Comparison of intranasal midazolam with intravenous diazepam for treating acute seizures in children

Intranasal Versus Buccal Versus Intramuscular Midazolam for the Home and Emergency Treatment of Acute Seizures in Pediatric Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Benzodiazepines are the recommended first-line treatment of acute seizures. We wished to compare the efficacy, side effects, and satisfaction after midazolam administration by the buccal, intranasal, or intramuscular route in the treatment of acute seizures in children at homes and in emergency room (ER).

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, controlled trial was performed in children aged one month to 17 years with acute seizures lasting longer than five minutes. The primary end point was seizure cessation within 10 minutes of drug administration and no seizure recurrence within 30 minutes.

RESULTS

In the home group, 67 patients received midazolam via buccal route, 60 via intranasal route, and 69 via intramuscular route, whereas in the ER group, 37 patients received buccal, 34 received intranasal, and 34 received intramuscular midazolam. The primary end point was achieved in 94.2% and 85.3% after intramuscular midazolam in the home and ER groups, respectively. The intranasal midazolam was successful in stopping seizures in 93.3% in the home group and 88.2% in the ER group. The buccal route was effective in 91% in the home group and 78.4% in the ER group. There were no significant differences in efficacy between all groups (P = 0.763 and P = 0.509) among the home and ER groups, respectively. There were no significant cardiorespiratory events in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Intramuscular, intranasal, and buccal doses of midazolam resolved most seizures in prehospital and emergency settings. Our results indicate that there is no statistically significant difference detected between different routes of midazolam. Intranasal route showed the highest satisfaction rate among caregivers.

Established and emerging GABAA receptor pharmacotherapy for epilepsy

Drugs that modulate the GABAA receptor are widely used in clinical practice for both the long-term management of epilepsy and emergency seizure control. In addition to older medications that have well-defined roles for the treatment of epilepsy, recent discoveries into the structure and function of the GABAA receptor have led to the development of newer compounds designed to maximise therapeutic benefit whilst minimising adverse effects, and whose position within the epilepsy pharmacologic armamentarium is still emerging. Drugs that modulate the GABAA receptor will remain a cornerstone of epilepsy management for the foreseeable future and, in this article, we provide an overview of the mechanisms and clinical efficacy of both established and emerging pharmacotherapies.

ACVIM Consensus Statement on the management of status epilepticus and cluster seizures in dogs and cats

BACKGROUND

Seizure emergencies (ie, status epilepticus [SE] and cluster seizures [CS]), are common challenging disorders with complex pathophysiology, rapidly progressive drug-resistant and self-sustaining character, and high morbidity and mortality. Current treatment approaches are characterized by considerable variations, but official guidelines are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To establish evidence-based guidelines and an agreement among board-certified specialists for the appropriate management of SE and CS in dogs and cats.

ANIMALS

None.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A panel of 5 specialists was formed to assess and summarize evidence in the peer-reviewed literature with the aim to establish consensus clinical recommendations. Evidence from veterinary pharmacokinetic studies, basic research, and human medicine also was used to support the panel's recommendations, especially for the interventions where veterinary clinical evidence was lacking.

RESULTS

The majority of the evidence was on the first-line management (ie, benzodiazepines and their various administration routes) in both species. Overall, there was less evidence available on the management of emergency seizure disorders in cats in contrast to dogs. Most recommendations made by the panel were supported by a combination of a moderate level of veterinary clinical evidence and pharmacokinetic data as well as studies in humans and basic research studies.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Successful management of seizure emergencies should include an early, rapid, and stage-based treatment approach consisting of interventions with moderate to preferably high ACVIM recommendations; management of complications and underlying causes related to seizure emergencies should accompany antiseizure medications.

