Haloperidol (oral) versus olanzapine (oral) for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia is often a severe and disabling psychiatric disorder. Antipsychotics remain the mainstay of psychotropic treatment for people with psychosis. In limited resource and humanitarian contexts, it is key to have several options for beneficial, low-cost antipsychotics, which require minimal monitoring. We wanted to compare oral haloperidol, as one of the most available antipsychotics in these settings, with a second-generation antipsychotic, olanzapine. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical benefits and harms of haloperidol compared to olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia study-based register of trials, which is based on monthly searches of CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and WHO ICTRP. We screened the references of all included studies. We contacted relevant authors of trials for additional information where clarification was required or where data were incomplete. The register was last searched on 14 January 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing haloperidol with olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in global state, relapse, clinically important change in mental state, extrapyramidal side effects, weight increase, clinically important change in quality of life and leaving the study early due to adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently evaluated and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB or NNTH) with 95% CI. For continuous data, we estimated mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. For all included studies, we assessed risk of bias (RoB 1) and we used the GRADE approach to create a summary of findings table. MAIN RESULTS: We included 68 studies randomising 9132 participants. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in clinically important change in global state (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.02; 6 studies, 3078 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in relapse (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.02; 7 studies, 1499 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in overall mental state compared to olanzapine (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.81; 13 studies, 1210 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every eight people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this improvement. The evidence suggests that haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects compared to olanzapine (RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.28 to 5.02; 14 studies, 3290 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every three people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one additional person would experience extrapyramidal side effects. For weight gain, the evidence suggests that there may be a large reduction in the risk with haloperidol compared to olanzapine (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; 18 studies, 4302 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 10 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience weight increase. A single study suggests that haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in quality of life compared to olanzapine (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; 828 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every nine people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience clinically important improvement in quality of life. Haloperidol may result in an increase in the incidence of leaving the study early due to adverse effects compared to olanzapine (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.47; 21 studies, 5047 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 22 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this outcome. Thirty otherwise relevant studies and several endpoints from 14 included studies could not be evaluated due to inconsistencies and poor transparency of several parameters. Furthermore, even within studies that were included, it was often not possible to use data for the same reasons. Risk of bias differed substantially for different outcomes and the certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to low. The most common risks of bias leading to downgrading of the evidence were blinding (performance bias) and selective reporting (reporting bias). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the certainty of the evidence was low to very low for the main outcomes in this review, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in terms of clinically important global state and relapse. Olanzapine may result in a slightly greater overall clinically important change in mental state and in a clinically important change in quality of life. Different side effect profiles were noted: haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects and olanzapine in a large increase in weight gain. The drug of choice needs to take into account side effect profiles and the preferences of the individual. These findings and the recent inclusion of olanzapine alongside haloperidol in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines should increase the likelihood of it becoming more easily available in low- and middle- income countries, thereby improving choice and providing a greater ability to respond to side effects for people with lived experience of schizophrenia. There is a need for additional research using appropriate and equivalent dosages of these drugs. Some of this research needs to be done in low- and middle-income settings and should actively seek to account for factors relevant to these. Research on antipsychotics needs to be person-centred and prioritise factors that are of interest to people with lived experience of schizophrenia.

A joint frailty model for recurrent and competing terminal events: Application to delirium in the ICU.

