Explore the vast range of titles available.

In a multicenter trial in 566 patients with critical illness who had delirium, the use of haloperidol or ziprasidone, as compared with placebo, had no significant effect on the duration of delirium or coma. Side effects and extrapyramidal disorders occurred at similar rates in all groups.

Haloperidol is frequently used to treat delirium in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), but evidence of its effect is limited. In this multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned adult patients with delirium who had been admitted to the ICU for an acute condition to receive intravenous haloperidol (2.5 mg 3 times daily plus 2.5 mg as needed up to a total maximum daily dose of 20 mg) or placebo. Haloperidol or placebo was administered in the ICU for as long as delirium continued and as needed for recurrences. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital at 90 days after randomization. A total of 1000 patients underwent randomization; 510 were assigned to the haloperidol group and 490 to the placebo group. Among these patients, 987 (98.7%) were included in the final analyses (501 in the haloperidol group and 486 in the placebo group). Primary outcome data were available for 963 patients (97.6%). At 90 days, the mean number of days alive and out of the hospital was 35.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 32.9 to 38.6) in the haloperidol group and 32.9 (95% CI, 29.9 to 35.8) in the placebo group, with an adjusted mean difference of 2.9 days (95% CI, -1.2 to 7.0) (P = 0.22). Mortality at 90 days was 36.3% in the haloperidol group and 43.3% in the placebo group (adjusted absolute difference, -6.9 percentage points [95% CI, -13.0 to -0.6]). Serious adverse reactions occurred in 11 patients in the haloperidol group and in 9 patients in the placebo group. Among patients in the ICU with delirium, treatment with haloperidol did not lead to a significantly greater number of days alive and out of the hospital at 90 days than placebo. (Funded by Innovation Fund Denmark and others; AID-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03392376; EudraCT number, 2017-003829-15.).

Second-generation antipsychotic drugs were introduced over a decade ago for the treatment of schizophrenia; however, their purported clinical effectiveness compared with first-generation antipsychotic drugs is still debated. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of second-generation antipsychotic drugs with that of a low dose of haloperidol, in first-episode schizophrenia. We did an open randomised controlled trial of haloperidol versus second-generation antipsychotic drugs in 50 sites, in 14 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18–40 years, and met diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, or schizoaffective disorder. 498 patients were randomly assigned by a web-based online system to haloperidol (1–4 mg per day; n=103), amisulpride (200–800 mg per day; n=104), olanzapine (5–20 mg per day; n=105), quetiapine (200–750 mg per day; n=104), or ziprasidone (40–160 mg per day; n=82); follow-up was at 1 year. The primary outcome measure was all-cause treatment discontinuation. Patients and their treating physicians were not blinded to the assigned treatment. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN68736636. The number of patients who discontinued treatment for any cause within 12 months was 63 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 72%) for haloperidol, 32 (40%) for amisulpride, 30 (33%) for olanzapine, 51 (53%) for quetiapine, and 31 (45%) for ziprasidone. Comparisons with haloperidol showed lower risks for any-cause discontinuation with amisulpride (hazard ratio [HR] 0·37, [95% CI 0·24–0·57]), olanzapine (HR 0·28 [0·18–0·43]), quetiapine (HR 0·52 [0·35–0·76]), and ziprasidone (HR 0·51 [0·32–0·81]). However, symptom reductions were virtually the same in all the groups, at around 60%. This pragmatic trial suggests that clinically meaningful antipsychotic treatment of first-episode of schizophrenia is achievable, for at least 1 year. However, we cannot conclude that second-generation drugs are more efficacious than is haloperidol, since discontinuation rates are not necessarily consistent with symptomatic improvement. AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis.

PurposeThe AID–ICU trial was a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial investigating effects of haloperidol versus placebo in acutely admitted, adult patients admitted in intensive care unit (ICU) with delirium. This pre-planned Bayesian analysis facilitates probabilistic interpretation of the AID–ICU trial results.MethodsWe used adjusted Bayesian linear and logistic regression models with weakly informative priors to analyse all primary and secondary outcomes reported up to day 90, and with sensitivity analyses using other priors. The probabilities for any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm, and no clinically important differences with haloperidol treatment according to pre-defined thresholds are presented for all outcomes.ResultsThe mean difference for days alive and out of hospital to day 90 (primary outcome) was 2.9 days (95% credible interval (CrI) − 1.1 to 6.9) with probabilities of 92% for any benefit and 82% for clinically important benefit. The risk difference for mortality was − 6.8 percentage points (95% CrI − 12.8 to − 0.8) with probabilities of 99% for any benefit and 94% for clinically important benefit. The adjusted risk difference for serious adverse reactions was 0.3 percentage points (95% CrI − 1.3 to 1.9) with 98% probability of no clinically important difference. Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses using different priors, with more than 83% probability of benefit and less than 17% probability of harm with haloperidol treatment.ConclusionsWe found high probabilities of benefits and low probabilities of harm with haloperidol treatment compared with placebo in acutely admitted, adult ICU patients with delirium for the primary and most secondary outcomes.

