Rapid tranquilization: the efficacy of oral concentrate. TREC-Rio trial: a randomised controlled trial for rapid tranquillisation for agitated patients in emergency psychiatric rooms [ISRCTN44153243] Rapid tranquilization: A comparative study of thiothixene and haloperidol Rapid tranquillisation of violent or agitated patients in a psychiatric emergency setting. Pragmatic randomised trial of intramuscular lorazepam v. haloperidol plus promethazine. Rapid Tranquilization of Severely Agitated Patients With Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders: A Naturalistic, Rater-Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Study With Oral Haloperidol, Risperidone, and Olanzapine Current practices in managing acutely disturbed patients at three hospitals in Rio de Janeiro-Brazil: a prevalence study Efficacy of lorazepam and haloperidol for rapid tranquilization in a psychiatric emergency room setting Rapid tranquilization for agitated patients in emergency psychiatric rooms: a randomized trial of olanzapine, ziprasidone, haloperidol plus promethazine, haloperidol plus midazolam and haloperidol alone. A double-blind randomized clinical trial of rapid tranquilization with I.M. clonazepam and I.M. haloperidol in agitated psychotic patients with manic symptoms. Haloperidol, lorazepam, or both for psychotic agitation? A multicenter, prospective, double-blind, emergency department study. Rapid tranquillisation for agitated patients in emergency psychiatric rooms: a randomised trial of midazolam versus haloperidol plus promethazine Rapid tranquillisation in psychiatric emergency settings in Brazil: pragmatic randomised controlled trial of intramuscular haloperidol versus intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine Rapid tranquillisation in psychiatric emergency settings in India: pragmatic randomised controlled trial of intramuscular olanzapine versus intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine The expert consensus guideline series. Treatment of behavioral emergencies 2005. Citalopram, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, in the treatment of aggression in schizophrenia Use of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines in patients with psychiatric emergencies: Results of an observational trial Efficacy of combinations of intramuscular antipsychotics and sedative-hypnotics for control of psychotic agitation.
The efficacy of oral concentrate in the rapid tranquilization of 159 acutely disturbed patients in a psychiatric emergency service was evaluated . Patients were r and omly assigned to 1 of 10 treatment groups : 7 oral groups and 3 comparison intramuscular groups . Although intramuscular medication produced a faster response , concentrate also proved to be effective for rapid tranquilization . Side effects were benign and minimal . Age , sex , race , and diagnosis had no effect on outcome . The use of concentrate as a paradigm for treating acutely psychotic patients is discussed Background Agitated or violent patients constitute 10 % of all emergency psychiatric treatment . Management guidelines , the preferred treatment of clinicians and clinical practice all differ . Systematic review s show that all relevant studies are small and none are likely to have adequate power to show true differences between treatments . Worldwide , current treatment is not based on evidence from r and omised trials . In Brazil , the combination haloperidol-promethazine is frequently used , but no studies involving this mix exist . Methods TREC-Rio ( Tranquilização Rápida-Ensaio Clínico [ Translation : Rapid Tranquillisation- Clinical Trial ] ) will compare midazolam with haloperidol-promethazine mix for treatment of agitated patients in emergency psychiatric rooms of Rio de Janeiro , Brazil . TREC-Rio is a r and omised , controlled , pragmatic and open study . Primary measure of outcome is tranquillisation at 20 minutes but effects on other measures of morbidity will also be assessed . TREC-Rio will involve the collaboration of as many health care professionals based in four psychiatric emergency rooms of Rio as possible . Because the design of this trial does not substantially complicate clinical management , and in several aspects simplifies it , the study can be large , and treatments used in everyday practice can be evaluated In a double-blind comparative clinical study , both thiothixene and haloperidol were found to be effective agents for rapid tranquilization of manic and schizophrenic patients . While no statistically significant difference in any of the psychopathological areas which may create a psychiatric emergency was found , results of this study provide further substantiation of the notion that thiothixene has favorable effects on anergia BACKGROUND The pharmacological management of violence in people with psychiatric disorders is under- research ed . AIMS To compare interventions commonly used for controlling agitation or violence in people with serious psychiatric disorders . METHOD We r and omised 200 people to receive intramuscular lorazepam ( 4 mg ) or intramuscular haloperidol  ( 10 mg ) plus promethazine ( 25 - 50 mg mix ) . RESULTS At blinded assessment s 4 h later ( 99.5 % follow-up ) , equal numbers in both groups ( 96 % ) were tranquil or asleep . However , 76 % given the haloperidol-promethazine mix were asleep compared with 45 % of those allocated lorazepam ( RR=2.29,95 % CI 1.59 - 3.39 ; NNT=3.2,95 % CI 2.3 - 5.4 ) . The haloperidol-promethazine mix produced a faster onset of tranquillisation/sedation and more clinical improvement over the first 2 h. Neither intervention differed significantly in the need for additional intervention or physical restraints , numbers absconding , or adverse effects . CONCLUSIONS Both interventions are effective for controlling violent/agitated behaviour . If speed of sedation is required , the haloperidol-promethazine combination has advantages over lorazepam Introduction Agitation is a major problem in acute schizophrenia . Only a few studies have tested antipsychotic agents in severely agitated patients , mainly because of legal issues . Furthermore , most studies were limited to the first 24 hours . We aim ed to investigate the efficacy of oral haloperidol , risperidone , and olanzapine in reducing psychotic agitation in severely agitated patients with schizophrenia or schizophreniform or schizoaffective disorder over 96 hours using a prospect i ve , r and omized , rater-blinded , controlled design within a naturalistic treatment regimen . Methods In total , 43 severely agitated patients at acute care psychiatric units were enrolled . Participants were r and omly assigned to receive either daily haloperidol 15 mg , olanzapine 20 mg , or risperidone 2 to 6 mg over 5 days . Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale psychotic agitation subscale score was the primary outcome variable . A mixed-model analysis was applied . Results All drugs were effective for rapid tranquilization within 2 hours . Over 5 days , the course differed between agents ( P < 0.001 ) , but none was superior . Dropouts occurred only in the risperidone and olanzapine groups . Men responded better to treatment than did women during the initial 2 hours ( P = 0.046 ) as well as over the 5-day course ( P < 0.001 ) . No difference between drug groups was observed regarding diazepam or biperiden use . Conclusions Oral haloperidol , risperidone , and olanzapine seem to be suitable for treating acute severe psychotic agitation in schizophrenia spectrum disorders . Response to oral antipsychotics demonstrated a gender effect with poorer outcome in women throughout the study Background The medical management of aggressive and violent behaviour is a critical situation for which there is little evidence . In order to prepare for a r and omised trial , due to start in the psychiatric emergency rooms of Rio de Janeiro in 2001 , a survey of current practice was necessary . Methods A seven day survey of pharmacological management of aggressive people with psychosis in the emergency rooms of all four public psychiatric hospitals in Rio de Janeiro , Brazil . Results In one hospital data were not available . Of the 764 people with psychosis attending these ERs , 74 were given IM medication for rapid tranquillisation ( 9.7 % , 2.1/week/100,000 ) . A haloperidol-promethazine mix ( with or without other drugs ) was used for the majority of patients ( 83 % ) . Conclusion The haloperidol-promethazine mix , given intramuscularly for rapid tranquilization , is prevalent in Rio , where it is considered both safe and efficient . However , scientific evaluation of all pharmacological approaches to rapid tranquilization of psychotic people is inadequate or incomplete and a r and omized trial of IM haloperidol-promethazine is overdue The efficacy of a benzodiazepine was compared with that of a neuroleptic for the rapid tranquilization of patients presenting at a psychiatric emergency room service . Thirty-seven highly agitated patients exhibiting psychotic symptoms were r and omly assigned to receive either 2 mg lorazepam or 5 mg haloperidol as needed every 30 min for 4 h. Administration route was either intramuscular injection or oral concentrate . Symptom ratings were conducted each hour using double-blind procedures . Both medications reduced symptom ratings on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and Global Clinical Impression of Overall Symptom Severity Scale . Global Clinical Impression scores for the two medication groups did not differ significantly either at baseline or at 4 h after entry into the study . However , Global Clinical Impression scores of patients in the lorazepam group were less severe at intermittent ratings . The groups did not differ on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale at any rating time . No differences were found either in the number of doses administered or in the administration route selected . Given the potential for severe extrapyramidal symptoms