The differential effects of chlorpromazine and haloperidol on latent inhibition in healthy volunteers.

Latent inhibition (LI) is a measure of reduced learning about a stimulus to which there has been prior exposure without any consequence. It therefore requires a comparison between a pre-exposed (PE) and a non-pre-exposed (NPE) condition. Since, in animals, LI is disrupted by amphetamines and enhanced by antipsychotics, LI disruption has been proposed as a measure of the characteristic attentional deficit in schizophrenia: the inability to ignore irrelevant stimuli. The findings in humans are, however, inconsistent. In particular, a recent investigation suggested that since haloperidol disrupted LI in healthy volunteers, and LI was normal in non-medicated patients with schizophrenia, the previous findings in schizophrenic patients were entirely due to the negative effects of their medication on LI (Williams et al., 1998). We conducted two studies of antipsychotic drug effects on auditory LI using a within-subject, parallel group design in healthy volunteers. In the first of these, single doses of haloperidol (1 mg. i.v.) were compared with paroxetine (20 mg p.o.) and placebo, and in the second, chlorpromazine (100 mg p.o.) was compared with lorazepam (2 mg. p.o.) and placebo. Eye movements, neuropsychological test performance (spatial working memory (SWM), Tower of London and intra/extra dimensional shift, from the CANTAB test battery) and visual analogue rating scales, were also included as other measures of attention and frontal lobe function. Haloperidol was associated with a non-significant reduction in LI scores, and dysphoria/akathisia (Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale) in three-quarters of the subjects. The LI finding may be explained by increased distractibility which was indicated by an increase in antisaccade directional errors in this group. In contrast, LI was significantly increased by chlorpromazine but not by an equally sedative dose of lorazepam (both drugs causing marked decreases in peak saccadic velocity). Paroxetine had no effect on LI, eye movements or CANTAB neuropsychological test performance. Haloperidol was associated with impaired SWM, which correlated with the degree of dysphoria/akathisia, but no other drug effects on CANTAB measures were detected. We conclude that the effect of antipsychotics on LI is both modality and pharmacologically dependent and that further research using a wider range of antipsychotic compounds is necessary to clarify the cognitive effects of these drugs, and to determine whether there are important differences between them.

Alpha-2 agonists for sedation of mechanically ventilated adults in intensive care units: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Care of critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs) often requires potentially invasive or uncomfortable procedures, such as mechanical ventilation (MV). Sedation can alleviate pain and discomfort, provide protection from stressful or harmful events, prevent anxiety and promote sleep. Various sedative agents are available for use in ICUs. In the UK, the most commonly used sedatives are propofol (Diprivan(®), AstraZeneca), benzodiazepines [e.g. midazolam (Hypnovel(®), Roche) and lorazepam (Ativan(®), Pfizer)] and alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonists [e.g. dexmedetomidine (Dexdor(®), Orion Corporation) and clonidine (Catapres(®), Boehringer Ingelheim)]. Sedative agents vary in onset/duration of effects and in their side effects. The pattern of sedation of alpha-2 agonists is quite different from that of other sedatives in that patients can be aroused readily and their cognitive performance on psychometric tests is usually preserved. Moreover, respiratory depression is less frequent after alpha-2 agonists than after other sedative agents.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review to evaluate the comparative effects of alpha-2 agonists (dexmedetomidine and clonidine) and propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam and lorazepam) in mechanically ventilated adults admitted to ICUs.

DATA SOURCES: We searched major electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE without revisions, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from 1999 to 2014.

METHODS: Evidence was considered from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dexmedetomidine with clonidine or dexmedetomidine or clonidine with propofol or benzodiazepines such as midazolam, lorazepam and diazepam (Diazemuls(®), Actavis UK Limited). Primary outcomes included mortality, duration of MV, length of ICU stay and adverse events. One reviewer extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included trials. A second reviewer cross-checked all the data extracted. Random-effects meta-analyses were used for data synthesis.

RESULTS: Eighteen RCTs (2489 adult patients) were included. One trial at unclear risk of bias compared dexmedetomidine with clonidine and found that target sedation was achieved in a higher number of patients treated with dexmedetomidine with lesser need for additional sedation. The remaining 17 trials compared dexmedetomidine with propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam or lorazepam). Trials varied considerably with regard to clinical population, type of comparators, dose of sedative agents, outcome measures and length of follow-up. Overall, risk of bias was generally high or unclear. In particular, few trials blinded outcome assessors. Compared with propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam or lorazepam), dexmedetomidine had no significant effects on mortality [risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.24, I (2) = 0%; p = 0.78]. Length of ICU stay (mean difference -1.26 days, 95% CI -1.96 to -0.55 days, I (2) = 31%; p = 0.0004) and time to extubation (mean difference -1.85 days, 95% CI -2.61 to -1.09 days, I (2) = 0%; p < 0.00001) were significantly shorter among patients who received dexmedetomidine. No difference in time to target sedation range was observed between sedative interventions (I (2) = 0%; p = 0.14). Dexmedetomidine was associated with a higher risk of bradycardia (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.77, I (2) = 46%; p = 0.001).

LIMITATIONS: Trials varied considerably with regard to participants, type of comparators, dose of sedative agents, outcome measures and length of follow-up. Overall, risk of bias was generally high or unclear. In particular, few trials blinded assessors.

CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the use of clonidine in ICUs is very limited. Dexmedetomidine may be effective in reducing ICU length of stay and time to extubation in critically ill ICU patients. Risk of bradycardia but not of overall mortality is higher among patients treated with dexmedetomidine. Well-designed RCTs are needed to assess the use of clonidine in ICUs and identify subgroups of patients that are more likely to benefit from the use of dexmedetomidine.

STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014014101.

FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. The Health Services Research Unit is core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates.