) than haloperidol. There was no suggestion that use of droperidol was unsafe. For mental state, there was no evidence of clear difference between the efficacy of droperidol compared to haloperidol (Scale for Quantification of Psychotic Symptom Severity, 1 RCT, N = 40, mean difference (MD) 0.11, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.29, low-quality evidence). There were no data for service use and costs.Whereas, when droperidol was compared with midazolam, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found droperidol to be less acutely tranquillising than midazolam (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.28, high-quality evidence). As regards the 'need for additional medication by 60 minutes after initial adequate sedation, we found an effect (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.20, moderate-quality evidence). In terms of adverse effects, we found no statistically significant differences between the two drugs for either airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.55, low-quality evidence) or respiratory hypoxia (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.03, moderate-quality evidence) - but use of midazolam did result in three people (out of around 70) needing some sort of 'airway management' with no such events in the droperidol group. There were no data for mental state, service use and costs.Furthermore, when droperidol was compared to olanzapine, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by any time point, we found no clear differences between the older drug (droperidol) and olanzapine (e.g. at 30 minutes: 1 RCT, N = 221, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11, high-quality evidence). There was a suggestion that participants allocated droperidol needed less additional medication after 60 minutes than people given the olanzapine (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular arrhythmia (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88, moderate-quality evidence) and respiratory airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.72, low-quality evidence) than olanzapine. For 'being ready for discharge', there was no difference between groups (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34, high-quality evidence). There were no data for mental state and costs., Authors' Conclusions: Previously, the use of droperidol was justified based on experience rather than evidence from well-conducted and reported randomised trials. However, this update found high-quality evidence with minimal risk of bias to support the use of droperidol for acute psychosis. Also, we found no evidence to suggest that droperidol should not be a treatment option for people acutely ill and disturbed because of serious mental illnesses.

Background: Acute psychotic illness, especially when associated with agitated or violent behaviour, can require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. In several countries, clinicians often use benzodiazepines (either alone or in combination with antipsychotics) for this outcome., Objectives: To estimate the effects of benzodiazepines, alone or in combination with antipsychotics, when compared with placebo or antipsychotics, alone or in combination with antihistamines, to control disturbed behaviour and reduce psychotic symptoms., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (January 2012), inspected reference lists of included and excluded studies and contacted authors of relevant studies., Selection Criteria: We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing benzodiazepines alone or in combination with any antipsychotics, versus antipsychotics alone or in combination with any other antipsychotics, benzodiazepines or antihistamines, for people with acute psychotic illnesses., Data Collection and Analysis: We reliably selected studies, quality assessed them and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of relative risk (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) between groups. If heterogeneity was identified, this was explored using a random-effects model., Main Results: We included 21 trials with a total of n = 1968 participants. There was no significant difference for most outcomes in the one trial that compared benzodiazepines with placebo, although there was a higher risk of no improvement in people receiving placebo in the medium term (one to 48 hours) (n = 102, 1 RCT, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.97, very low quality evidence). There was no difference in the number of participants who had not improved in the medium term when benzodiazepines were compared with antipsychotics (n = 308, 5 RCTs, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.42, low quality evidence); however, people receiving benzodiazepines were less likely to experience extrapyramidal effects (EPS) in the medium term (n = 536, 8 RCTs, RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.39, moderate quality of evidence). Data comparing combined benzodiazepines and antipsychotics versus benzodiazepines alone did not yield any significant results. When comparing combined benzodiazepines/antipsychotics (all studies compared haloperidol) with the same antipsychotics alone (haloperidol), there was no difference between groups in improvement in the medium term (n = 155, 3 RCTs, RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.70, very low quality evidence) but sedation was more likely in people who received the combination therapy (n = 172, 3 RCTs, RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.67, very low quality evidence). However, more participants receiving combined benzodiazepines and haloperidol had not improved by medium term when compared to participants receiving olanzapine (n = 60,1 RCT, RR 25.00, 95% CI 1.55 to 403.99, very low quality evidence) or ziprasidone (n = 60, 1 RCT, RR 4.00, 95% CI 1.25 to 12.75 very low quality evidence). When haloperidol and midazolam were compared with olanzapine, there was some evidence the combination was superior in terms of improvement, sedation and behaviour., Authors' Conclusions: The evidence from trials for the use of benzodiazepines alone is not good. There were relatively little good data and most trials are too small to highlight differences in either positive or negative effects. Adding a benzodiazepine to other drugs does not seem to confer clear advantage and has potential for adding unnecessary adverse effects. Sole use of older antipsychotics unaccompanied by anticholinergic drugs seems difficult to justify. Much more high quality research is needed in this area.