developing hours or days after a single dose of haloperidol , lorazepam may provide an excellent alternative for the rapid tranquilization of the acutely agitated psychotic patient in the emergency room setting OBJECTIVE To compare the effectiveness of intramuscular olanzapine , ziprasidone , haloperidol plus promethazine , haloperidol plus midazolam and haloperidol alone as the first medication(s ) used to treat patients with agitation and aggressive behavior . METHOD One hundred fifty patients with agitation caused by psychotic or bipolar disorder were r and omly assigned under double-blind conditions to receive olanzapine , ziprasidone , haloperidol plus midazolam , haloperidol plus promethazine or haloperidol alone . The Overt Agitation Severity Scale , Overt Aggression Scale and Ramsay Sedation Scale were applied within 12 hours after the first dosage . RESULTS All medications produced a calming effect within one hour of administration , but only olanzapine and haloperidol reduced agitation by less than 10 points , and only olanzapine reduced aggression by less than four points in the first hour . After twelve hours , only patients treated with haloperidol plus midazolam had high levels of agitation and aggression and also more side effects . Ziprasidone , olanzapine and haloperidol alone had more stable results for agitation control , while ziprasidone , haloperidol plus promethazine and olanzapine had stable results for aggression control . CONCLUSION Olanzapine , ziprasidone , haloperidol plus promethazine , haloperidol plus midazolam and haloperidol were effective in controlling agitation and aggression caused by mental illness over 12 hours . Although all the drugs had advantages and disadvantages , haloperidol plus midazolam was associated with the worst results in all the observed parameters This double-blind clinical trial studied 16 acutely agitated psychotic patients with manic or manic-like symptoms who needed rapid tranquilization and were therefore on maintenance treatment . They were r and omized to receive intramuscular preparations of clonazepam ( 1 to 2 mg ) or haloperidol ( 5 to 10 mg ) at 0 , 0.5 , and 1.0 hours . Both medications produced significant reduction of manic symptoms within two hours of initial treatment ; however , haloperidol produced beneficial results more rapidly than clonazepam . All patients completed the study , with the exception of one haloperidol-treated patient who developed severe parkinsonism . It was concluded that I.M. clonazepam is an effective , safe , but slower-acting alternative to I.M. haloperidol in the treatment of agitated psychiatric patients in need of rapid tranquilization Rapid tranquilization is a routinely practice d 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 prospect i ve , r and omized , double-blind , multicenter trial . Ninety-eight psychotic , agitated , and aggressive patients ( 73 men and 25 women ) were prospect ively enrolled during an 18-month period in emergency departments in five university or general hospitals . Patients were r and omly 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 Abstract Objective To compare two widely used drug treatments for people with aggression or agitation due to mental illness . Design Pragmatic , r and omised clinical trial . Setting Three psychiatric emergency rooms in Rio de Janeiro , Brazil . Subjects 301 aggressive or agitated people . Interventions Open treatment with intramuscular midazolam or intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine . Main outcome measures Patients tranquil or se date d at 20 minutes . Secondary outcomes : patients tranquil or asleep by 40 , 60 , and 120 minutes ; restrained or given extra drugs within 2 hours ; severe adverse events ; another episode of agitation or aggression ; needing extra visits from doctor during first 24 hours ; overall antipsychotic load in first 24 hours ; and not discharged by two weeks . Results 151 patients were r and omised to midazolam , and 150 to haloperidol-promethazine mix . Follow up for the primary outcome was available for 298 ( 99 % ) : 134/151 ( 89 % ) of patients given midazolam were tranquil or asleep after 20 minutes compared with 101/150 ( 67 % ) of those given haloperidol plus promethazine ( relative risk 1.32 ( 95 % confidence interval 1.16 to 1.49 ) ) . By 40 minutes , midazolam still had a statistically and clinical ly significant 13 % relative advantage ( 1.13 ( 1.01 to 1.26 ) ) . After 1 hour , about 90 % of both groups were tranquil or asleep . One important adverse event occurred in each group : a patient given midazolam had transient respiratory depression , and one given haloperidol-promethazine had a gr and e mal seizure . Conclusions Both treatments were effective . Midazolam was more rapidly sedating than haloperidol-promethazine , reducing the time people are exposed to aggression . Adverse effects and re sources to deal with them should be considered in the choice of the treatment Objective To determine whether