Joint models linking longitudinal biomarkers or recurrent event processes with a terminal event, for example, mortality, have been studied extensively. Motivated by studies of recurrent delirium events in patients receiving care in an intensive care unit (ICU), we devise a joint model for a recurrent event process and multiple terminal events. Being discharged alive from the ICU or experiencing mortality may be associated with a patient's hazard of delirium, violating the assumption of independent censoring. Moreover, the direction of the association between the hazards of delirium and mortality may be opposite of the direction of association between the hazards of delirium and ICU discharge. Hence treating either terminal event as independent censoring may bias inferences. We propose a competing joint model that uses a latent frailty to link a patient's recurrent and competing terminal event processes. We fit our model to data from a completed placebo-controlled clinical trial, which studied whether Haloperidol could prevent death and delirium among ICU patients. The clinical trial served as a foundation for a simulation study, in which we evaluate the properties, for example, bias and confidence interval coverage, of the competing joint model. As part of the simulation study, we demonstrate the shortcomings of using a joint model with a recurrent delirium process and a single terminal event to study delirium in the ICU. Lastly, we discuss limitations and possible extensions for the competing joint model. The competing joint model has been added to frailtypack, an R package for fitting an assortment of joint models.

Aripiprazole for treating delirium: A systematic review-Is it a valid yet understudied treatment?

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a neuropsychiatric condition that commonly occurs in medical settings, especially among older individuals. Despite the lack of strong evidence in the literature, haloperidol is considered the first-line pharmacological intervention. Unfortunately, its adverse effects can be severe, and psychiatrists are considering the use of alternative drugs targeting dopamine and serotonin domains (atypical antipsychotics). Among them, aripiprazole is considered to have one of the safest pharmacological profiles. AIMS: The purpose of this study is to examine the studies on aripiprazole as a pharmacological treatment of delirium present in today's literature. METHODS: We carried out systematic research of MedLine, PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and ScienceDirect examining articles written between January 2002 and September 2023, including experimental studies published in peer-reviewed journals. RESULTS: The 6 final included studies examined a total of 130 patients, showing a delirium resolution in a 7-day span of 73.8% of patients treated with aripiprazole. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the limited data currently available, we can assert that aripiprazole is at least as efficient as haloperidol, the true point is that it has a far better tolerability and safety profile. Nonetheless, further studies are necessary to provide more compelling data, together with a more precise indication regarding minimum efficient dose, as the main limitations of our review are the very small sample size, the small percentage of subjects with preexisting dementia, and the fact that most studies used scales with low specificity for the examined condition.

Acute encephalopathy in the ICU: a practical approach.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Acute encephalopathy (AE) - which frequently develops in critically ill patients with and without primary brain injury - is defined as an acute process that evolves rapidly and leads to changes in baseline cognitive status, ranging from delirium to coma. The diagnosis, monitoring, and management of AE is challenging. Here, we discuss advances in definitions, diagnostic approaches, therapeutic options, and implications to outcomes of the clinical spectrum of AE in ICU patients without primary brain injury. RECENT FINDINGS: Understanding and definitions of delirium and coma have evolved. Delirium is a neurocognitive disorder involving impairment of attention and cognition, usually fluctuating, and developing over hours to days. Coma is a state of unresponsiveness, with absence of command following, intelligible speech, or visual pursuit, with no imaging or neurophysiological evidence of cognitive motor dissociation. The CAM-ICU(-7) and the ICDSC are validated, guideline-recommended tools for clinical delirium assessment, with identification of clinical subtypes and stratification of severity. In comatose patients, the roles of continuous EEG monitoring and neuroimaging have grown for the early detection of secondary brain injury and treatment of reversible causes. SUMMARY: Evidence-based pharmacologic treatments for delirium are limited. Dexmedetomidine is effective for mechanically ventilated patients with delirium, while haloperidol has minimal effect of delirium but may have other benefits. Specific treatments for coma in nonprimary brain injury are still lacking.

Comparison of Nausea and Vomiting Incidence After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy With Pretreatment With Haloperidol and Ondansetron: A Randomization Clinical Trial Study.