Background: Proponents of early intervention have argued that outcomes might be improved if more therapeutic efforts were focused on the early stages of schizophrenia or on people with prodromal symptoms. Early intervention in schizophrenia has two elements that are distinct from standard care: early detection, and phase-specific treatment (phase-specific treatment is a psychological, social or physical treatment developed, or modified, specifically for use with people at an early stage of the illness).Early detection and phase-specific treatment may both be offered as supplements to standard care, or may be provided through a specialised early intervention team. Early intervention is now well established as a therapeutic approach in America, Europe and Australasia., Objectives: To evaluate the effects of: (a) early detection; (b) phase-specific treatments; and (c) specialised early intervention teams in the treatment of people with prodromal symptoms or first-episode psychosis., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (March 2009), inspected reference lists of all identified trials and reviews and contacted experts in the field., Selection Criteria: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) designed to prevent progression to psychosis in people showing prodromal symptoms, or to improve outcome for people with first-episode psychosis. Eligible interventions, alone and in combination, included: early detection, phase-specific treatments, and care from specialised early intervention teams. We accepted cluster-randomised trials but excluded non-randomised trials., Data Collection and Analysis: We reliably selected studies, quality rated them and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we estimated relative risks (RR), with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where possible, we calculated the number needed to treat/harm statistic (NNT/H) and used intention-to-treat analysis (ITT)., Main Results: Studies were diverse, mostly small, undertaken by pioneering researchers and with many methodological limitations (18 RCTs, total n=1808). Mostly, meta-analyses were inappropriate. For the six studies addressing prevention of psychosis for people with prodromal symptoms, olanzapine seemed of little benefit (n=60, 1 RCT, RR conversion to psychosis 0.58 CI 0.3 to 1.2), and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) equally so (n=60, 1 RCT, RR conversion to psychosis 0.50 CI 0.2 to 1.7). A risperidone plus CBT plus specialised team did have benefit over specialist team alone at six months (n=59, 1 RCT, RR conversion to psychosis 0.27 CI 0.1 to 0.9, NNT 4 CI 2 to 20), but this was not seen by 12 months (n=59, 1 RCT, RR 0.54 CI 0.2 to 1.3). Omega 3 fatty acids (EPA) had advantage over placebo (n=76, 1 RCT, RR transition to psychosis 0.13 CI 0.02 to 1.0, NNT 6 CI 5 to 96). We know of no replications of this finding.The remaining trials aimed to improve outcome in first-episode psychosis. Phase-specific CBT for suicidality seemed to have little effect, but the single study was small (n=56, 1 RCT, RR suicide 0.81 CI 0.05 to 12.26). Family therapy plus a specialised team in the Netherlands did not clearly affect relapse (n=76, RR 1.05 CI 0.4 to 3.0), but without the specialised team in China it may (n=83, 1 RCT, RR admitted to hospital 0.28 CI 0.1 to 0.6, NNT 3 CI 2 to 6). The largest and highest quality study compared specialised team with standard care. Leaving the study early was reduced (n=547, 1 RCT, RR 0.59 CI 0.4 to 0.8, NNT 9 CI 6 to 18) and compliance with treatment improved (n=507, RR stopped treatment 0.20 CI 0.1 to 0.4, NNT 9 CI 8 to 12). The mean number of days spent in hospital at one year were not significantly different (n=507, WMD, -1.39 CI -2.8 to 0.1), neither were data for 'Not hospitalised' by five years (n=547, RR 1.05 CI 0.90 to 1.2). There were no significant differences in numbers 'not living independently' by one year (n=507, RR 0.55 CI 0.3 to 1.2). At five years significantly fewer participants in the treatment group were 'not living independently' (n=547, RR 0.42 CI 0.21 to 0.8, NNT 19 CI 14 to 62). When phase-specific treatment (CBT) was compared with befriending no significant differences emerged in the number of participants being hospitalised over the 12 months (n=62, 1 RCT, RR 1.08 CI 0.59 to 1.99).Phase-specific treatment E-EPA oils suggested no benefit (n=80, 1 RCT, RR no response 0.90 CI 0.6 to 1.4) as did phase-specific treatment brief intervention (n=106, 1 RCT, RR admission 0.86 CI 0.4 to 1.7). Phase-specific ACE found no benefit but participants given vocational intervention were more likely to be employed (n=41, 1 RCT, RR 0.39 CI 0.21 to 0.7, NNT 2 CI 2 to 4). Phase-specific cannabis and psychosis therapy did not show benefit (n=47, RR cannabis use 1.30 CI 0.8 to 2.2) and crisis assessment did not reduce hospitalisation (n=98, RR 0.85 CI 0.6 to 1.3). Weight was unaffected by early behavioural intervention., Authors' Conclusions: There is emerging, but as yet inconclusive evidence, to suggest that people in the prodrome of psychosis can be helped by some interventions. There is some support for specialised early intervention services, but further trials would be desirable, and there is a question of whether gains are maintained. There is some support for phase-specific treatment focused on employment and family therapy, but again, this needs replicating with larger and longer trials.

