Ostinelli Edoardo G, Hussein Mohsin, Ahmed Uzair, Rehman Faiz-Ur, Miramontes Krista, Adams Clive E
Department of Health Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Antonio di Rudinì 8, Milan, Italy, 20142.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Apr 10;4(4):CD009412. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009412.pub2.
Aggressive, agitated or violent behaviour due to psychosis constitutes an emergency psychiatric treatment where fast-acting interventions are required. Risperidone is a widely accessible antipsychotic that can be used to manage psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.
To examine whether oral risperidone alone is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (up to April 2017); this register is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including AMED, BIOSIS CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rapid use of risperidone and other drugs, combinations of drugs or placebo for people exhibiting aggression or agitation (or both) thought to be due to psychosis.
We independently inspected all citations from searches, identified relevant abstracts, and independently extracted data from all included studies. For binary data we calculated risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated mean difference (MD), all with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and used a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and used the GRADE approach to produce a 'Summary of findings' tables.
The review now contains data from nine trials (total n = 582) reporting on five comparisons. Due to risk of bias, small size of trials, indirectness of outcome measures and a paucity of investigated and reported 'pragmatic' outcomes, evidence was graded as very-low quality. None of the included studies provided useable data on our primary outcome 'tranquillisation or asleep' by 30 minutes, repeated need for tranquillisation or any economic outcomes. Data were available for our other main outcomes of agitation or aggression, needing restraint, and incidence of adverse effects.Risperidone versus haloperidol (up to 24 hours follow-up)For the outcome, specific behaviour - agitation, no clear difference was found between risperidone and haloperidol in terms of efficacy, measured as at least 50% reduction in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - Psychotic Agitation Sub-score (PANSS-PAS) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.26; participants = 124; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) and no effect was observed for need to use restraints (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 9.21; participants = 28; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). Incidence of adverse effects was similar between treatment groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.66; participants = 124; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence).Risperidone versus olanzapineOne small trial (n = 29) reported useable data for the comparison risperidone versus olanzapine. No effect was observed for agitation measured as PANSS-PAS endpoint score at two hours (MD 2.50, 95% CI -2.46 to 7.46; very low-quality evidence); need to use restraints at four days (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.39 to 5.28; very-low quality evidence); specific movement disorders measured as Behavioural Activity Rating Scale (BARS) endpoint score at four days (MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.83; very low-quality evidence).Risperidone versus quetiapineOne trial reported (n = 40) useable data for the comparison risperidone versus quetiapine. Aggression was measured using the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS) endpoint score at two weeks. A clear difference, favouring quetiapine was observed (MD 1.80, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.40; very-low quality evidence). No evidence of a difference between treatment groups could be observed for incidence of akathisia after 24 hours (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 6.06; very low-quality evidence). Two participants allocated to risperidone and one allocated to quetiapine experienced myocardial ischaemia during the trial.Risperidone versus risperidone + oxcarbazepineOne trial (n = 68) measured agitation using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - Excited Component.(PANSS-EC) endpoint score and found a clear difference, favouring the combination treatment at one week (MD 2.70, 95% CI 0.42 to 4.98; very low-quality evidence), but no effect was observed for global state using Clinical Global Impression - Improvement (CGI-I) endpoint score at one week (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.21; very-low quality evidence). Incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms after 24 hours was similar between treatment groups (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.14; very-low quality evidence).Risperidone versus risperidone + valproic acidTwo trials compared risperidone with a combination of risperidone plus valproic acid. No clear differences between the treatment groups were observed for aggression (MOAS endpoint score at three days: MD 1.07, 95% CI -0.20 to 2.34; participants = 54; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) or incidence of akathisia after 24 hours: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.03; participants = 122; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, results for the main outcomes show no real effect for risperidone. The only data available for use in this review are from nine under-sampled trials and the evidence available is of very low quality. This casts uncertainty on the role of risperidone in rapid tranquillisation for people with psychosis-induced aggression. High-quality pragmatic RCTs are feasible and are needed before clear recommendations can be drawn on the use of risperidone for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.