OBJECTIVE: Nausea and vomiting after surgery are the most common complications. Therefore, we performed this study to compare the effect of ondansetron and haloperidol on nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized clinical trial, 60 patients candidates for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were allocated to haloperidol (0.05 mg/kg, n = 30) and ondansetron (0.15 mg/kg, n = 30) groups. An Ocular Analog Scale was used to assess postoperative nausea and vomiting. Every 15 minutes in the recovery room, heart rate and blood pressure were measured up to 6 hours after surgery. In addition, patient satisfaction was assessed postoperatively. RESULTS: Haloperidol and ondansetron have the same effect on postoperative nausea and vomiting in the recovery room and ward. It was found that the trend of Visual Analog Scale variable changes in the recovery room was similar in the haloperidol and ondansetron group ( P = 0.58); it was also true for the ward ( P = 0.79). Comparing the length of stay in a recovery room in the 2 groups was not statistically significant ( P = 0.19). In addition, the 2 groups did not differ in satisfaction postoperatively ( P = 0.82). CONCLUSION: Haloperidol and ondansetron had an equal effect on reducing nausea and vomiting in the recovery room and ward after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patient satisfaction and length of stay in the recovery room did not differ between groups.

The cytotoxic effects of prazosin, chlorpromazine, and haloperidol on hepatocellular carcinoma and immortalized non-tumor liver cells.

Liver cancer annually accounts for over 800,000 cases and 700,000 deaths worldwide. Hepatocellular carcinoma is responsible for over 80% of liver cancer cases. Due to ineffective treatment options and limited surgical interventions, hepatocellular carcinoma is notoriously difficult to treat. Nonetheless, drugs utilized for other medical conditions, such as the antihypertensive medication prazosin, the neuroleptic medication chlorpromazine, and the neuroleptic medication haloperidol, have gained attention for their potential anti-cancer effects. Therefore, this study used these medications for investigating toxicity to hepatocellular carcinoma while testing the adverse effects on a noncancerous liver cell line model THLE-2. After treatment, an XTT cell viability assay, cell apoptosis assay, reactive oxygen species (ROS) assay, apoptotic proteome profile, and western blot were performed. We calculated IC50 values for chlorpromazine and prazosin to have a molar range of 35-65 µM. Our main findings suggest the capability of both of these treatments to reduce cell viability and generate oxidative stress in HepG2 and THLE-2 cells (p value < 0.05). Haloperidol, however, failed to demonstrate any reduction in cell viability revealing no antitumor effect up to 100 µM. Based on our findings, a mechanism of cell death was not able to be established due to lack of cleaved caspase-3 expression. Capable of bypassing many aspects of the lengthy, costly, and difficult cancer drug approval process, chlorpromazine and prazosin deserve further investigation for use in conjunction with traditional chemotherapeutics.

Comparison of Pharmacological Treatments for Agitated Delirium in the Last Days of Life.

CONTEXT: Antipsychotics are often used in managing symptoms of terminal delirium, but evidence is limited. OBJECTIVES: To explore the comparative effectiveness of haloperidol with as-needed benzodiazepines (HPD) vs. chlorpromazine (CPZ) vs. levomepromazine (LPZ) for agitated delirium in the last days. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted in two palliative care units in Japan. Adult cancer patients who developed agitated delirium with a modified Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS-PAL) of one or more were included; palliative care specialist physicians determined that the etiology was irreversible; and estimated survival was 3 weeks or less. Patients treated with HPD, CPZ, or LPZ were analyzed. We measured RASS, NuDESC, Agitation Distress Scale (ADS), and Communication Capacity Scale (CCS) on Days 1 and 3. RESULTS: A total of 277 patients were enrolled, and 214 were analyzed (112 in HPD, 50 in CPZ, and 52 in LPZ). In all groups, the mean RASS-PAL score significantly decreased on Day 3 (1.37 to -1.01, 1.87 to -1.04, 1.79 to -0.62, respectively; P < 0.001); the NuDESC and ADS scores also significantly decreased. The percentages of patients with moderate to severe agitation and those with full communication capacity on Day 3 were not significantly different. The treatments were well-tolerated. While one-fourth of HPD group changed antipsychotics, 88% or more of CPZ and LPZ groups continued the initial antipsychotics. CONCLUSION: Haloperidol with as-needed benzodiazepine, chlorpromazine, or levomepromazine may be effective and safe for terminal agitation. Chlorpromazine and levomepromazine may have an advantage of no need to change medications.