Background: As international healthcare policy has moved away from treating people with severe mental illness in large inpatient psychiatric institutions, beds for people with acute psychiatric disorders are being established in specialised psychiatric units in general hospitals. In developing countries, however, limited resources mean that it is not always possible to provide discrete psychiatric units, either in general hospitals or in the community. An alternative model of admission, used in the Caribbean, is to treat the person with acute psychosis in a general hospital ward., Objectives: To compare the outcomes for people with acute psychosis who have been admitted to open medical wards with those admitted to conventional psychiatric units., Search Strategy: We searched The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's study-based register (April 2007). This register is compiled from searches of BIOSIS, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, Sociofile, and many conference proceedings., Selection Criteria: We would have included all relevant randomised or quasi-randomised trials, allocating anyone thought to be suffering from an acute psychotic episode to either acute management on general medical wards, or acute management in a specialist psychiatric unit. The primary outcomes of interest were length of stay in hospital and relapse., Data Collection and Analysis: We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we would have calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based using a fixed effects model., Main Results: We didnt identify any relevant randomised trials., Authors' Conclusions: The Caribbean practice of treating people with severe mental illness on general medical wards has been influenced by socio-economic factors rather than evidence from randomised trials. This practice affords an opportunity for a well designed, well conducted and reported randomised trial, now impossible in many other settings.

Background: Pimozide, formulated in the 1960s, continues to be marketed for the care of people with schizophrenia or related psychoses such as delusional disorder. It has been associated with cardiotoxicity and sudden unexplained deaths. Electrocardiogram monitoring is now required before and during use., Objectives: To assess the clinical effects of pimozide for people with schizophrenia, non-affective psychotic mental illness and delusional disorder., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (July 2005)., Selection Criteria: We sought all relevant randomised clinical trials comparing pimozide with other treatments., Data Collection and Analysis: Working independently, we inspected citations, ordered papers, and then re-inspected and quality assessed the studies and extracted data. For homogeneous dichotomous data, we calculated the relative risk (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and, where appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT) and the number needed to harm (NNH), on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) for continuous data. We excluded data if loss to follow-up was greater than 50%., Main Results: We found 35 relevant studies (total n=1348), all including people with schizophrenia but none with delusional disorder. 123 people were randomised to pimozide versus placebo. Data suggest that pimozide prevents relapse (2 RCTs, n=66, RR 0.45 CI 0.2 to 0.9, NNT 4 CI 3 to 22). Compared with typical antipsychotic drugs, pimozide has similar efficacy for outcomes of change in global functioning, mental state, relapse and leaving the study early. People allocated to pimozide did not have a higher mortality than those taking other antipsychotic drugs. Pimozide was more likely than typical antipsychotic drugs to cause tremor in the short-term (6 RCTs, n=192, RR 1.6 CI 1.1 to 2.3, NNH 6 CI 3 to 44) and lead to need for antiparkinsonian medication (4 RCTs, n=124, RR 1.8 CI 1.2 to 2.6, NNH 3 CI 2 to 5) than other drugs. In the medium-term, however, pimozide was less likely to cause sedation (5 RCTs, n=231, RR 0.6 CI 0.5 to 0.9, NNH 6 CI 4 to 16)., Authors' Conclusions: Although there are shortcomings in the data, there is enough overall consistency over different outcomes and time scales to confirm that pimozide is a drug with similar efficacy to other more commonly used antipsychotic drugs such as chlorpromazine for people with schizophrenia. There are no data to support or refute its use for those with delusional disorder.

