Psychotic DisordersPhase 3TRECIndia-IINCT00455234
Rapid Tranquillization Trial: TREC-India II
A Phase 3 study testing Intramuscular Olanzepine 10 mg and Intramuscular Haloperidol 5-10 mg + Promethazine 25-50 mg in people with Psychotic Disorders and Aggression, run by Christian Medical College, Vellore, India at 1 site in India.
Trial summary
Three hundred consecutive adult patients presenting to the emergency services of the department of psychiatry and who are diagnosed by the treating doctor to be needing tranquillization to control agitated or aggressive behavior will be randomized to receive either Injection Olanzepine I.M. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Psychotic Disorders, Aggression
- What is being tested?
- Intramuscular Olanzepine 10 mg and Intramuscular Haloperidol 5-10 mg + Promethazine 25-50 mg
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion
- How many people
- 300 participants
- Where
- 1 siteIndia
- Study dates
- Sep 2005to Jul 2006
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Person with a major mental disorder needs acute intramuscular sedation because of disturbed and dangerous behavior as decided by the attending physician.
Who cannot join
- The clinician believes that one of the two treatments represents an additional risk for the patient and/or
- Patients who lack capacity to give informed consent and who do not have a relative to obtain consent.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
India1 site
Department of Psychiatry, Christian Medical College
Vellore, Tamil Nadu, 632002
About this study
Official title: Rapid Tranquilization of Violent or Agitated People in Psychiatric Emergency Settings- A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial of Intramuscular Olanzepine Vs. Intramuscular Haloperidol + Promethazine.
Three hundred consecutive adult patients presenting to the emergency services of the department of psychiatry and who are diagnosed by the treating doctor to be needing tranquillization to control agitated or aggressive behavior will be randomized to receive either Injection Olanzepine I.M. or Injection Haloperidol 10mg + Injection Promethazine 50 mg in this parallel group, block randomized, centrally-randomzed, allocation-concealed, assessor-blinded pragmatic clinical trial.
The main outcome measure that the two treatments would be compared on would be the clinical state of the patient 4 hours after intervention, but the rate of tranquillization, degree of sedation, proportions tranquil and / or asleep at 15, 30, 60 and 240 minutes, need for additional medication, use of physical restraints, doctors called back, numbers absconding and adverse effects at each of these time points would also be compared. Compliance with oral medication and adverse effects at the end of 2 weeks would also be compared.
Read the detailed description
Participants:
Consecutive adult psychiatric patients presenting to the department of psychiatry as outpatients, or those who are admitted, who have violent, aggressive or agitated behavior.
Inclusion criteria
- The attending physician feels that intramuscular sedation is clearly indicated because of agitation, aggression or violent behaviour, and
- The physician does not feel that either one of the interventions poses an additional risk for the patient.
- The patient or a responsible relative provides informed consent to participate in the trial.
Exclusion Criteria
- Patients who lack capacity to give informed consent and who do not have a relative to obtain consent from will be excluded from the study protocol.
- The physician feels either one of the interventions poses a risk for the patient.
Ethical considerations Good evidence on the treatment of acutely disturbed patients is missing because of the perceived difficulty in performing trials in non-consenting patients. However, close reading of the recent draft of the Helsinki declaration reveals that trials in non-consenting patients are permitted on 2 conditions: (1) no other context exists in which to answer the question, and (2) all trial participants get clear therapeutic benefit from whichever arm they are randomized to. So placebos cannot be used in these studies.
The present trial proposes to study the efficacy of two interventions that are reportedly effective and safe in the management of acute violence, but whose relative merits are unclear, and shall only enroll participants whose relatives provide consent, if they themselves are unable to do so, as is likely in this context.
Randomisation and allocation concealment Randomisation will be in accordance with a computer generated list of random numbers in varying sized blocks of less than 10 prepared by the UK collaborator. This collaborator will send the randomisation codes electronically to an investigator with no clinical responsibilities in the trial, who will work with the pharmacist to prepare sequentially numbered, sealed, opaque, identical cardboard boxes that will have either Haloperidol 5 mgs × 2 ampoules + promethazine 50 mgs × 1 ampoule or Olanzepine 10 mg × 1 vial + water for injection, according to the randomisation sequence, plus a disposable syringe and needle and study forms. The outside of the box will have a form in which the participants' ID, scores on the Clinical Global Impression Severity Scale (Guy, 1976), and clinical diagnosis will be recorded whilst blind to the contents of the box.
Procedure:
Once eligibility of a patient is ensured, the next consecutive box shall be taken from the emergency cupboard and this will constitute randomization. The duty doctor shall record the severity of the episode and the initial diagnosis on the form stuck to the outside of the sealed intervention pack. The box shall then be opened and the intervention administered. The patient will then followed up at 15, 30, 60 and 120 min by the treatment team and at 240 min and at 2 weeks by the study coordinators. Data will also obtained from the case notes as well as from interviews with relatives and the treatment team.