Efficacy and effectiveness of antipsychotics in schizophrenia: network meta-analyses combining evidence from randomised controlled trials and real-world data.

BACKGROUND: There is debate about the generalisability of results from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) to real-world settings. Studying outcomes of treatments for schizophrenia can shed light on this issue and inform treatment guidelines. We therefore compared the efficacy and effectiveness of antipsychotics for relapse prevention in schizophrenia and estimated overall treatment effects using all available RCT and real-world evidence. METHODS: We conducted network meta-analyses using individual participant data from Swedish and Finnish national registries and aggregate data from RCTs. The target population was adults (age >18 and <65 years) with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder with stabilised symptoms. We analysed each registry separately to obtain hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for relapse within 6 months post-antipsychotic initiation as our main outcome. Interventions studied were antipsychotics, no antipsychotic use, and placebo. We compared HRs versus a reference drug (oral haloperidol) between registries, and between registry individuals who would be eligible and ineligible for RCTs, using the ratio of HRs. We synthesised evidence using network meta-analysis and compared results from our network meta-analysis of real-world data with our network meta-analysis of RCT data, including oral versus long-acting injectable (LAI) formulations. Finally, we conducted a joint real-world and RCT network meta-analysis. FINDINGS: We included 90 469 individuals from the Swedish and Finnish registries (mean age 45·9 [SD 14·6] years; 43 025 [47·5%] women and 47 467 [52·5%] men, ethnicity data unavailable) and 10 091 individuals from 30 RCTs (mean age 39·6 years [SD 11·7]; 3724 [36·9%] women and 6367 [63·1%] men, 6022 White [59·7%]). We found good agreement in effectiveness of antipsychotics between Swedish and Finnish registries (HR ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·88-1·08). Drug effectiveness versus no antipsychotic was larger in RCT-eligible than RCT-ineligible individuals (HR ratio 1·40 [1·24-1·59]). Efficacy versus placebo in RCTs was larger than effectiveness versus no antipsychotic in real-world (HR ratio 2·58 [2·02-3·30]). We found no evidence of differences between effectiveness and efficacy for between-drug comparisons (HR ratio vs oral haloperidol 1·17 [0·83-1·65], where HR ratio >1 means superior effectiveness in real-world to RCTs), except for LAI versus oral comparisons (HR ratio 0·73 [0·53-0·99], indicating superior effectiveness in real-world data relative to RCTs). The real-world network meta-analysis showed clozapine was most effective, followed by olanzapine LAI. The RCT network meta-analysis exhibited heterogeneity and inconsistency. The joint real-world and RCT network meta-analysis identified olanzapine as the most efficacious antipsychotic amongst those present in both RCTs and the real world registries. INTERPRETATION: LAI antipsychotics perform slightly better in the real world than according to RCTs. Otherwise, RCT evidence was in line with real-world evidence for most between-drug comparisons, but RCTs might overestimate effectiveness of antipsychotics observed in routine care settings. Our results further the understanding of the generalisability of RCT findings to clinical practice and can inform preferential prescribing guidelines. FUNDING: None.

Long-term outcomes with haloperidol versus placebo in acutely admitted adult ICU patients with delirium.