Treatment of pediatric convulsive status epilepticus

Status epilepticus is one of the most common life-threatening neurological emergencies in childhood with the highest incidence in the first 5 years of life and high mortality and morbidity rates. Although it is known that a delayed treatment and a prolonged seizure can cause permanent brain damage, there is evidence that current treatments may be delayed and the medication doses administered are insufficient. Here, we summarize current knowledge on treatment of convulsive status epilepticus in childhood and propose a treatment algorithm. We performed a structured literature search via PubMed and ClinicalTrails.org and identified 35 prospective and retrospective studies on children <18 years comparing two and more treatment options for status epilepticus. The studies were divided into the commonly used treatment phases. As a first-line treatment, benzodiazepines buccal/rectal/intramuscular/intravenous are recommended. For status epilepticus treated with benzodiazepine refractory, no superiority of fosphenytoin, levetirazetam, or phenobarbital was identified. There is limited data on third-line treatments for refractory status epilepticus lasting >30 min. Our proposed treatment algorithm, especially for children with SE, is for in and out-of-hospital onset aids to promote the establishment and distribution of guidelines to address the treatment delay aggressively and to reduce putative permanent neuronal damage. Further studies are needed to evaluate if these algorithms decrease long-term damage and how to treat refractory status epilepticus lasting >30 min.

Real-World Midazolam Use and Outcomes With Out-of-Hospital Treatment of Status Epilepticus in the United States

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Guidelines recommend 10-mg intramuscular midazolam as the first-line treatment option for status epilepticus. However, in real-world practice, it is frequently administered intranasally or intravenously and is dosed lower. Therefore, we used conventional and instrumental variable approaches to examine the effectiveness of midazolam in a national out-of-hospital cohort.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study of adults with status epilepticus used the ESO Data Collaborative research dataset (January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019). The exposures were the route and dose of midazolam. We performed hierarchical logistic regression and 2-stage least squares regression using agency treatment patterns as an instrument to examine our outcomes, rescue therapy, and ventilatory support.

RESULTS

There were 7,634 out-of-hospital encounters from 657 EMS agencies. Midazolam was administered intranasally in 20%, intravenously in 46%, and intramuscularly in 35% of the encounters. Compared with intramuscular administration, intranasal midazolam increased (risk difference [RD], 6.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4% to 10.5%) and intravenous midazolam decreased (RD, -11.1%; 95% CI, -14.7% to -7.5%) the risk of rescue therapy. The differences in ventilatory support were not statistically significant (intranasal RD, -1.5%; 95% CI, -3.2% to 0.3%; intravenous RD, -0.3%; 95% CI, -1.9% to 1.2%). Higher doses were associated with a lower risk of rescue therapy (RD, -2.6%; 95% CI, -3.3% to -1.9%) and increased ventilatory support (RD, 0.4%; 95% CI, 0.1% to 0.7%). The instrumental variable analysis yielded similar results, except that dose was not associated with ventilatory support.

CONCLUSION

The route and dose of midazolam affect clinical outcomes. Compared with intramuscular administration, intranasal administration may be less effective and intravenous administration more effective in terminating status epilepticus, although the differences between these and previous results may reflect the nature of real-world data as opposed to randomized data.

Termination of seizures in the paediatric age group, best benzodiazepine and route of administration: A network meta-analysis

This network meta-analysis aims to compare various benzodiazepines and their route of administration using the data published exclusively in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two thousand two hundred sixty-three children presenting with an episode of seizure to ER or to a paramedic where they were administered a benzodiazepine as the first-line treatment were included. All the outcomes were measured for their mean with 95% CI and rank probability. The primary outcome was the number of successful seizure cessation. Secondary outcomes were the time interval between drug administration and seizure cessation, the time interval between patient arrival and seizure cessation and the number of episodes of seizure recurrence after drug administration. For the number of successful cessations, intramuscular midazolam showed the highest mean and best rank probability with a value of .881 (.065) and 57.9%, respectively. For the time of cessation, both intravenous lorazepam (IVL) and intravenous diazepam showed a mean of 3.30 (1.30) with IVL having the highest rank probability of 32%. For total time for cessation, intranasal midazolam showed the best mean and rank probability with a value of 4.3 (1.1) and 55%, respectively. Buccal midazolam showed the lowest mean with a value of .106 (.084) for rate of recurrence. Although there was no significant difference between the treatments, but based on the rank probability, IVL shows more promising results for patients who already have an established intravenous line, and for patients presenting in the ER without an intravenous line, the first line of treatment should be INM as it shows the highest rank probability in total time with second-highest successful cessation rate.