Blinding:
The study will be blind until the point of treatment assignment, which will minimize selection bias. After assignment, ratings for the first 2 h will not be blind as the management team will need to know the prescribed medications. This is a pragmatic trial that evaluates real-world interventions that are not given blind. However, at each of the assessment points in the first two hours, 30 % of the ratings will be additionally rated by one of the investigators who will be blind to the interventions. In addition, one of the investigators who will be blind to interventions given shall undertake ratings at 240 min. At this time, they will also guess the allocated intervention, to assess their blinding.
Outcomes:
Patients shall be rated at each assessment point on whether they are tranquil or asleep; in addition, the time of onset of tranquillization and sleep will be noted. Participants will be considered to be tranquil when they are calm and not exhibiting agitated, aggressive or dangerous behavior to others, property, or to themselves. They will considered to be asleep if, on inspection, they appear to be sound asleep and are not aroused by ambient disturbances; the depth of this apparent slumber will not assessed further. They shall also be rated on the Clinical Global Impression - Severity (CGI-S) scale at entry, and the CGI-Improvement (CGI-I) scale (Guy, 1976) with respect to aggression and violence, the Simpson-Angus extra pyramidal side-effects rating scale (Simpson \& Angus, 1970) and the Barnes Akathisia Scale (Barnes, 1989) at each assessment point; any other clinically important adverse effect, especially dystonia, will be noted. These assessments shall be conducted only on participants who are awake, as extra pyramidal symptoms are usually not apparent during sleep or, in the case of dystonia or akathisia, are likely to prevent sleep.
Other outcomes within the first 4 hours will be the use of additional medication for control of agitated or aggressive behavior, the use of physical restraints, the need for further medical attention and numbers absconding. Participants shall also be followed up 2 weeks later to check for adverse effects. The primary outcome will be 'tranquil or asleep by 4 hours'.
The inter-rater reliability of the investigators in rating outcomes shall be established to be satisfactory before the commencement of the trial.
- Conditions
- Psychotic Disorders, Aggression
- Being tested
- Intramuscular Olanzepine 10 mg, Intramuscular Haloperidol 5-10 mg + Promethazine 25-50 mg
- Keywords
- Aggression, Violent behaviour in people with psychotic illness
- Medical subject headings
- Psychotic Disorders, Aggression
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Intramuscular Olanzepine 10 mgDrug
Intramuscular Haloperidol 5-10 mg + Promethazine 25-50 mgDrug
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Number of participants tranquil or alseep at four hours after the intevention
Secondary outcomes (12)
Number of participants tranquil or asleep at 15 minutes, 30 munites, 60 minutes, 120 minutes, 240 minutes after the intervention
Number of participants in restraints at 15 minutes, 30 munites, 60 minutes, 120 minutes, 240 minutes after the intervention
Number of participants who had absconded at 15 minutes, 30 munites, 60 minutes, 120 minutes, 240 minutes after the intervention
Number of participants who recived additional medication at 15 minutes, 30 munites, 60 minutes, 120 minutes, 240 minutes after the intervention
Number of participants for whom the doctor was called back at 15 minutes, 30 munites, 60 minutes, 120 minutes, 240 minutes after the intervention
Mean time till tranquillization
Mean time till asleep
Proportions improved on Clinical Global Impression scale at ech time pointof follow up
Mean change on CGI scores at each time pint of follow up
Adverse effects reported/observed
Scores on Simpson-Angus extrapyramidal rating scale
Scores on Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted3 Apr 2007 (estimated)
- Study startSep 2005
- Study completionJul 2006
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Psychotic DisordersStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Enrolment
- 300 participants
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Investigators
- Prathap Tharyan, Study director, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00455234
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 22F484
- Acronym
- TRECIndia-II
- Status last verified
- Mar 2007
- First submitted
- 30 Mar 2007
- Last updated
- 3 Apr 2007
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Alexander J, Tharyan P, Adams C, John T, Mol C, Philip J. Rapid tranquillisation of violent or agitated patients in a psychiatric emergency setting. Pragmatic randomised trial of intramuscular lorazepam v. haloperidol plus promethazine. Br J Psychiatry. 2004 Jul;185:63-9. doi: 10.1192/bjp.185.1.63.
PubMed 15231557Raveendran NS, Tharyan P, Alexander J, Adams CE; TREC-India II Collaborative Group. Rapid tranquillisation in psychiatric emergency settings in India: pragmatic randomised controlled trial of intramuscular olanzapine versus intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine. BMJ. 2007 Oct 27;335(7625):865. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39341.608519.BE. Epub 2007 Oct 22.