Background: Proponents of early intervention have argued that outcome might be improved if more therapeutic efforts were focused on the early stages of schizophrenia or on people with prodromal symptoms. Early intervention in schizophrenia has two elements that are distinct from standard care: early detection and phase-specific treatment. Both elements may be offered as supplements to standard care, or may be provided through a specialised early intervention team. Early intervention is now well established as a therapeutic approach in America, Europe and Australasia, but it is unclear how far early detection, phase-specific treatments, and the use of early intervention teams are underpinned by evidence of effectiveness., Objectives: To evaluate the effects of: (a) early detection; (b) phase-specific treatments; and (c) specialised early intervention teams in the treatment of people with prodromal symptoms or first episode psychosis., Search Strategy: We searched CINAHL (1982-2002), The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (November 2001), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (July 2003), EMBASE (1980-2002), MEDLINE (1966-2002), PsycINFO (1967-2002), reference lists and contacted the European First Episode Network (2003). For the 2006 update we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register., Selection Criteria: We included all randomised controlled trials designed to prevent progression to psychosis in people showing prodromal symptoms, or to improve outcome for people with first episode psychosis. Eligible interventions, alone and in combination, included early detection, phase-specific treatments, and care from specialised early intervention teams. We accepted cluster-randomised trials but excluded non-randomised trials., Data Collection and Analysis: We reliably selected studies, quality rated them and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we estimated relative risks (RR), with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where possible, we calculated the number needed to treat/harm statistic (NNT/H) and used intention-to-treat analysis (ITT)., Main Results: We included seven studies with a total of 941 participants. Six studies were small with numbers of participants ranging between 56 and 83, and one study randomised 547 people. None of the studies had similar interventions and therefore they were analysed separately. One small Australian trial (n=59) was concerned with a phase-specific intervention (low dose risperidone and cognitive behavioural therapy) for people with prodromal symptoms. This group were significantly less likely to develop psychosis at a six month follow up than people who only received care from a specialised team which did not involve phase-specific treatment (n=59, RR 0.27 CI 0.1 to 0.9, NNT 4 CI 2 to 20). This effect was not significant at 12 month follow up (n=59, 1 RCT, RR 0.54 CI 0.2 to 1.3). A UK-based study (EDIE) randomised 60 people with prodromal symptoms, to cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) or a monitoring group. Only two outcomes were reported: leaving the study early and transition to psychosis, both sets of data were non-significant. A Chinese trial used a phase-specific intervention (family therapy) plus out patient care trial for people in their first episode of psychosis and found reduced admission rates care compared with those who received only outpatient care (n=83, RR 0.28 CI 0.1 to 0.6, NNT 3 CI 2 to 6). The applicability of this finding was, however, questionable. One Dutch study (n=76) comparing phase-specific intervention (family therapy) plus specialised team with specialised team for people in their first episode of schizophrenia found no difference between intervention and control groups at 12 months for the outcome of relapse (n=76, RR 1.05 CI 0.4 to 3.0). The large Scandinavian study (n=547) allocated people with first episode schizophrenia to integrated treatment (assertive community treatment plus family therapy, social skills training and a modified medication regime) or standard care. Global state outcome GAF significantly favoured integrated treatment (n=419, WMD -3.71 CI -6.7 to -0.7) by one year, but by two years data were non-significant. Rates of attrition were significantly lower (n=547, RR 0.59 CI 0.4 to 0.8, NNT 9 CI 6 to 18) for integrated treatment by one and two year follow-up. PRIME (USA) was the only double blind study and allocated people with prodromal symptoms to olanzapine or placebo. No significant differences were found between olanzapine and placebo in preventing conversion to psychosis by about 12 months (n=60, RR 0.58 CI 0.3 to 1.2). Clinical Global Impression change scores 'severity of illness' were equivocal by 12 months. Scale of Prodromal Symptoms (SOPS) scores were also equivocal and the PANSS, total, positive and negative outcomes were non-significant. There were no significant differences between the olanzapine and placebo group on adverse effects rating scales - SAS, BAS and AIMS scores; Weight gain was significantly higher in the olanzapine group (n=59, WMD 7.63 CI 4.0 to 11.2) by 12 months. Finally one more Australian study included people in their first episode of psychosis who were acutely suicidal and allocated people to phase-specific cognitively orientated therapy or standard care. Outcome data for leaving the study early and suicide were equivocal., Authors' Conclusions: We identified insufficient trials to draw any definitive conclusions. The substantial international interest in early intervention offers an opportunity to make major positive changes in psychiatric practice, but making the most of this opportunity requires a concerted international programme of research to address key unanswered questions.