The role of neuroleptics for terminal agitated delirium is controversial. We assessed the effect of three neuroleptic strategies on refractory agitation in patients with cancer with terminal delirium. In this single-centre, double-blind, parallel-group, randomised trial, patients with advanced cancer, aged at least 18 years, admitted to the palliative and supportive care unit at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX, USA), with refractory agitation, despite low-dose haloperidol, were randomly assigned to receive intravenous haloperidol dose escalation at 2 mg every 4 h, neuroleptic rotation with chlorpromazine at 25 mg every 4 h, or combined haloperidol at 1 mg and chlorpromazine at 12·5 mg every 4 h, until death or discharge. Rescue doses identical to the scheduled doses were administered at inception, and then hourly as needed. Permuted block randomisation (block size six; 1:1:1) was done, stratified by baseline Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) scores. Research staff, clinicians, patients, and caregivers were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was change in RASS score from time 0 to 24 h. Comparisons among group were done by modified intention-to-treat analysis. This completed study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03021486. Between July 5, 2017, and July 1, 2019, 998 patients were screened for eligibility, with 68 being enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment; 45 received the masked study interventions (escalation n=15, rotation n=16, combination n=14). RASS score decreased significantly within 30 min and remained low at 24 h in the escalation group (n=10, mean RASS score change between 0 h and 24 h −3·6 [95% CI −5·0 to −2·2]), rotation group (n=11, −3·3 [–4·4 to −2·2]), and combination group (n=10, −3·0 [–4·6 to −1·4]), with no difference among groups (p=0·71). The most common serious toxicity was hypotension (escalation n=6 [40%], rotation n=5 [31%], combination n=3 [21%]); there were no treatment-related deaths. Our data provide preliminary evidence that the three strategies of neuroleptics might reduce agitation in patients with terminal agitation. These findings are in the context of the single-centre design, small sample size, and lack of a placebo-only group. National Institute of Nursing Research.

PurposeWe assessed long-term outcomes in acutely admitted adult patients with delirium treated in intensive care unit (ICU) with haloperidol versus placebo.MethodsWe 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.ResultsAt 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.ConclusionsIn acutely admitted adult ICU patients with delirium, haloperidol treatment reduced mortality at 1-year follow-up, but did not statistically significantly improve HRQoL.

The purpose was to describe characteristics and outcomes of restrained and nonrestrained patients enrolled in a randomized trial of protocolized sedation compared with protocolized sedation plus daily sedation interruption and to identify patient and treatment factors associated with physical restraint. This was a post hoc secondary analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling adjusted for center- and time-varying covariates to evaluate predictors of restraint use. A total of 328 (76%) of 430 patients were restrained for a median of 4 days. Restrained patients received higher daily doses of benzodiazepines (105 vs 41 mg midazolam equivalent, P < .0001) and opioids (1524 vs 919 μg fentanyl equivalents, P < .0001), more days of infusions (benzodiazepines 6 vs 4, P < .0001; opioids 7 vs 5, P = .02), and more daily benzodiazepine boluses (0.2 vs 0.1, P < .0001). More restrained patients received haloperidol (23% vs 12%, P = .02) and atypical antipsychotics (17% vs 4%, P = .003). More restrained patients experienced unintentional device removal (26% vs 3%, P < .001) and required reintubation (8% vs 1%, P = .01). In the multivariable analysis, alcohol use was associated with decreased risk of restraint (hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.58). Physical restraint was common in mechanically ventilated adults managed with a sedation protocol. Restrained patients received more opioids and benzodiazepines. Except for alcohol use, patient characteristics and treatment factors did not predict restraint use.