PubMed 17954514
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 3 Apr 2007. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Rapid Tranquilization of Violent or Agitated People in Psychiatric Emergency Settings- A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial of Intramuscular Olanzepine Vs. Intramuscular Haloperidol + Promethazine.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00455234
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- TRECIndia-II / 22F484
- Conditions
- Psychotic Disorders, Aggression
- Keywords
- Aggression, Violent behaviour in people with psychotic illness
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 300 participants
- Lead sponsor
- Christian Medical College, Vellore, IndiaUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Sep 2005
- Study completion
- Jul 2006 (actual)
- First posted
- 3 Apr 2007 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Three hundred consecutive adult patients presenting to the emergency services of the department of psychiatry and who are diagnosed by the treating doctor to be needing tranquillization to control agitated or aggressive behavior will be randomized to receive either Injection Olanzepine I.M. or Injection Haloperidol 10mg + Injection Promethazine 50 mg in this parallel group, block randomized, centrally-randomzed, allocation-concealed, assessor-blinded pragmatic clinical trial.
The main outcome measure that the two treatments would be compared on would be the clinical state of the patient 4 hours after intervention, but the rate of tranquillization, degree of sedation, proportions tranquil and / or asleep at 15, 30, 60 and 240 minutes, need for additional medication, use of physical restraints, doctors called back, numbers absconding and adverse effects at each of these time points would also be compared. Compliance with oral medication and adverse effects at the end of 2 weeks would also be compared.
Detailed description
Participants:
Consecutive adult psychiatric patients presenting to the department of psychiatry as outpatients, or those who are admitted, who have violent, aggressive or agitated behavior.
Inclusion criteria
- The attending physician feels that intramuscular sedation is clearly indicated because of agitation, aggression or violent behaviour, and
- The physician does not feel that either one of the interventions poses an additional risk for the patient.
- The patient or a responsible relative provides informed consent to participate in the trial.
Exclusion Criteria
- Patients who lack capacity to give informed consent and who do not have a relative to obtain consent from will be excluded from the study protocol.
- The physician feels either one of the interventions poses a risk for the patient.
Ethical considerations Good evidence on the treatment of acutely disturbed patients is missing because of the perceived difficulty in performing trials in non-consenting patients. However, close reading of the recent draft of the Helsinki declaration reveals that trials in non-consenting patients are permitted on 2 conditions: (1) no other context exists in which to answer the question, and (2) all trial participants get clear therapeutic benefit from whichever arm they are randomized to. So placebos cannot be used in these studies.
The present trial proposes to study the efficacy of two interventions that are reportedly effective and safe in the management of acute violence, but whose relative merits are unclear, and shall only enroll participants whose relatives provide consent, if they themselves are unable to do so, as is likely in this context.
Randomisation and allocation concealment Randomisation will be in accordance with a computer generated list of random numbers in varying sized blocks of less than 10 prepared by the UK collaborator. This collaborator will send the randomisation codes electronically to an investigator with no clinical responsibilities in the trial, who will work with the pharmacist to prepare sequentially numbered, sealed, opaque, identical cardboard boxes that will have either Haloperidol 5 mgs × 2 ampoules + promethazine 50 mgs × 1 ampoule or Olanzepine 10 mg × 1 vial + water for injection, according to the randomisation sequence, plus a disposable syringe and needle and study forms. The outside of the box will have a form in which the participants' ID, scores on the Clinical Global Impression Severity Scale (Guy, 1976), and clinical diagnosis will be recorded whilst blind to the contents of the box.
Procedure:
Once eligibility of a patient is ensured, the next consecutive box shall be taken from the emergency cupboard and this will constitute randomization. The duty doctor shall record the severity of the episode and the initial diagnosis on the form stuck to the outside of the sealed intervention pack. The box shall then be opened and the intervention administered. The patient will then followed up at 15, 30, 60 and 120 min by the treatment team and at 240 min and at 2 weeks by the study coordinators. Data will also obtained from the case notes as well as from interviews with relatives and the treatment team.
Blinding:
The study will be blind until the point of treatment assignment, which will minimize selection bias. After assignment, ratings for the first 2 h will not be blind as the management team will need to know the prescribed medications. This is a pragmatic trial that evaluates real-world interventions that are not given blind. However, at each of the assessment points in the first two hours, 30 % of the ratings will be additionally rated by one of the investigators who will be blind to the interventions. In addition, one of the investigators who will be blind to interventions given shall undertake ratings at 240 min. At this time, they will also guess the allocated intervention, to assess their blinding.