Background: Acute psychotic illness, especially when associated with agitated or violent behaviour, can require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. In several countries, clinicians often use benzodiazepines (either alone or in combination with antipsychotics) for this outcome., Objectives: To estimate the effects of benzodiazepines, alone or in combination with antipsychotics, when compared to placebo or antipsychotics, to control disturbed behaviour and reduce psychotic symptoms., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (October 2002 and April 2005), inspected reference lists of included and excluded studies and contacted authors of relevant studies., Selection Criteria: We included all randomised clinical trials comparing benzodiazepines, alone or in combination with antipsychotics, with placebo or sole use of antipsychotics, for people with acute psychotic illnesses., Data Collection and Analysis: We reliably selected studies, quality assessed them and extracted data. For binary outcomes we calculated standard estimates of relative risk (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI), and weighted number needed to treat or harm (NNT/NNH) statistics. For continuous outcomes we estimated a weighted mean difference between groups. If heterogeneity was found, we used a random effects model., Main Results: We included eleven studies with a total of 648 participants. When comparing benzodiazepines with placebo, sedation was equally prevalent (n=102, 1 RCT, RR 1.67 CI 0.4 to 6.6), however, fewer people allocated lorazepam remained excited at 24 hours (n=102, RR 0.62 CI 0.4 to 1.0, NNT 5 CI 3 to 59). The lorazepam and placebo group experienced similar non-significant, low levels of adverse effects. In the comparison of benzodiazepines versus use of antipsychotics without use of anticholinergics/antihistamines, people allocated benzodiazepines did not clearly need additional medication compared with those given antipsychotics (n=216, 2 RCTs, RR 1.28 CI 0.5 to 3.2). Numbers sedated were also equivocal between groups (n=324, 6 RCTs, RR 0.76 CI 0.5 to 1.2) as were mental state ratings. Extrapyramidal symptoms were significantly higher in the antipsychotic treatment group (n=391, 7 RCTs, RR 0.17 CI 0.1 to 0.4, NNT 6 CI 2 to 17). Two trials (total n=83) comparing lorazepam plus haloperidol with lorazepam alone found no clear difference for the need of additional medication (n=83, 2 RCTs, RR 1.02 CI 0.8 to 1.3) or 'not improved' at one hour (n=20, 1 RCT, RR 1.47 CI 0.66 to 3.25). There was no difference in the incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms (n=83, 2 RCTs, RR 1.94 CI 0.2 to 20.3). Finally when the benzodiazepine plus antipsychotic combination was compared with antipsychotics alone (2 RCTs, n=95) there was no difference between groups in the need for additional medications (n=67, 1 RCT, RR 0.95 CI 0.8 to 1.2) or for mental state measures. Extrapyramidal symptoms were significantly lower for people receiving both benzodiazepines and antipsychotics compared with those receiving antipsychotics alone (n=95, 2 RCTs, RR 0.45 CI 0.2 to 0.9, NNH 2 CI 1 to 5). There was no significant difference in the number of participants unfit for early discharge (n=28, 1 RCT, RR 0.90 CI 0.54 to 1.5)., Authors' Conclusions: There is insufficient data from these studies to support or refute the use of benzodiazepines with or without antipsychotics where emergency drugs are needed. The sole use of older antipsychotics unaccompanied by anticholinergic drugs may be problematic, but studies in this review are not large enough to identify any serious adverse effects of benzodiazepines such as respiratory depression. Larger, more informative studies are needed before definite conclusions can be drawn as to the efficacy of benzodiazapines.