Bioavailability and Safety of a New Highly Concentrated Midazolam Nasal Spray Compared to Buccal and Intravenous Midazolam Treatment in Chinese Healthy Volunteers

Introduction

Buccal midazolam treatment is licensed in the European Union for prolonged acute convulsive seizures in children and adolescents, but the buccal pathway is often hampered by jaw clenching, hypersalivation, or uncontrolled swallowing. Midazolam formulations that are more secure, reliable, and faster for use are needed in the acute setting. Pharmacokinetics and comparative bioavailability of intranasally administered midazolam and two midazolam intravenous solutions administered buccally or intravenously in healthy adults were evaluated.

Methods

In this phase 1, open-label, randomized, single-dose, three-period, three-sequence crossover study, 12 healthy adults (19–41 years) were randomly assigned to receive 2.5 mg midazolam intranasally; 2.5 mg midazolam intravenously; 2.5 mg midazolam buccally. Blood samples were collected for 10 h post dose to determine pharmacokinetic profiles. Adverse events and vital signs were recorded.

Results

Intranasal administration of 2.5 mg midazolam demonstrated a more rapid median time to C_max compared to buccal administration of midazolam (T_max, 12.6 min vs. 45 min; C_max, 38.33 ng/ml vs. 24.97 ng/ml). The antiepileptic effect of intranasal and buccal midazolam treatment lasted less than 4 h and generally did not differ from intravenously administered midazolam. No serious adverse events or deaths were reported, and no treatment-emergent adverse events led to study discontinuation.

Conclusion

Intranasal administration of midazolam may be a preferable alternative to the currently approve buccal midazolam treatment for prolonged acute convulsive seizures in children and adolescents.

Trial Registration

This study is registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial [http://www.chictr.org.cn] (ChiCTR2000032595) on 3 May, 2020.

Benzodiazepines in the Management of Seizures and Status Epilepticus: A Review of Routes of Delivery, Pharmacokinetics, Efficacy, and Tolerability

Status epilepticus (SE) is an acute, life-threatening medical condition that requires immediate, effective therapy. Therefore, the acute care of prolonged seizures and SE is a constant challenge for healthcare professionals, in both the pre-hospital and the in-hospital settings. Benzodiazepines (BZDs) are the first-line treatment for SE worldwide due to their efficacy, tolerability, and rapid onset of action. Although all BZDs act as allosteric modulators at the inhibitory gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)_A receptor, the individual agents have different efficacy profiles and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties, some of which differ significantly. The conventional BZDs clonazepam, diazepam, lorazepam and midazolam differ mainly in their durations of action and available routes of administration. In addition to the common intravenous, intramuscular and rectal administrations that have long been established in the acute treatment of SE, other administration routes for BZDs-such as intranasal administration-have been developed in recent years, with some preparations already commercially available. Most recently, the intrapulmonary administration of BZDs via an inhaler has been investigated. This narrative review provides an overview of the current knowledge on the efficacy and tolerability of different BZDs, with a focus on different routes of administration and therapeutic specificities for different patient groups, and offers an outlook on potential future drug developments for the treatment of prolonged seizures and SE.

Intranasal midazolam versus intravenous/rectal benzodiazepines for acute seizure control in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute seizure activity might cause complications including bodily harm, progression to status epilepticus, and poor quality of life in children. The introduction of a venous line may be difficult in children with seizures which would delay the initiation of treatment. Rectal drug administration can be socially awkward for patients and providers. Intranasal (IN) midazolam offers a valuable substitute that is easier and faster to administer.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of intranasal midazolam in children with acute seizure when compared to conventional IV or rectal benzodiazepine (BDZ).