haloperidol alone results in swifter and safer tranquillisation and sedation than haloperidol plus promethazine . Design Pragmatic r and omised open trial ( January-July 2004 ) . Setting Psychiatric emergency room , Rio de Janeiro , Brazil . Participants 316 patients who needed urgent intramuscular sedation because of agitation , dangerous behaviour , or both . Interventions Open treatment with intramuscular haloperidol 5 - 10 mg or intramuscular haloperidol 5 - 10 mg plus intramuscular promethazine up to 50 mg ; doses were at the discretion of the prescribing clinician . Main outcome measures The primary outcome was proportion tranquil or asleep by 20 minutes . Secondary outcomes were asleep by 20 minutes ; tranquil or asleep by 40 , 60 , and 120 minutes ; physically restrained or given additional drugs within 2 hours ; severe adverse events ; another episode of agitation or aggression ; additional visit from the doctor during the subsequent 24 hours ; overall antipsychotic load in the first 24 hours ; and still in hospital after 2 weeks . Results Primary outcome data were available for 311 ( 98.4 % ) people , 77 % of whom were thought to have a psychotic illness . Patients allocated haloperidol plus promethazine were more likely to be tranquil or asleep by 20 minutes than those who received intramuscular haloperidol alone ( relative risk 1.30 , 95 % confidence interval 1.10 to 1.55 ; number needed to treat 6 , 95 % confidence interval 4 to 16 ; P=0.002 ) . No differences were found after 20 minutes . However , 10 cases of acute dystonia occurred , all in the haloperidol alone group . Conclusions Haloperidol plus promethazine is a better option than haloperidol alone in terms of speed of onset of action and safety . Enough data are now available to change guidelines that continue to recommend treatments that leave people exposed to longer periods of aggression than necessary and patients vulnerable to distressing and unsafe adverse effects . Trial registration Current Controlled Trials IS RCT N83261243 Objective To compare the effect of intramuscular olanzapine with intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine on rapid tranquillisation of agitated or violent people with mental illness .  Design Pragmatic , allocation concealed , r and omised controlled trial . Setting Emergency services of a general hospital psychiatry department in Vellore , south India . Participants 300 adults with agitated or violent behaviour as a result of mental illness ; 150 r and omised to intramuscular olanzapine and 150 r and omised to intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine .  Interventions Open treatment with intramuscular olanzapine or intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine . Main outcome measures Primary outcome was proportion of patients who were tranquil or asleep at 15 minutes and 240 minutes . Secondary outcomes were proportion of patients who were tranquil , asleep , restrained , absconding , or clinical ly improved at 15 , 30 , 60 , 120 , and 240 minutes ; additional medical interventions and adverse effects over four hours ; and compliance with oral drugs and adverse effects over two weeks . Results Of 300 people r and omised to receive either intramuscular olanzapine or intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine , follow-up data were available for primary outcomes for 298 ( 99 % ) . Both treatments result ed in similar proportions of people being tranquil or asleep at 15 minutes ( olanzapine 131/150 ( 87 % ) , haloperidol plus promethazine 136/150 ( 91 % ) ; relative risk 0.96 , 95 % confidence interval 0.34 to 1.47 ) and 240 minutes ( olanzapine 144/150 ( 96 % ) , haloperidol plus promethazine 145/150 ( 97 % ) ; relative risk 0.99 , 0.95 to 1.03 ) . However , more people given olanzapine than those given haloperidol plus promethazine required additional drugs over four hours ( 65/150 ( 43 % ) v 31/150 ( 21 % ) ; relative risk 2.07 , 1.43 to 2.97 ) . Adverse effects were uncommon with both treatments . Conclusions Intramuscular olanzapine and intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine were effective at rapidly tranquillising or sedating agitated or violent  patients with mental illness but the combination result ed in fewer additional medical interventions within four hours of intervention . Trial registration Clinical trials NCT00455234 OBJECTIVES Due to inherent dangers and barriers to research in emergency setting s , few data are available to guide clinicians about how best to manage behavioral emergencies . Key constructs such as agitation are poorly defined . This lack of empirical data led us to undertake a survey of expert opinion , results of which were published in the 2001 Expert Consensus Guidelines on the Treatment of Behavioral Emergencies . Several second-generation ( atypical ) antipsychotics ( SGAs ) are now available in new formulations for treating behavioral emergencies ( e.g. , intramuscular [ i.m . ] olanzapine and ziprasidone ; rapidly