Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Glenn W Currier

Publications and source records attributed to Glenn W Currier.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Orally versus intramuscularly administered antipsychotic drugs in psychiatric emergencies.

High utilization of emergency services by patients at increased risk for agitation and aggression makes the determination of effective therapy a major concern of psychiatric care. Agitated and aggressive behavior needs to be treated rapidly and effectively to minimize the risk to both patients and staff. Traditionally, short-acting intramuscular (IM) formulations of conventional antipsychotic drugs have been preferred in the emergency setting due to their rapid onset of action and the ability to administer them to uncooperative patients. IM injections, however, may not always be the preferred option. Recently, orally administered second generation (atypical) antipsychotics have been shown to be at least as effective in managing acute agitation as conventional antipsychotic drugs, with a superior tolerability profile. The current review evaluates pharmacokinetic parameters, formulation options, and clinical efficacy data for the treatment of acute agitation or aggressive behavior with antipsychotic medications. A synthesis of data from individual clinical trials, meta-analyses, review articles, and expert consensus recommendations is used to develop a working clinical algorithm for the acute management of aggression and agitation.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2006

Risperidone versus haloperidol, in combination with lorazepam, in the treatment of acute agitation and psychosis: a pilot, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare oral risperidone and intramuscular (IM) haloperidol, both in combination with IM lorazepam, in the management of acute agitation and psychosis in the medical emergency department. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of 30 patients presenting to the emergency department with acute agitation and/or psychosis, three groups of 10 patients received oral and IM medications: 1) 2 mg oral risperidone and 2 mg IM lorazepam; 2) 5 mg oral haloperidol and 2 mg IM lorazepam; 3) oral placebo and 2 mg IM lorazepam. Each treatment group received both an injection and a tablet to reduce treatment group variability. Patients were evaluated using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) before receiving medication and at 30 and 90 minutes after medication was administered. The intergroup mean percent reductions in rating scale scores were compared using ANOVA, chi-square, and Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences among the groups at any point. The two groups receiving an antipsychotic plus lorazepam showed a trend towards increased symptom reduction compared with the group receiving lorazepam alone, although this trend was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Lorazepam alone was as effective as lorazepam plus haloperidol or lorazepam plus risperidone in this small trial. While not statistically significant, a trend toward better outcomes with combined treatment warrants further study.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2006

A pilot, open-label safety study of quetiapine for treatment of moderate psychotic agitation in the emergency setting.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this pilot study was primarily to explore the safety and, secondarily, the efficacy of the use of "prn" quetiapine for treatment of moderate agitation accompanied by psychosis in an emergency department setting. METHODS: This was an open-label study in which 20 patients with psychotic agitation were treated in the emergency department with 100, 150, or 200 mg of quetiapine. Physicians who were unaffiliated with the study established the diagnoses and selected the doses to be used for each patient. A rater who was blinded to the dose performed the assessments. The primary safety measure was the onset of orthostatic hypotension. The primary efficacy measure was a 40% reduction in scores on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component (PANSS-EC) over 120 minutes. The secondary efficacy measure was a reduction of 2 points or more on the Behavioral Activity Rating Scale (BARS) at 120 minutes post-dose. All subjects provided written informed consent. RESULTS: With regard to safety outcomes, 40% of subjects exhibited orthostasis by 120 minutes, although only 25% of these patients described clinically significant symptoms. In terms of efficacy, 50% of subjects experienced at least a 40% reduction in PANSS-EC scores at 2 hours, while 68.8% showed reductions of 2 points or more in scores on the BARS over the same time period. CONCLUSION: Quetiapine demonstrated some efficacy as a sedative agent in the emergency setting, although no clear dose-response pattern emerged over the narrow dose range tested. Orthostasis was common and did not correlate with dosing. This small study did not support the use of quetiapine to treat acute agitation in potentially volume-depleted patients.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

Consumer and family experiences in the emergency department following a suicide attempt.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the separate experiences of consumers (patients) and family members in the Emergency Department (ED) following a suicide attempt. METHODS: Separate anonymous surveys were created for two groups: 1) consumers (n = 465) who had made a suicide attempt and been to the ED, and 2) others (referred to here as family members; n = 254) who had a close friend or relative treated in an ED due to suicidal behavior. Surveys were available on the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) website (www.nami.org) for 2 months. RESULTS: Almost half of consumers were accompanied by a family member to the ED following their suicide attempt. Over half of consumers and family members felt that staff treated them with respect and addressed ethnic and cultural issues appropriately. However, fewer than 40% of consumers felt that staff listened to them, described the nature of treatments to them, or took their injury seriously. Family members were more likely than consumers to feel heard or to receive information about treatment. More than half of consumers and almost a third of family members felt directly punished or stigmatized by staff. Consumers and family members also reported negative experiences involving a perception of unprofessional staff behavior, feeling the suicide attempt was not taken seriously, and long wait times. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals who visited the NAMI website reported a range of negative experiences in EDs following visits for suicide attempts. The effects of these experiences on retention in care and subsequent self-injurious behavior are largely unexplored. A greater understanding of these effects may inform development of interventions to increase the satisfaction of consumers and their families and friends and improve outcomes that result from emergency care of suicidal patients and their families.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

Innovations: Emergency psychiatry: Relative accuracy of breath and serum alcohol readings in the psychiatric emergency service.

