严重躁动药物的比较安全性:老年急诊科指南2.0系统评价。

Martin F Casey, Natalie M Elder, Alexander Fenn, Joshua Niznik, Danya Khoujah, Jon B Cole, Zachary Cardon, Ming Ding, Naira Goukasian, Elizabeth Moreton, Jennifer L Koehl, Phillip D Magidson, Rachel M Skains, Katren Tyler, Shan W Liu
{"title":"严重躁动药物的比较安全性:老年急诊科指南2.0系统评价。","authors":"Martin F Casey, Natalie M Elder, Alexander Fenn, Joshua Niznik, Danya Khoujah, Jon B Cole, Zachary Cardon, Ming Ding, Naira Goukasian, Elizabeth Moreton, Jennifer L Koehl, Phillip D Magidson, Rachel M Skains, Katren Tyler, Shan W Liu","doi":"10.1111/jgs.19485","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Managing undifferentiated, severe agitation in older adults may require antipsychotic or sedative medications to prevent harm to self or others. Unfortunately, these medications are associated with serious adverse events in older adults, and little is known about their comparative safety.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review to identify comparative effectiveness studies on the safety of medications used in the treatment of severe agitation among older adults in the prehospital or emergency department (ED) setting. We searched eight databases including PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane library, CINAHL, Proquest Central, Ageline, and PsycInfo published in or before February 2024. Studies were included if they examined 1st generation antipsychotics, 2nd generation antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, or ketamine. Data were extracted on adverse respiratory events (apnea, hypoxemia, intubation) and other adverse events (arrhythmia, hypotension, worsening delirium, cardiac arrest, and mortality). We report the aggregate occurrence of any adverse events pooled by drug and report odds ratios (ORs) using haloperidol as the reference group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 8600 studies identified, eight observational studies and one randomized clinical trial met eligibility for further qualitative and quantitative analysis. The observational studies included 838 older adults receiving haloperidol (n = 117), droperidol (n = 129), lorazepam (n = 350), midazolam (n = 68), olanzapine (n = 101), quetiapine (n = 56), and ziprasidone (n = 17). Any adverse events were observed in 16.8% of the patients (141/838). Adverse events were most common among patients receiving midazolam (53%; 36/68). Relative to haloperidol, midazolam significantly increased the risk for any adverse events (OR 5.25 [95% CI: 2.64-10.45]). Quetiapine was the only drug observed to have a lower frequency of adverse events (OR 0.27 [95% CI: 0.08, 0.97]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Adverse drug events are common among older adults receiving antipsychotic or anxiolytic medications for severe agitation. Benzodiazepines, particularly midazolam, pose an excessive risk to older adults requiring pharmacologic treatment for severe agitation.</p>","PeriodicalId":94112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Safety of Medications for Severe Agitation: A Geriatric Emergency Department Guidelines 2.0 Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Martin F Casey, Natalie M Elder, Alexander Fenn, Joshua Niznik, Danya Khoujah, Jon B Cole, Zachary Cardon, Ming Ding, Naira Goukasian, Elizabeth Moreton, Jennifer L Koehl, Phillip D Magidson, Rachel M Skains, Katren Tyler, Shan W Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jgs.19485\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Managing undifferentiated, severe agitation in older adults may require antipsychotic or sedative medications to prevent harm to self or others. Unfortunately, these medications are associated with serious adverse events in older adults, and little is known about their comparative safety.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review to identify comparative effectiveness studies on the safety of medications used in the treatment of severe agitation among older adults in the prehospital or emergency department (ED) setting. We searched eight databases including PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane library, CINAHL, Proquest Central, Ageline, and PsycInfo published in or before February 2024. Studies were included if they examined 1st generation antipsychotics, 2nd generation antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, or ketamine. Data were extracted on adverse respiratory events (apnea, hypoxemia, intubation) and other adverse events (arrhythmia, hypotension, worsening delirium, cardiac arrest, and mortality). We report the aggregate occurrence of any adverse events pooled by drug and report odds ratios (ORs) using haloperidol as the reference group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 8600 studies identified, eight observational studies and one randomized clinical trial met eligibility for further qualitative and quantitative analysis. The observational studies included 838 older adults receiving haloperidol (n = 117), droperidol (n = 129), lorazepam (n = 350), midazolam (n = 68), olanzapine (n = 101), quetiapine (n = 56), and ziprasidone (n = 17). Any adverse events were observed in 16.8% of the patients (141/838). Adverse events were most common among patients receiving midazolam (53%; 36/68). Relative to haloperidol, midazolam significantly increased the risk for any adverse events (OR 5.25 [95% CI: 2.64-10.45]). Quetiapine was the only drug observed to have a lower frequency of adverse events (OR 0.27 [95% CI: 0.08, 0.97]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Adverse drug events are common among older adults receiving antipsychotic or anxiolytic medications for severe agitation. Benzodiazepines, particularly midazolam, pose an excessive risk to older adults requiring pharmacologic treatment for severe agitation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94112,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19485\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19485","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:治疗老年人未分化的严重躁动可能需要抗精神病药物或镇静药物,以防止对自己或他人造成伤害。不幸的是,这些药物与老年人的严重不良事件有关,而且对它们的相对安全性知之甚少。方法:我们进行了一项系统综述,以确定院前或急诊科(ED)环境中用于治疗老年人严重躁动的药物安全性的比较有效性研究。我们检索了2024年2月或之前出版的PubMed、EMBASE、SCOPUS、Cochrane library、CINAHL、Proquest Central、Ageline和PsycInfo等8个数据库。研究包括第一代抗精神病药物、第二代抗精神病药物、苯二氮卓类药物或氯胺酮。提取有关不良呼吸事件(呼吸暂停、低氧血症、插管)和其他不良事件(心律失常、低血压、谵妄加重、心脏骤停和死亡)的数据。我们报告了由药物汇总的所有不良事件的总发生率,并报告了以氟哌啶醇为参照组的优势比(or)。结果:在8600项研究中,8项观察性研究和1项随机临床试验符合进一步定性和定量分析的资格。观察性研究包括838名接受氟哌啶醇(n = 117)、哌啶醇(n = 129)、劳拉西泮(n = 350)、咪达唑仑(n = 68)、奥氮平(n = 101)、喹硫平(n = 56)和齐拉西酮(n = 17)治疗的老年人。16.8%(141/838)的患者出现不良反应。不良事件在服用咪达唑仑的患者中最为常见(53%;36/68)。与氟哌啶醇相比,咪达唑仑显著增加了任何不良事件的风险(OR 5.25 [95% CI: 2.64-10.45])。喹硫平是唯一观察到不良事件发生率较低的药物(OR 0.27 [95% CI: 0.08, 0.97])。结论:药物不良事件在接受抗精神病或抗焦虑药物治疗严重躁动的老年人中很常见。苯二氮卓类药物,特别是咪达唑仑,对需要药物治疗严重躁动的老年人构成过度风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Safety of Medications for Severe Agitation: A Geriatric Emergency Department Guidelines 2.0 Systematic Review.