Background: People suffering from acute psychotic illnesses, especially those associated with agitated or violent behaviour, may require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. Droperidol, a butyrophenone neuroleptic, has been used for this purpose in several countries., Objectives: To estimate the effects of droperidol compared to other treatments for controlling disturbed behaviour and reducing psychotic symptoms for people with suspected acute psychotic illnesses., Search Strategy: We updated previous searches by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (September 2003). References of all identified studies were searched for further trial citations and authors of trials were contacted. Twenty-one other databases were also searched as part of a broader project and this composite database was searched for this review. This was supplemented by hand searching reference lists and contacting both the pharmacological industry and relevant authors., Selection Criteria: The review included randomised controlled trials comparing droperidol to any other treatment for people with suspected acute psychotic illnesses, including schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, mixed affective disorders, the manic phase of bipolar disorder or a brief psychotic episode., Data Collection and Analysis: Relevant studies were selected for inclusion, their quality was assessed and data extracted. Data were excluded when more than 50% of participants were lost to follow up. For binary outcomes, standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Where possible, weighted number needed to treat or harm statistics (NNT, NNH), and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI), were calculated., Main Results: We identified only two relevant trials. One additional study focused on outcomes at 30 days rather than at a few hours. One small (n = 41) randomised trial compared intravenous (iv) droperidol (10 mg) with iv placebo and found that people allocated to droperidol were significantly less likely to need additional injections of another drug, haloperidol, in the first few minutes (n = 41, RR 0.37 CI 0.2 to 0.7, NNT 2 CI 1 to 10) compared to those given placebo. By 90 minutes this difference was still evident but not statistically significant (RR 0.46 CI 0.2 to 1.2). When 5 mg intramuscular (im) droperidol was compared with 5 mg im haloperidol, those given droperidol were also less likely to need additional injections by 30 minutes, than those given haloperidol, but this result was not statistically significant (n = 27, RR 0.45 CI 0.2 to 1.01). One person out of the 16 given haloperidol experienced a mild dystonic reaction (muscle spasms or abnormal contractions), while none of the 11 people allocated to droperidol were reported to have experienced adverse effects., Reviewers' Conclusions: This is an important, and surprisingly under-researched, area. To date, use of droperidol for emergency situations has been justified by experience rather than evidence from well conducted and reported randomised trials, but, as world reserves diminish, droperidol will no longer be a treatment option.

Background: Acute psychotic illnesses, especially when associated with agitated or violent behaviour, require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. Clotiapine, a dibenzothiazepine neuroleptic, is being used for this purpose in several countries., Objectives: To estimate the effects of clotiapine when compared to other 'standard' or 'non-standard' treatments for acute psychotic illnesses in controlling disturbed behaviour and reducing psychotic symptoms., Search Strategy: We updated previous searches by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (April 2004), Selection Criteria: The review included randomised clinical trials comparing clotiapine with any other treatment for people with acute psychotic illnesses., Data Collection and Analysis: Relevant studies were selected for inclusion, their quality was assessed and data extracted. Data were excluded where more than 50% of participants in any group were lost to follow up. For binary outcomes we calculated a standard estimation of the risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, endpoint data were preferred to change data. Non-skewed data from valid scales were summated using a weighted mean difference (WMD)., Main Results: We identified five relevant trials. None compared clotiapine with placebo, but control drugs were either antipsychotics (chlorpromazine, perphenazine, trifluoperazine and zuclopenthixol acetate) or benzodiazepines (lorazepam). Versus the antipsychotics, the results for 'no important global improvement' did not suggest clotiapine to be superior, or inferior, to chlorpromazine, perphenazine, or trifluoperazine (n = 83, 3 RCTs, RR 0.82 CI 0.22 to 3.05, I-squared 58%). Use of clotiapine when compared with chlorpromazine did change the proportion of people ready for hospital discharge by the end of the study (n = 49, 1 RCT, RR 1.04 95%CI 0.96 to 2.12). Overall, attrition rates were low. No significant difference was found for those allocated to clotiapine compared with people randomised to other antipsychotics (n = 121, RR 2.26 95%CI 0.40 to 13). Weak data suggests that clotiapine may result in less need for antiparkinsonian treatment compared with zuclopenthixol acetate (n = 38, RR 0.43 95%CI 0.02 to 0.98). Compared with lorazepam, clotiapine, when used to control aggressive/violent outbursts for people already treated with haloperidol, did not significantly improve mental state (WMD -3.36 95%CI -8.09 to 1.37). We could not pool much data due to skew or inadequate presentation of results. Economic outcomes and satisfaction with care were not addressed., Reviewers' Conclusions: We found no evidence to support the use of clotiapine in preference to other 'standard' or 'non-standard' treatments for management of people with acute psychotic illness. All trials in this review have important methodological problems. We do not wish to discourage clinicians from using clotiapine in the psychiatric emergency, but well-designed, conducted and reported trials are needed to properly determine the efficacy of this drug.