METHODS

PubMed, google scholar, websites clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO-international clinical trials registry platform, were searched. Randomized controlled/prospective randomized trials comparing IN midazolam against IV/rectal BDZ in the treatment of acute seizures in pediatric patients were included in the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Data of 10 studies were quantitatively analyzed. Intranasal midazolam (n = 169) when compared to IV/rectal BDZ (n = 161) has a shorter interval between hospital arrival and seizure cessation {(mean difference = -3.51; 95% CI [-6.84, -0.18]) P = 0.04}. Regarding time to seizure cessation after midazolam (n = 326) or BDZ (n = 322) administration, there is no significant difference between the two groups {(mean difference = -0.03; 95% CI [-1.30, 1.25]), P = 0.97} and both are equally effective for controlling acute seizures (odds ratio = 1.06; 95% CI [0.43, 2.63]; n = 737).

CONCLUSION

In children with acute seizures, IN midazolam is equally effective in aborting seizure and decreases the total time from hospital arrival and cessation of seizures, eventually leading to faster cessation of seizure as compared to IV/rectal BDZ.

Rescue therapies for seizure emergencies: current and future landscape

INTRODUCTION

Seizure emergencies-status epilepticus and seizure clusters-require rapid evaluation and treatment. Several consensus-based guidelines support a prompt use of intravenous benzodiazepines as the first-line therapy in seizure emergencies. However, most seizure emergencies start outside the hospital settings. Until recently, approved prehospital rescue therapies were limited to rectal diazepam and buccal midazolam (Europe only).

METHODS

The author provides a narrative review of rescue therapies for seizure emergencies based on a comprehensive literature review (PubMed and OvidSP vendors with appropriate keywords to incorporate recent evidence) to highlight the changing landscape of seizure recue therapies.

RESULTS

A commercial version of intranasal midazolam was approved by the FDA in 2019 for 12 ≥ years old with seizure clusters. In 2020, the FDA also approved a proprietary vitamin E solution-based diazepam nose spray to abort seizure clusters in ≥ 6 years old subjects. Other than these two new options, the author discussed two previously approved therapies: rectal diazepam and buccal midazolam. The review also includes the use of intramuscular diazepam and midazolam, clonazepam wafer, sublingual and intranasal lorazepam in seizure emergencies. Besides the availability of new therapies from successful trials in controlled settings, the real-world challenges of using rescue medicines in community settings are slowly emerging.

DISCUSSION

With multiple options, a more robust and updated cost-effective analysis of different rescue medicines needs to be performed using effectiveness data from the literature and cost data from publicly available market prices. Further research is also ongoing to develop alternative non-intravenous treatment options for outpatient settings. Lastly, several other non-benzodiazepine drugs, such as allopregnanolone, propofol, and brivaracetam, are also currently under development for seizure emergencies.

The Effectiveness of Intranasal Midazolam for the Treatment of Prehospital Pediatric Seizures: A Non-inferiority Study