Background: Managing undifferentiated, severe agitation in older adults may require antipsychotic or sedative medications to prevent harm to self or others. Unfortunately, these medications are associated with serious adverse events in older adults, and little is known about their comparative safety.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review to identify comparative effectiveness studies on the safety of medications used in the treatment of severe agitation among older adults in the prehospital or emergency department (ED) setting. We searched eight databases including PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane library, CINAHL, Proquest Central, Ageline, and PsycInfo published in or before February 2024. Studies were included if they examined 1st generation antipsychotics, 2nd generation antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, or ketamine. Data were extracted on adverse respiratory events (apnea, hypoxemia, intubation) and other adverse events (arrhythmia, hypotension, worsening delirium, cardiac arrest, and mortality). We report the aggregate occurrence of any adverse events pooled by drug and report odds ratios (ORs) using haloperidol as the reference group.

Results: Among 8600 studies identified, eight observational studies and one randomized clinical trial met eligibility for further qualitative and quantitative analysis. The observational studies included 838 older adults receiving haloperidol (n = 117), droperidol (n = 129), lorazepam (n = 350), midazolam (n = 68), olanzapine (n = 101), quetiapine (n = 56), and ziprasidone (n = 17). Any adverse events were observed in 16.8% of the patients (141/838). Adverse events were most common among patients receiving midazolam (53%; 36/68). Relative to haloperidol, midazolam significantly increased the risk for any adverse events (OR 5.25 [95% CI: 2.64-10.45]). Quetiapine was the only drug observed to have a lower frequency of adverse events (OR 0.27 [95% CI: 0.08, 0.97]).

Conclusions: Adverse drug events are common among older adults receiving antipsychotic or anxiolytic medications for severe agitation. Benzodiazepines, particularly midazolam, pose an excessive risk to older adults requiring pharmacologic treatment for severe agitation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信