Intramuscular Ziprasidone Compared With Intramuscular Haloperidol in the Treatment of Acute Psychosis
J Clin Psychiatry 2000;61:933-941
© Copyright 2014 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.
Purchase This PDF for $40.00
If you are not a paid subscriber, you may purchase the PDF.
(You'll need the free Adobe Acrobat Reader.)
Receive immediate full-text access to JCP. You can subscribe to JCP online-only ($86) or print + online ($156 individual).
With your subscription, receive a free PDF collection of the NCDEU Festschrift articles. Hurry! This offer ends December 31, 2011.
If you are a paid subscriber to JCP and do not yet have a username and password, activate your subscription now.
As a paid subscriber who has activated your subscription, you have access to the HTML and PDF versions of this item.
Click here to login.
Did you forget your password?
Still can't log in? Contact the Circulation Department at 1-800-489-1001 x4 or send email
Background: This 7-day, randomized, open-label,
multicenter, international study compared the efficacy and
tolerability of intramuscular (i.m.) ziprasidone with haloperidol
i.m. and the transition from i.m. to oral treatment in
hospitalized patients with acute psychotic agitation (related to
Method: Patients received up to 3 days of
flexible-dose ziprasidone i.m. (N = 90) or haloperidol i.m. (N =
42) followed by oral treatment to day 7. After an initial
ziprasidone i.m. dose of 10 mg, subsequent i.m. doses of 5 to 20
mg could be given every 4 to 6 hours (maximum daily dose = 80 mg)
if needed, followed by oral ziprasidone, 80-200 mg/day.
Haloperidol i.m. doses of 2.5 to 10 mg were given on entry,
followed by 2.5 to 10 mg i.m. every 4 to 6 hours (maximum daily
dose = 40 mg) if needed, then by oral haloperidol, 10-80 mg/day.
Results: The mean reductions in Brief
Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) total, BPRS agitation items, and
Clinical Global Impressions-Severity scale scores were
statistically significantly greater (p < .05, p < .01, and
p < .01, respectively) after ziprasidone i.m. treatment
compared with haloperidol i.m. treatment. Further reductions in
these scores also occurred in both groups following transition to
oral treatment. Ziprasidone was associated with a lower incidence
of movement disorders and a reduced requirement for
anticholinergic medication during both i.m. and oral treatment
compared with haloperidol. Movement disorder scale scores
improved with ziprasidone i.m. and oral treatment, but
deteriorated with haloperidol. Other adverse events were rare
with both treatments.
Conclusion: Ziprasidone i.m. was significantly
more effective in reducing the symptoms of acute psychosis and
was better tolerated than haloperidol i.m., particularly in
movement disorders. The transition from ziprasidone i.m. to oral
ziprasidone was effective and well tolerated.