因精神病导致的攻击、激动或暴力行为构成紧急精神科治疗情况,需要快速起效的干预措施。利培酮是一种广泛可得的抗精神病药物,可用于处理精神病引起的攻击或激动症状。
研究单独使用口服利培酮是否是治疗精神病所致攻击或激动的有效方法。
我们检索了Cochrane精神分裂症研究组基于研究的试验注册库(截至2017年4月);该注册库通过对主要资源(包括AMED、BIOSIS、CINAHL、Embase、MEDLINE、PsycINFO、PubMed和临床试验注册库)进行系统检索及其月度更新、手工检索、灰色文献和会议论文集编制而成。纳入注册库的记录没有语言、日期、文献类型或出版状态限制。
随机对照试验(RCT),比较快速使用利培酮与其他药物、药物组合或安慰剂对表现出被认为是由精神病引起的攻击或激动(或两者皆有)的人群的效果。
我们独立检查了检索得到的所有文献引用,识别出相关摘要,并独立从所有纳入研究中提取数据。对于二分类数据,我们计算风险比(RR);对于连续数据,我们计算平均差(MD),均带有95%置信区间(CI),并使用固定效应模型。我们评估了纳入研究的偏倚风险,并使用GRADE方法制作“结果总结”表。
本综述现在包含来自9项试验(共n = 582)的5项比较的数据。由于存在偏倚风险、试验规模小、结局测量的间接性以及缺乏经调查和报告的“实用”结局,证据质量被评为极低。纳入的研究均未提供关于我们的主要结局“30分钟时平静或入睡”、反复需要镇静或任何经济结局的可用数据。有关于我们其他主要结局的数据,如激动或攻击、需要约束以及不良反应发生率。
利培酮与氟哌啶醇(随访至24小时)
对于特定行为——激动这一结局,在以阳性和阴性症状量表 - 精神病性激动分量表(PANSS - PAS)至少降低50%来衡量的疗效方面,利培酮和氟哌啶醇之间未发现明显差异(RR 1.04,95%CI 0.86至1.26;参与者 = 124;研究 = 1;极低质量证据),且在使用约束的必要性方面未观察到效果(RR 2.00,95%CI 0.43至9.21;参与者 = 28;研究 = 1;极低质量证据)。治疗组之间的不良反应发生率相似(RR 0.94,95%CI 0.54至1.66;参与者 = 124;研究 = 1;极低质量证据)。
利培酮与奥氮平
一项小型试验(n = 29)报告了利培酮与奥氮平比较的可用数据。在两小时时以PANSS - PAS终点评分衡量的激动方面未观察到效果(MD 2.50,95%CI -2.46至7.46;极低质量证据);在四天时使用约束的必要性方面(RR 1.43,95%CI 0.39至5.28;极低质量证据);在四天时以行为活动评分量表(BARS)终点评分衡量的特定运动障碍方面(MD 0.20,95%CI -0.43至0.83;极低质量证据)。
利培酮与喹硫平
一项试验(n = 40)报告了利培酮与喹硫平比较的可用数据。在两周时使用改良外显攻击量表(MOAS)终点评分来衡量攻击。观察到明显差异,喹硫平更具优势(MD 1.80,95%CI 0.20至3.40;极低质量证据)。在24小时后静坐不能的发生率方面,未观察到治疗组之间存在差异的证据(RR 1.67,95%CI 0.46至6.06;极低质量证据)。在试验期间,分配到利培酮组的两名参与者和分配到喹硫平组的一名参与者发生了心肌缺血。
利培酮与利培酮 + 奥卡西平
一项试验(n = 68)使用阳性和阴性症状量表 - 兴奋分量表(PANSS - EC)终点评分来衡量激动,发现在一周时存在明显差异,联合治疗更具优势(MD 2.70,95%CI 0.42至4.98;极低质量证据),但在一周时使用临床总体印象 - 改善(CGI - I)终点评分衡量的总体状态方面未观察到效果(MD -0.20,95%CI -0.61至0.21;极低质量证据)。24小时后锥体外系症状的发生率在治疗组之间相似(RR 1.59,95%CI 0.49至5.14;极低质量证据)。
利培酮与利培酮 + 丙戊酸
两项试验比较了利培酮与利培酮加丙戊酸的组合。在攻击方面(三天时MOAS终点评分:MD 1.07,95%CI -0.20至2.34;参与者 = 54;研究 = 1;极低质量证据)或24小时后静坐不能的发生率方面:RR 0.75,95%CI 0.28至2.03;参与者 = 122;研究 = 2;极低质量证据),未观察到治疗组之间存在明显差异。
总体而言,主要结局的结果显示利培酮没有实际效果。本综述中可用的唯一数据来自9项抽样不足的试验,且现有证据质量极低。这使得利培酮在快速镇静精神病所致攻击患者中的作用存在不确定性。在就利培酮用于精神病所致攻击或激动得出明确建议之前,高质量的实用RCT是可行且必要的。