PURPOSE: We assessed long-term outcomes in acutely admitted adult patients with delirium treated in intensive care unit (ICU) with haloperidol versus placebo. METHODS: We conducted pre-planned analyses of 1-year outcomes in the Agents Intervening against Delirium in the ICU (AID-ICU) trial, including mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessed by Euroqol (EQ) 5-dimension 5-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) index values and EQ visual analogue scale (EQ VAS) (deceased patients were assigned the numeric value zero). Outcomes were analysed using logistic and linear regressions with bootstrapping and G-computation, all with adjustment for the stratification variables (site and delirium motor subtype) and multiple imputations for missing HRQoL values. RESULTS: At 1-year follow-up, we obtained vital status for 96.2% and HRQoL data for 83.3% of the 1000 randomised patients. One-year mortality was 224/501 (44.7%) in the haloperidol group versus 251/486 (51.6%) in the placebo group, with an adjusted absolute risk difference of - 6.4%-points (95% confidence interval [CI] - 12.8%-points to - 0.2%-points; P = 0.045). These results were largely consistent across the secondary analyses. For HRQoL, the adjusted mean differences were 0.04 (95% CI - 0.03 to 0.11; P = 0.091) for EQ-5D-5L-5L index values, and 3.3 (95% CI - 9.3 to 17.5; P = 0.142) for EQ VAS. CONCLUSIONS: In acutely admitted adult ICU patients with delirium, haloperidol treatment reduced mortality at 1-year follow-up, but did not statistically significantly improve HRQoL.

The Association of Nonmodifiable Patient Factors on Antipsychotic Medication use in the Intensive Care Unit.

PURPOSE: We investigated the association of age, sex, race, and insurance status on antipsychotic medication use among intensive care unit (ICU) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective study of adults admitted to ICUs at a tertiary academic center. Patient characteristics, hospital course, and medication (olanzapine, quetiapine, and haloperidol) data were collected. Logistic regression models evaluated the independent association of age, sex, race, and insurance status on the use of each antipsychotic, adjusting for prespecified covariates. RESULTS: Of 27,137 encounters identified, 6191 (22.8%) received antipsychotics. Age was significantly associated with the odds of receiving olanzapine (P < .001), quetiapine (P = .001), and haloperidol (P = .0046). Male sex and public insurance status were associated with increased odds of receiving antipsychotics olanzapine, quetiapine, and haloperidol (Male vs Female: OR 1.13, 95% CI [1.04, 1.24], P = .0005; OR 1.22, 95% CI [1.10, 1.34], P = .0001; OR 1.28, 95% CI [1.17, 1.40], P < .0001, respectively; public insurance vs private insurance: OR 1.32, 95% CI [1.20, 1.46], P < .0001; OR 1.21, 95% CI [1.09, 1.34], P = .0004; OR 1.15, 95% CI [1.04, 1.27], P = .0058, respectively). Black race was also associated with a decreased odds of receiving all antipsychotics (olanzapine (P = .0177), quetiapine (P = .004), haloperidol (P = .0041)). CONCLUSIONS: Age, sex, race, and insurance status were associated with the use of all antipsychotic medications investigated, highlighting the importance of investigating the potential impact of these prescribing decisions on patient outcomes across diverse populations. Recognizing how nonmodifiable patient factors have the potential to influence prescribing practices may be considered an important factor toward optimizing medication regimens.

Haloperidol's introduction in the United States: A tale of a failed trial and its consequences.

Haloperidol, the first butyrophenone neuroleptic, was created in Europe by Janssen Pharmaceuticals in 1958 and was introduced swiftly throughout the continent with great enthusiasm. On September 15, 1959, at Janssen's headquarters in Belgium, teams from around Europe praised the effectiveness of haloperidol. In the United States, on the contrary, its introduction was a tremendous failure, plagued by accusations of inefficacy and patent disputes. A clinical trial in Manhattan has been blamed for this commercial failure. The results of the Manhattan trial were seen as radically different from the results obtained in continental Europe. This divide would have considerable impact not only with regard to haloperidol's path on both sides of the Atlantic, but also possibly on the practical experience and theoretical construction of psychiatry. This article tries to reconstruct the story of that trial based mainly on published papers and interviews. Exploring how societal changes and issues of gender and race shaped this process, this investigation attempts to understand and contextualize different possible reasons for this Atlantic rift.

Perioperative use of low dose haloperidol safely reduces episodes of postoperative nausea/vomiting and length of stay following elective minimally invasive bariatric surgery.

INTRODUCTION: While total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) protocols include Dexamethasone and Ondansetron prophylaxis, bariatric patients continue to be considered at particularly high risk for postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV). A multimodal approach for prophylaxis is recommended by the Bariatric Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society however, there remains a lack of consensus on the optimal strategy to manage PONV in these patients. Haloperidol has been shown at low doses to have a therapeutic effect in treatment of refractory nausea and in PONV prophylaxis in other high risk surgical populations. We sought to investigate its efficacy as a prophylactic medication for PONV in the bariatric population and to identify which perioperative strategies were most effective at reducing episodes of PONV. METHODS: An institutional bariatric database was created by retrospectively reviewing patients undergoing elective minimally invasive bariatric procedures from 2018 to 2022. Demographic data reviewed included age, gender, preoperative body mass index (BMI), ethnicity, and primary language. Primary endpoints included patient reported episodes of PONV, total doses of Ondansetron administered, need for a second antiemetic (rescue medication), complication rate (most commonly readmission within 30 days), and length of stay. Fisher's exact test, Mann-Whitney test, and ANOVA were used to evaluate the effect of perioperative management on various endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 475 patients were analyzed with Haloperidol being utilized in 15.8% of all patients. Patients receiving Haloperidol were less likely to require Ondansetron outside of the immediate perioperative period (34.7% vs. 49.8%, p = 0.02), experienced less PONV (41.3% vs. 64.3%, p = 0.01) and also had a decreased median length of stay (27.3 vs. 35.8 h, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of low dose Haloperidol to Bariatric ERAS protocols decreases incidence of PONV and the need for additional antiemetic coverage resulting in a significantly shorter length of stay, increasing the likelihood of safe discharge on postoperative day 1.

Update Lessons from Positron Emission Tomography Imaging Part I: A Systematic Critical Review on Therapeutic Plasma Concentrations of Antipsychotics.

BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography (PET) and single photon emission tomography (SPECT) of molecular drug targets (neuroreceptors and transporters) provide essential information for therapeutic drug monitoring-guided antipsychotic drug therapy. The optimal therapeutic windows for D 2 antagonists and partial agonists, as well as their proposed target ranges, are discussed based on an up-to-date literature search. METHODS: This part I of II presents an overview of molecular neuroimaging studies in humans and primates involving the target engagement of amisulpride, haloperidol, clozapine, aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, cariprazine, and ziprasidone. The systemic review particularly focused on dopamine D 2 -like and 5-HT 2A receptors. Target concentration ranges were estimated based on receptor occupancy ranges that relate to clinical effects or side effects (ie, extrapyramidal side effects). In addition, findings for other relevant receptor systems were included to further enrich the discussion. RESULTS: The reported reference ranges for aripiprazole and clozapine align closely with findings from PET studies. Conversely, for haloperidol, risperidone, and olanzapine, the PET studies indicate that a lowering of the previously published upper limits would be necessary to decrease the risk of extrapyramidal side effect. CONCLUSIONS: Molecular neuroimaging studies serve as a strong tool for defining target ranges for antipsychotic drug treatment and directing therapeutic drug monitoring.

Recurrent delirium episodes within the intensive care unit: Incidence and associated factors.