dissolving tablets of olanzapine and risperidone ) . Critical questions face the field . The SGAs are significantly different from the FGAs and from each other and have not been studied in unselected patients as were the FGAs . Can the SGAs can be thought of as a class , do all antipsychotics have similar anti-agitation effects in different conditions , and , if equally effective , what limits might their safety profiles impose ? Should antipsychotics be used more specifically to treat psychotic conditions , while benzodiazepines ( BNZs ) alone are used nonspecifically ? Few data are available concerning combinations of SGAs and BNZs , and findings concerning the traditional combination of haloperidol plus a BNZ may not be relevant to combinations with SGAs . The culture is also evolving with more emphasis on patient involvement in treatment decisions . An international consensus has been developing that calming rather than sedation is the appropriate endpoint of behavioral emergency interventions . We undertook a new survey of expert opinion to up date recommendations from the earlier survey . METHOD A written survey of 61 questions ( 1,020 options ) was mailed to 50 experts in the field , 48 ( 96 % ) of whom completed it . The survey sought to define level of agitation at which emergency interventions are appropriate , scope of assessment depending on urgency and patients ' ability to cooperate , guiding principles for selecting interventions , and appropriate physical and medication strategies at different levels of diagnostic confidence for a variety of provisional diagnoses and complicating conditions . A modified version of the R AND Corporation 's 9-point scale for rating appropriateness of medical decisions was used to score most options . Consensus was defined as a non-r and om distribution of scores by chi-square " goodness-of-fit " test . We assigned a categorical rank ( first line/preferred , second line/alternate , third line/usually inappropriate ) to each option based on the 95 % confidence interval around the mean . Ratings were used to develop guidelines for preferred strategies in key clinical situations . This study received financial support from multiple sponsors , with the panel kept blind to sponsorship to reduce possible bias . Medication ratings were based on responses of only those respondents with direct experience with each drug . In reporting practice patterns , the panel was asked to respond based on actual data rather than estimates . RESULTS The expert panel reached consensus on 78 % of the options rated on the 9-point scale . The responses suggest that physicians can make provisional diagnoses with some confidence and that pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions are selected differentially based on diagnosis and other salient demographic and medical features . BNZs are recommended when no data are available , when there is no specific treatment ( e.g. , personality disorder ) , or when they may have specific benefits ( e.g. , intoxication ) . No single SGA emerges as a nonspecific replacement for haloperidol ; instead , different SGAs are preferred in various circumstances consistent with current evidence . To the degree that haloperidol is recommended , it is almost always in combination with a BNZ ; haloperidol alone is preferred only in the medically compromised . In contrast , the SGAs are more often recommended for use alone , and the panel would avoid combining BNZs with some SGAs . Oral risperidone alone or combined with a BNZ receives strong support in a variety of situations . Oral olanzapine was rated very similarly to risperidone , with slightly higher ratings than risperidone in situations where it has been studied ( e.g. , schizophrenia , mania ) and slightly lower ratings where it has not been studied or safety may be a concern ; there was less support for combining oral olanzapine with a BNZ . For oral treatment of agitation related to schizophrenia or mania , olanzapine alone , risperidone alone or combined with a BNZ , and haloperidol plus a BNZ are first line , with strong support also for combining divalproex with the antipsychotic for presumed mania . Oral ziprasidone and quetiapine generally received similar second-line ratings in most situations . If a parenteral agent is needed , i.m . olanzapine alone received somewhat more support than i.m . ziprasidone alone ; however , there was more support for i.m . ziprasidone alone or combined with a BNZ than for i.m . olanzapine plus a BNZ , probably reflecting safety concerns . For example , for a provisional diagnosis of schizophrenia , first-line parenteral options are i.m . olanzapine or ziprasidone alone or i.m . haloperidol or ziprasidone combined with a BNZ . Neither of the new parenteral formulations received as much support as traditional agents ( i.m . BNZs , i.m . haloperidol ) when no data are available or the diagnosis involves medical comorbidity or intoxication . When initial intervention with risperidone , ziprasidone , or haloperidol is unsuccessful , the panel recommended adding a BZD to the antipsychotic . However , when initial treatment with olanzapine or quetiapine is unsuccessful , increasing the dosage is recommended . Perphenazine was consistently rated second line and droperidol and chlorpromazine received third-line ratings throughout . CONCLUSIONS Within the limits of expert opinion and with the expectation that future research data will take precedence , these guidelines suggest that the SGAs are now preferred for agitation in the setting of primary psychiatric illnesses but that BNZs are preferred in other situations The aim of this double‐blind cross‐over study was to investigate whether treatment with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor , citalopram reduces aggressiveness in chronically violent schizophrenic in patients . Initially 19 patients were enrolled into this double‐blind cross‐over study in which the patients were treated for 24 weeks with placebo and 24 weeks with citalopram ( 20–60 mg/day ) as a supplement to their previous neuroleptic medication .  Fourteen patients completed the entire study , but sufficient data on 15 patients could be used in the end – point analysis of efficacy . Psychiatric assessment s ( Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale , Clinical Global Impression Scale for Severity of Illness , Social Dysfunction and Aggression Scale and the Global Aggression Scale ) and side effects ( UKU Side Effect Scale ) were recorded at baseline and 4 times during both periods . Aggressive incidents ( Staff Observation Aggression Scale ) were recorded throughout the study . During citalopram treatment , the frequency of aggressive incidents was significantly lower and the mental state did not deteriorate . Patients either experienced no side effects or else side effects were equally mild during both periods Background Conventional antipsychotics augmented with benzodiazepines have been the st and ard acute treatment for psychiatric emergencies for more than 50 years . The inability of patients to give informed consent limits r and omised , controlled studies . This observational study on immediate therapy for aggression and impulse control in acutely agitated patients ( IMPULSE ) evaluated the short-term effectiveness and tolerability of atypical and typical antipsychotic medications ( AP ) in a non-interventional setting . Methods This was a comparative , non-r and omised , prospect i ve , open-label , observational study . Treatment over the first 5 days was classified according to whether any olanzapine , risperidone , or haloperidol was included or not . Documentations ( PANSS-excited component , CGI-aggression , CGI-suicidality , tranquilisation score ) were at baseline ( day 1 ) and days 2–6 after start of AP . Results During the short treatment-period , PANSS-EC and CGI-aggression scores improved in all cohorts . 68.7 % of patients treated with olanzapine , 72.2 % of patients treated with risperidone , and 83.3 % of patients treated with haloperidol received concomitant benzodiazepines ( haloperidol vs. non-haloperidol : p < 0.001 ) . More patients treated with olanzapine ( 73.8 % ) were fully alert according to a tranquilisation score and active at day 2 than patients treated with risperidone ( 57.1 % ) or haloperidol ( 58.0 % ) . Conclusion Current medication practice s for immediate aggression control are effective with positive results present within a few days . In this study , concomitant benzodiazepine use was significantly more frequent in patients receiving haloperidol The combination of haloperidol , 5 mg , and lorazepam , 4 mg , was both effective and safe for managing agitated behavior in an open trial with acutely psychotic patients . The combination also appeared to be superior to its individual components when studied in a r and omized , nonblind trial . The principle of the combined use of antipsychotics and sedative-hypnotics was further tested by comparing two new combinations : thiothixene , 5 mg , and lorazepam , 4 mg , versus haloperidol , 5 mg , and phenobarbital sodium , 130 mg . These combinations had comparable efficacy and safety , and the level of transquilization approached that produced by the haloperidol-lorazepam combination in the preceding studies
The association of haloperidol with promethazine ( H + P ) promoted tranquilization and presented better safety profile , with moderate quality evidence .
Olanzapine demonstrated benefit towards tranquilization and good safety profile , but needed additional administration to keep tranquilization .
There was no benefit in the use of haloperidol alone or associated to another psychotropic to most outcomes evaluated .
Rapid tranquilization is an intervention used in control of agitation or aggression in patients with mental disorders .
This study synthesized the available evidence regarding efficacy and safety of drugs used for rapid tranquilization in psychiatric patients with psychomotor agitation .