Management of changes in physiologic and mental status due to alcohol is a core skill utilized in the psychiatric emergency service. Blood alcohol concentrations are commonly approximated by measuring breath alcohol at triage. However, the blood-breath ratio is highly variable, and breath tests have produced lower readings than blood tests. The authors assessed the accuracy of breath alcohol readings at triage in a medical emergency department compared with subsequent serum alcohol levels taken in the psychiatric emergency service. The mean breath ethanol concentration was significantly lower than the mean corrected serum ethanol concentration (.15+/-.05 grams per 210 liters and .23+/-.05 grams per 100 milliliters, respectively). The relative accuracy of breath alcohol tests decreased with increasing serum alcohol. Although its low false-positive rate makes the breath test acceptable for legal purposes, the blood alcohol level is more appropriate for clinical use in emergency settings, because breath tests can underestimate the degree of toxicity.

Alcoholic Intoxication↗
PubMed2005

The expert consensus guideline series. Treatment of behavioral emergencies 2005.

OBJECTIVES: Due to inherent dangers and barriers to research in emergency settings, 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 update 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 RAND Corporation's 9-point scale for rating appropriateness of medical decisions was used to score most options. Consensus was defined as a non-random 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.

Aggression↗
PubMed2005

Behavioural manifestations of anabolic steroid use.

The use of anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) for gains in strength and muscle mass is relatively common among certain subpopulations, including athletes, bodybuilders, adolescents and young adults. Adverse physical effects associated with steroid abuse are well documented, but more recently, increased attention has been given to the adverse psychiatric effects of these compounds. Steroids may be used in oral, 17alpha-alkylated, or intramuscular, 17beta-esterified, preparations. Commonly, steroid users employ these agents at levels 10- to 100-fold in excess of therapeutic doses and use multiple steroids simultaneously, a practice known as 'stacking'. Significant psychiatric symptoms including aggression and violence, mania, and less frequently psychosis and suicide have been associated with steroid abuse. Long-term steroid abusers may develop symptoms of dependence and withdrawal on discontinuation of AAS. Treatment of AAS abusers should address both acute physical and behavioural symptoms as well as long-term abstinence and recovery. To date, limited information is available regarding specific pharmacological treatments for individuals recovering from steroid abuse. This paper reviews the published literature concerning the recognition and treatment of behavioural manifestations of AAS abuse.

Affective Disorders, Psychotic↗
PubMed2004

Intramuscular antipsychotics: clinical experience review.

Acute agitation is a therapeutic dilemma. Rapid control of agitation is necessary to minimize danger both to recipients of care and to caregivers. Although a comprehensive assessment may ultimately be necessary to determine the cause of agitation and to identify or exclude underlying medical illness, it is often imperative to treat agitation immediately. In this imperfect clinical world, it is essential to have treatments that are both safe and effective for patients with a wide variety of causes of agitation.

Antipsychotic Agents↗
PubMed2004

Acute treatment of psychotic agitation: a randomized comparison of oral treatment with risperidone and lorazepam versus intramuscular treatment with haloperidol and lorazepam.

BACKGROUND: Standard treatment for acute psychotic agitation often involves intramuscular administration of the benzodiazepine lorazepam and the antipsychotic haloperidol. This study compared the efficacy and safety of oral treatment with the atypical antipsychotic risperidone plus lorazepam with those of standard intramuscular treatment. We hypothesized that the efficacy and speed of action of both treatments would be similar. METHOD: In a prospective, parallel-group, randomized, rater-blinded noninferiority study conducted at 24 sites in the United States, 162 patients exhibiting agitation associated with active psychosis were randomly assigned to receive either oral treatment with 2 mg of risperidone plus 2 mg of lorazepam (N = 83) or intramuscular treatment with 5 mg of haloperidol plus 2 mg of lorazepam (N = 79). The change scores on a 5-item acute-agitation cluster from the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (hallucinatory behavior, excitement, hostility, uncooperativeness, and poor impulse control) were the main outcome measure. The study was conducted from January 8 to August 8, 2001. RESULTS: Mean acute-agitation cluster scores were similar in the 2 groups at baseline. Mean score improvements at 30, 60, and 120 minutes after dosing were significant at each timepoint in both groups (p <.0001) and were similar in both groups (p >.05). Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: A single oral dose of risperidone plus lorazepam was as effective as parenterally administered haloperidol plus lorazepam for the rapid control of agitation and psychosis. These findings suggest that this oral regimen is an acceptable alternative to the current intramuscular treatment for acute psychotic agitation.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2003