Background: Intranasal (IN) midazolam allows for rapid, painless treatment of pediatric seizures in the prehospital setting and may be a preferred administration route if determined to be non-inferior to intravenous (IV) or intramuscular (IM) routes. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of IN midazolam for terminating prehospital pediatric seizures compared to midazolam administered by alternate routes. Methods: We performed a retrospective, non-inferiority analysis using data from a regional Emergency Medical Services (EMS) database. We included pediatric patients ≤ 14 years treated with midazolam (0.1 mg/kg) by EMS for non-traumatic seizures. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients requiring redosing of midazolam after initial treatment with IN midazolam compared to those that received IV or IM midazolam. We established a priori a risk difference of 6.5% as the non-inferiority margin. Results: We evaluated outcomes from 2,034 patients (median age 6 years [interquartile range 3 - 10 years], 55% male). Initial administration routes were 461 (23%) IN, 547 (27%) IM, 1024 (50%) IV, and 2 (0.1%) intraosseous (IO). Midazolam redosing occurred in 116 patients (25%) who received IN midazolam versus 222 patients (14%) treated initially with midazolam via alternate routes (risk difference 11% [95%CI 7 - 15%]). The age-adjusted odds ratio for redosing midazolam after intranasal administration compared to alternate route administration was 2.0 (95% CI 1.6 - 2.6). Conclusion: Prehospital treatment of pediatric seizure with intranasal midazolam was associated with increased frequency of redosing compared to midazolam administered by other routes, suggesting that 0.1 mg/kg is a subtherapeutic dose for intranasal midazolam administration.

Principles of Pharmacotherapy of Seizures and Status Epilepticus

Status epilepticus is a neurological emergency with an outcome that is highly associated with the initial pharmacotherapy management that must be administered in a timely fashion. Beyond first-line therapy of status epilepticus, treatment is not guided by robust evidence. Optimal pharmacotherapy selection for individual patients is essential in the management of seizures and status epilepticus with careful evaluation of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors. With the addition of newer antiseizure agents to the market, understanding their role in the management of status epilepticus is critical. Etiology-guided therapy should be considered in certain patients with drug-induced seizures, alcohol withdrawal, or autoimmune encephalitis. Some patient populations warrant special consideration, such as pediatric, pregnant, elderly, and the critically ill. Seizure prophylaxis is indicated in select patients with acute neurological injury and should be limited to the acute postinjury period.

Seizure clusters, rescue treatments, seizure action plans: Unmet needs and emerging formulations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of the study was to provide an overview of the prevalence, risk factors, burden, and current and emerging pharmacologic treatments for seizure clusters in patients with epilepsy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Close to half of patients with active epilepsy experience seizure clusters, and the clinical, social, and financial burdens of seizure clusters are high. However, there is no widely accepted definition of seizure clusters; their prevalence is underappreciated, contingencies for addressing them (seizure action plans) are often lacking, and their effects are not well-studied. These issues have resulted in an insufficient number of investigations and approved medications for this condition. Novel formulations are in late-stage development to meet this unmet need.

Prehospital midazolam use and outcomes among patients with out-of-hospital status epilepticus

OBJECTIVE

To examine the use of benzodiazepines and the association between low benzodiazepine dose, breakthrough seizures, and respiratory support in patients with status epilepticus.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional analysis of adult patients with status epilepticus treated by an emergency medical services agency from 2013 to 2018, the primary outcome was treatment with a second benzodiazepine dose, an indicator for breakthrough seizure. The secondary outcome was receiving respiratory support. Midazolam was the only benzodiazepine administered.

RESULTS

Among 2,494 patients with status epilepticus, mean age was 54.0 years and 1,146 (46%) were female. There were 1,537 patients given midazolam at any dose, yielding an administration rate of 62%. No patients received a dose and route consistent with national guidelines. Rescue therapy with a second midazolam dose was required in 282 (18%) patients. Higher midazolam doses were associated with lower odds of rescue therapy (odds ratio [OR], 0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7-0.9) and were not associated with increased respiratory support. If anything, higher doses of midazolam were associated with decreased need for respiratory support after adjustment (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.8-1.0).

CONCLUSIONS

An overwhelming majority of patients with status epilepticus did not receive evidence-based benzodiazepine treatment. Higher midazolam doses were associated with reduced use of rescue therapy and there was no evidence of respiratory harm, suggesting that benzodiazepines are withheld without clinical benefit.

CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE

This study provides Class III evidence that for patients with status epilepticus, higher doses of midazolam led to a reduced use of rescue therapy without an increased need for ventilatory support.