Aggressive challenging behaviour is frequently reported in adults with intellectual disability and it is often treated with antipsychotic drugs. However, no adequate evidence base for this practice exists. We compared flexible doses of haloperidol (a typical, first-generation antipsychotic drug), risperidone (an atypical, second-generation antipsychotic), and placebo, in the treatment of this behaviour. 86 non-psychotic patients presenting with aggressive challenging behaviour from ten centres in England and Wales, and one in Queensland, Australia, were randomly assigned to haloperidol (n=28), risperidone (n=29), or placebo (n=29). Clinical assessments of aggression, aberrant behaviour, quality of life, adverse drug effects, and carer uplift (positive feelings about the care of the disabled person) and burden, together with total costs, were recorded at 4, 12, and 26 weeks. The primary outcome was change in aggression after 4 weeks' treatment, which was recorded with the modified overt aggression scale (MOAS). Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as ISRCTN 11736448. 80 patients had adherence of 80% or more to prescribed drug. Aggression decreased substantially with all three treatments by 4 weeks, with the placebo group showing the greatest change (median decrease in MOAS score after 4 weeks=9 [95% CI 5–14] for placebo, 79% from baseline; 7 [4–14] for risperidone, 58% from baseline; 6·5 [5–14] for haloperidol, 65% from baseline; p=0·06). Furthermore, although no important differences between the treatments were recorded, including adverse effects, patients given placebo showed no evidence at any time points of worse response than did patients assigned to either of the antipsychotic drugs. Antipsychotic drugs should no longer be regarded as an acceptable routine treatment for aggressive challenging behaviour in people with intellectual disability.

Introduction Acute akathisia is a neuropsychiatric syndrome with a negative effect on illness outcome. Its incidence in patients treated with antipsychotics has shown to be highly variable across studies. Objectives Our goals were to investigate prevalence, risk factors for the development of acute akathisia, and differences in incidence between antipsychotics in a sample of 493 first episode non-affective psychosis patients. Methods This is a pooled analysis of three prospective, randomized, flexible-dose, and open-label clinical trials. Patients were randomized assigned to different arms of treatment (haloperidol, quetiapine, olanzapine, ziprasidone, risperidone, or aripiprazole). Akathisia was determined using the Barnes Akathisia Scale at 6 weeks after antipsychotic initialization. Univariate analyses were performed to identify demographic, biochemical, substance use, clinical, and treatment-related predictors of acute akathisia. Considering these results, a predictive model based of a subsample of 132 patients was constructed with akathisia as the dependent variable. Results The overall incidence of akathisia was 19.5%. No differences in demographic, biochemical, substance use, and clinical variables were found. Significant incidence differences between antipsychotics were observed ( Χ 2  = 68.21, p  = 0.000): haloperidol (57%), risperidone (20%), aripiprazole (18.2%), ziprasidone (17.2%), olanzapine (3.6%), and quetiapine (3.5%). The predictive model showed that the type of antipsychotic (OR = 21.3, p  = 0.000), need for hospitalization (OR = 2.6, p  = 0.05), and BPRS total score at baseline (OR = 1.05, p  = 0.03) may help to predict akathisia emergence. Conclusions Among second generation antipsychotics, only olanzapine and quetiapine should be considered as akathisia-sparing drugs. The type of antipsychotic, having been hospitalized, and a more severe symptomatology at intake seem to predict the development of acute akathisia.

Delirium is frequently diagnosed in critically ill patients and is associated with adverse outcome. Impaired cholinergic neurotransmission seems to have an important role in the development of delirium. We aimed to establish the effect of the cholinesterase inhibitor rivastigmine on the duration of delirium in critically ill patients. Patients (aged ≥18 years) who were diagnosed with delirium were enrolled from six intensive care units in the Netherlands, and treated between November, 2008, and January, 2010. Patients were randomised (1:1 ratio) to receive an increasing dose of rivastigmine or placebo, starting at 0·75 mL (1·5 mg rivastigmine) twice daily and increasing in increments to 3 mL (6 mg rivastigmine) twice daily from day 10 onwards, as an adjunct to usual care based on haloperidol. The trial pharmacist generated the randomisation sequence by computer, and consecutively numbered bottles of the study drug according to this sequence to conceal allocation. The primary outcome was the duration of delirium during hospital admission. Analysis was by intention to treat. Duration of delirium was censored for patients who died or were discharged from hospital while delirious. Patients, medical staff, and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Members of the data safety and monitoring board (DSMB) were unmasked and did interim analyses every 3 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00704301. Although a sample size of 440 patients was planned, after inclusion of 104 patients with delirium who were eligible for the intention-to-treat analysis (n=54 on rivastigmine, n=50 on placebo), the DSMB recommended that the trial be halted because mortality in the rivastigmine group (n=12, 22%) was higher than in the placebo group (n=4, 8%; p=0·07). Median duration of delirium was longer in the rivastigmine group (5·0 days, IQR 2·7–14·2) than in the placebo group (3·0 days, IQR 1·0–9·3; p=0·06). Rivastigmine did not decrease duration of delirium and might have increased mortality so we do not recommend use of rivastigmine to treat delirium in critically ill patients. ZonMw, the Netherlands Brain Foundation, and Novartis.