PURPOSE: Describe the incidence and factors associated with recurrent delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective study of ICU patients diagnosed with delirium. Delirium clearance defined as 48 h of negative delirium assessments following initial episode and recurrent delirium as any positive delirium assessment following clearance. Multivariable logistic regression model assessed independent association of patient and hospital factors on development of recurrent delirium, adjusting for pre-defined covariates. RESULTS: Among 8591 ICU admissions identified with delirium, 1067 (12.4%) had recurrent symptoms. Factors associated with increased odds of recurrent delirium were age (nonlinear; p = 0.02), shock (OR 1.45, 95% CI [1.20, 1.75]), admission to medical (OR 3.25, 95% CI [2.42, 4.37]), surgical (OR 3.00, 95% CI [2.21, 4.06]), or trauma (OR 2.17, 95% CI [1.58, 3.00]) ICU vs. cardiovascular ICU, increased duration of mechanical ventilation (OR 2.43, 95% CI [2.22, 2.65]), propofol use (OR 1.35, 95% CI [1.02, 1.80]), and antipsychotic medications (haloperidol OR 1.53, 95% CI [1.26, 1.86]; quetiapine OR 2.45, 95% CI [1.98, 3.02]; and olanzapine OR 1.54, 95% CI [1.25, 1.88]). CONCLUSIONS: Over 10% of delirious ICU patients had recurrent symptoms. Factors associated with recurrence included age, duration of mechanical ventilation and medication exposure. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.

The Role of Total White Blood Cell Count in Antipsychotic Treatment for Patients with Schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Total white blood cell count (TWBCc), an index of chronic and low-grade inflammation, is associated with clinical symptoms and metabolic alterations in patients with schizophrenia. The effect of antipsychotics on TWBCc, predictive values of TWBCc for drug response, and role of metabolic alterations require further study. METHODS: Patients with schizophrenia were randomized to monotherapy with risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, aripiprazole, ziprasidone, perphenazine or haloperidol in a 6-week pharmacological trial. We repeatedly measured clinical symptoms, TWBCc, and metabolic measures (body mass index, blood pressure, waist circumference, fasting blood lipids and glucose). We used mixed-effect linear regression models to test whether TWBCc can predict drug response. Mediation analysis to investigate metabolic alteration effects on drug response. RESULTS: At baseline, TWBCc was higher among patients previously medicated. After treatment with risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, perphenazine, and haloperidol, TWBCc decreased significantly (p < 0.05). Lower baseline TWBCc predicted greater reductions in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total and negative scores over time (p < 0.05). We found significant mediation of TWBCc for effects of waist circumference, fasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and glucose on reductions in PANSS total scores and PANSS negative subscale scores (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: TWBCc is affected by certain antipsychotics among patients with schizophrenia, with decreases observed following short-term, but increases following long-term treatment. TWBCc is predictive of drug response, with lower TWBCc predicting better responses to antipsychotics. It also mediates the effects of certain metabolic measures on improvement of negative symptoms. This indicates that the metabolic state may affect clinical manifestations through inflammation.

Relationship of the 1846G > A Polymorphism of the CYP2D6 Gene to the Equilibrium Concentration Levels of Haloperidol in Patients with Acute Alcoholic Hallucinosis.

Haloperidol is currently used in addictology for the treatment of acute psychotic disorders, including acute alcoholic hallucinosis. The use of haloperidol is often accompanied by the occurrence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). There is evidence that CYP2D6 isoenzyme is involved in the biotransformation of haloperidol. Aim: The study aimed to evaluate the relationship of 1846G > A polymorphism of the CYP2D6 gene to the equilibrium concentration levels of haloperidol in patients with acute alcoholic hallucinosis. Material and Methods: The study was conducted on 100 male patients with acute alcoholic hallucinosis (mean age 41.4 ± 14.4 years). The efficacy profile was evaluated using the PANSS (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale) scale. The safety of therapy was assessed using the UKU Side-Effect Rating Scale and the SAS (Simpson-Angus Scale for Extrapyramidal Symptoms) scale. Genotyping was performed using the real-time polymerase chain reaction (Real-time PCR). Equilibrium plasma concentration levels of haloperidol were investigated using the high-performance liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry (HPLC with MS/MS). Results: No statistically significant results were obtained during the therapy efficacy assessment (dynamics of the PANSS score: GG genotype (-13.00 [-16.00; -16.00; -11.00]), GA genotype (-15.00 [-16.75; -13.00], p = 0.728). There was a statistically significant difference in safety assessment scores (dynamics of the UKU score: GG genotype (8.00 [7.00; 10.00]), GA genotype (15.00 [9.25; 18.00], p < 0.001); dynamics of the SAS score: GG genotype (11.00 [9.00; 14.00]), GA genotype (14.50 [12.00; 18.00], p < 0.001). The pharmacokinetic study results showed a statistically significant difference: GG (3.13 [2.32; 3.95]), GA (3.89 [2.92; 5.26], p = 0.010). Thus, a study conducted on a group of 100 patients with acute alcoholic hallucinosis demonstrated an association between the 1846G > A polymorphism of the CYP2D6 gene (rs3892097) and the safety profile of haloperidol therapy. We also revealed the presence of statistically significant difference in the equilibrium concentration levels of haloperidol in patients with the GG and AG genotypes. Conclusion: It can be concluded that patients with the GA genotype have a higher risk of ADRs compared to patients carrying the GG genotype. It is shown that 1846G > A polymorphism of the CYP2D6 gene (rs3892097) has a statistically significant effect on the equilibrium concentration levels of haloperidol.

Relationship of CYP3A4*1B Single Nucleotide Polymorphism to the Efficiency and Safety Profiles of Haloperidol in Patients Enduring Acute Alcoholic Hallucinosis.

To date, haloperidol has been widely used to treat patients with acute alcoholic hallucinosis. There is strong evidence that haloperidol therapy is commonly associated with adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The 392A > G polymorphism of the CYP3A4*1B gene (rs2740574) is known to affect the metabolism rates of haloperidol; hence it correlates with both therapy efficacy and safety parameters. Objective: The study objective was to investigate the effect of 392A > G polymorphism of the CYP3A4*1B gene (rs2740574) on the efficacy and safety profiles of haloperidol in patients with acute alcoholic hallucinosis. Methods: This study enrolled 100 male patients suffering from acute alcoholic hallucinosis (mean age 41.4 ± 14.4 years). The efficacy profile of haloperidol was assessed using the PANSS (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale) validated psychometric scale. The safety profile of therapy was assessed with the UKU Side-Effect Rating Scale and the SAS (Simpson-Angus Scale for Extrapyramidal Symptoms) scale. Genotyping was performed using the real-time polymerase chain reaction (Real-time PCR). Results: There were no statistically significant results for the efficacy rates (dynamics of the PANSS score: AA genotype -14.00 [-16.00; -12.00], AG genotype -13.00 [-14.00; -10.50], p = 0.306). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in the safety profiles (dynamics of the UKU score: AA genotype - 9.00 [7.00; 13.00], AG genotype - 8.50 [7.25; 10.50], p = 0.620; dynamics of the SAS score: AA genotype -12.00 [10.00; 16.75], AG genotype - 10.00 [10.00; 12.25], p = 0.321). Conclusion: The study demonstrated that the 392A > G polymorphism of the CYP3A4*1B gene (rs2740574) in patients with acute alcoholic hallucinosis does not affect the efficacy and safety rates of haloperidol therapy.

Is Ketamine an Effective Treatment of Acute Agitation in the Emergency Department? Implications for APRN Practice.

This article reviews the results of a randomized controlled trial, "Rapid Agitation Control with Ketamine in the Emergency Department: A Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial" by D. Barbic et al. (2021), comparing time to sedation, level of sedation, and adverse outcomes between intramuscular ketamine versus intramuscular midazolam and haloperidol among acutely agitated patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). The findings are discussed in the context of practice change for patient stabilization within the ED. Emergency department nurse practitioners must employ continuing education and remain current with clinical practices and treatment options to ensure that patients receive optimal safe care. Although the use of midazolam and haloperidol has historically been the first-line treatment for the acutely agitated patient, use of ketamine shows promise in providing a safe alternative for expedited patient stabilization for acutely agitated patients presenting to the ED.