Treatment of behavioral emergencies: a summary of the expert consensus guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: Behavioral emergencies are a common and serious problem for consumers, their communities, and the healthcare settings on which they rely, but there is little research to guide provider responses to this challenge. Key constructs such as agitation have not been adequately operationalized so that the criteria defining a behavioral emergency are vague. A significant number of deaths of patients in restraint has focused government and regulators on these issues, but a consensus about key elements in the management of behavioral emergencies has not yet been articulated by the provider community. The authors assembled a panel of 50 experts to define the following elements: the threshold for emergency interventions, the scope of assessment for varying levels of urgency and cooperation, guiding principles in selecting interventions, and appropriate physical and medication strategies at different levels of diagnostic confidence and for a variety of etiologies and complicating conditions. METHOD: A written survey with 808 decision points was completed by 50 experts. A modified version of the RAND Corporation 9-point scale for rating appropriateness of medical decisions was used to score options. Consensus on each option was defined as a non-random distribution of scores by chi-square "goodness-of-fit" test. We assigned a categorical rank (first line/preferred choice, second line/ alternate choice, third line/usually inappropriate) to each option based on the 95% confidence interval around the mean rating. Guideline tables were constructed describing the preferred strategies in key clinical situations. RESULTS: The expert panel reached consensus on 83% of the options. The relative appropriateness of emergency interventions was ascertained for a continuum of behaviors. When asked about the frequency with which emergency interventions (parenteral medication, restraint, seclusion) were required in their services, 47% of the experts reported that such interventions were necessary for 1%-5% of patients seen in their services and 32% for 6%-20%. In general, the consensus of this panel lends support to many elements of recent regulations from the Health Care Financing Administration (now the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services), including the timing of clinician assessment and reassessment and the intensity of nursing care. However, the panel did not endorse the concept of "chemical restraint," instead favoring the idea that medications are treatments for target behaviors in behavioral emergencies even when the causes of these behaviors are not well understood. Control of aggressive behavior emerged as the highest priority during the emergency; however, preserving the physician-patient relationship was rated a close second and became the top priority in the long term. Oral medications, particularly concentrates, were clearly preferred if it is possible to use them. Benzodiazepines alone were top rated in 6 of 12 situations. High-potency conventional antipsychotics used alone never received higher ratings than benzodiazepines used alone. A combination of a benzodiazepine and an antipsychotic was preferred for patients with suspected schizophrenia, mania, or psychotic depression. There was equal support for high-potency conventional or atypical antipsychotics (particularly liquids) in oral combinations with benzodiazepines. Droperidol emerged in fourth place in some situations requiring an injection. CONCLUSIONS: To evaluate many of the treatment options in this survey, the experts had to extrapolate beyond controlled data. Within the limits of expert opinion and with the expectation that future research data will take precedence, these guidelines provide some direction for addressing common clinical dilemmas in the management of psychiatric emergencies and can be used to inform clinicians in acute care settings regarding the relative merits of various strategies.

Journal Article↗
PubMed2003

The controversy over "chemical restraint" in acute care psychiatry.

In many healthcare settings, medications are considered a less invasive alternative to the use of physical restraint for agitated patients experiencing a behavioral crisis, a practice that is often referred to as "chemical restraint." However, recent federal regulations appear to equate chemical and physical restraint and to characterize both as extraordinary practices that should not be undertaken lightly. Although many clinicians consider the term "chemical restraint" pejorative, since it does not reflect the possibility that forced medication may be clinically necessary and have a beneficial effect, the term is embedded in recent regulatory language. The author first reviews the controversy over the concept of chemical restraint as it has developed in the mental health literature and regulatory policy. As yet there is no consensus among clinicians or policy makers whether such use of medications is a form of coercion or a form of patient-focused intensive care. The author then discusses precipitants of emergency care and clinical factors and situations that may lead to the use of medications in a way that might be considered chemical restraint. Such factors include clinical and demographic characteristics of patients, institutional characteristics, and staff perception and attitudes. In the final section of the article, the author reviews the recommendations concerning the emergency use of medications given in the Expert Consensus Guidelines on the Treatment of Behavioral Emergencies and discusses treatment developments that have occurred since the time of the survey on which those guidelines were based.

Journal Article↗