Outcomes:
Patients shall be rated at each assessment point on whether they are tranquil or asleep; in addition, the time of onset of tranquillization and sleep will be noted. Participants will be considered to be tranquil when they are calm and not exhibiting agitated, aggressive or dangerous behavior to others, property, or to themselves. They will considered to be asleep if, on inspection, they appear to be sound asleep and are not aroused by ambient disturbances; the depth of this apparent slumber will not assessed further. They shall also be rated on the Clinical Global Impression - Severity (CGI-S) scale at entry, and the CGI-Improvement (CGI-I) scale (Guy, 1976) with respect to aggression and violence, the Simpson-Angus extra pyramidal side-effects rating scale (Simpson \& Angus, 1970) and the Barnes Akathisia Scale (Barnes, 1989) at each assessment point; any other clinically important adverse effect, especially dystonia, will be noted. These assessments shall be conducted only on participants who are awake, as extra pyramidal symptoms are usually not apparent during sleep or, in the case of dystonia or akathisia, are likely to prevent sleep.
Other outcomes within the first 4 hours will be the use of additional medication for control of agitated or aggressive behavior, the use of physical restraints, the need for further medical attention and numbers absconding. Participants shall also be followed up 2 weeks later to check for adverse effects. The primary outcome will be 'tranquil or asleep by 4 hours'.
The inter-rater reliability of the investigators in rating outcomes shall be established to be satisfactory before the commencement of the trial.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Person with a major mental disorder needs acute intramuscular sedation because of disturbed and dangerous behavior as decided by the attending physician.
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- The clinician believes that one of the two treatments represents an additional risk for the patient and/or
- Patients who lack capacity to give informed consent and who do not have a relative to obtain consent.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Intramuscular Olanzepine 10 mg | Drug | – |
| Intramuscular Haloperidol 5-10 mg + Promethazine 25-50 mg | Drug | – |
Primary outcome
Number of participants tranquil or alseep at four hours after the intevention
12 secondary outcomes
Number of participants tranquil or asleep at 15 minutes, 30 munites, 60 minutes, 120 minutes, 240 minutes after the intervention
Number of participants in restraints at 15 minutes, 30 munites, 60 minutes, 120 minutes, 240 minutes after the intervention
Number of participants who had absconded at 15 minutes, 30 munites, 60 minutes, 120 minutes, 240 minutes after the intervention
Number of participants who recived additional medication at 15 minutes, 30 munites, 60 minutes, 120 minutes, 240 minutes after the intervention
Number of participants for whom the doctor was called back at 15 minutes, 30 munites, 60 minutes, 120 minutes, 240 minutes after the intervention
Mean time till tranquillization
Mean time till asleep
Proportions improved on Clinical Global Impression scale at ech time pointof follow up
Mean change on CGI scores at each time pint of follow up
Adverse effects reported/observed
Scores on Simpson-Angus extrapyramidal rating scale
Scores on Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 3 Apr 2007.
- Background: PubMed 15231557Alexander J, Tharyan P, Adams C, John T, Mol C, Philip J. Rapid tranquillisation of violent or agitated patients in a psychiatric emergency setting. Pragmatic randomised trial of intramuscular lorazepam v. haloperidol plus promethazine. Br J Psychiatry. 2004 Jul;185:63-9. doi: 10.1192/bjp.185.1.63.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 17954514Raveendran NS, Tharyan P, Alexander J, Adams CE; TREC-India II Collaborative Group. Rapid tranquillisation in psychiatric emergency settings in India: pragmatic randomised controlled trial of intramuscular olanzapine versus intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine. BMJ. 2007 Oct 27;335(7625):865. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39341.608519.BE. Epub 2007 Oct 22.
Related trials for Psychotic Disorders
Recruiting
Supporting Patients by Family Education in Psychotic Illness: A Prospective Cohort Study
Psychotic Disorders, Family Members
RecruitingObservational study
The ATP Project (Antipsychotic-TEP-Psychosis)
First Episose Psychosis, Metabolic Disease
RecruitingPhase 2
Combination of NMDA-enhancing and Antioxidant Treatments for Schizophrenia
Schizophrenia
RecruitingPhase 2
NMDA-enhancing Treatment for Cognitive Dysfunction of Schizophrenia
Schizophrenia
Not yet recruiting
Cognitive Neurocomputational Task Reliability and Clinical Applications Consortium: Study 2
SCHIZOPHRENIA 1 (Disorder), Schizo Affective Disorder
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Prathap Tharyan study director
Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 3 study testing Intramuscular Olanzepine 10 mg and Intramuscular Haloperidol 5-10 mg + Promethazine 25-50 mg in people with Psychotic Disorders and Aggression, run by Christian Medical College, Vellore, India at 1 site in India.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 3 Apr 2007. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in India. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Number of participants tranquil or alseep at four hours after the intevention. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00455234, which also lists 2 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 3 Apr 2007.