EEG for children with complex febrile seizures

BACKGROUND

Febrile seizures can be classified as simple or complex. Complex febrile seizures are associated with fever that lasts longer than 15 minutes, occur more than once within 24 hours, and are confined to one side of the child's body. It is common in some countries for doctors to recommend an electroencephalograph (EEG) for children with complex febrile seizures. A limited evidence base is available to support the use of EEG and its timing after complex febrile seizures among children.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the use of EEG and its timing after complex febrile seizures in children younger than five years of age.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update of this review, we searched the following databases on 12 March 2019: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 11 March 2019); and ClinicalTrials.gov. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the utility of an EEG and its timing after complex febrile seizures in children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors selected and retrieved the articles and independently assessed which articles should be included. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion and by consultation with the Cochrane Epilepsy Group. We applied standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 48 potentially eligible studies, no RCTs met the inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no RCTs as evidence to support or refute the use of EEG and its timing after complex febrile seizures among children under the age of five. An RCT can be planned in such a way that participants are randomly assigned to the EEG group and to the non-EEG group with sufficient sample size. Since the last version of this review, we have found no new studies.

Intranasal midazolam as first-line inhospital treatment for status epilepticus: a pharmaco-EEG cohort study

Objective

We sought to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of intranasal midazolam (in‐MDZ) as first‐line inhospital therapy in patients with status epilepticus (SE) during continuous EEG recording.

Methods

Data on medical history, etiology and semiology of SE, anticonvulsive medication usage, efficacy and safety of in‐MDZ were retrospectively reviewed between 2015 and 2018. Time to end of SE regarding the administration of in‐MDZ and ß‐band effects were analyzed on EEG and with frequency analysis.

Results

In total, 42 patients (mean age: 52.7 ± 22.7 years; 23 females) were treated with a median dose of 5 mg of in‐MDZ (range: 2.5–15 mg, mean: 6.4 mg, SD: 2.6) for SE. The majority of the patients suffered from nonconvulsive SE (n = 24; 55.8%). In total, 24 (57.1%) patients were responders, as SE stopped following the administration of in‐MDZ without any other drugs being given. On average, SE ceased on EEG at 05:05 (minutes:seconds) after the application of in‐MDZ (median: 04:56; range: 00:29–14:53; SD:03:13). Frequency analysis showed an increased ß‐band on EEG after the application of in‐MDZ at 04:07 on average (median: 03:50; range: 02:20–05:40; SD: 01:09). Adverse events were recorded in six patients (14.3%), with nasal irritations present in five (11.9%) and prolonged sedation occurring in one (2.6%) patient.

Conclusions

This pharmaco‐EEG–based study showed that in‐MDZ is effective and well‐tolerated for the acute treatment of SE. EEG and clinical effects of in‐MDZ administration occurred within 04:07 and 5:05 on average. Intranasal midazolam appears to be an easily applicable and rapidly effective alternative to buccal or intramuscular application as first‐line treatment if an intravenous route is not available.

Comparison of intranasal versus intravenous midazolam for management of status epilepticus in dogs: A multi-center randomized parallel group clinical study

Background

The intranasal (IN) route for rapid drug administration in patients with brain disorders, including status epilepticus, has been investigated. Status epilepticus is an emergency, and the IN route offers a valuable alternative to other routes, especially when these fail.

Objectives

To compare IN versus IV midazolam (MDZ) at the same dosage (0.2 mg/kg) for controlling status epilepticus in dogs.

Animals

Client‐owned dogs (n = 44) with idiopathic epilepsy, structural epilepsy, or epilepsy of unknown origin manifesting as status epilepticus.

Methods

Randomized parallel group clinical trial. Patients were randomly allocated to the IN‐MDZ (n = 21) or IV‐MDZ (n = 23) group. Number of successfully treated cases (defined as seizure cessation within 5 minutes and lasting for ≥10 minutes), seizure cessation time, and adverse effects were recorded. Comparisons were performed using the Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests with statistical significance set at α < .05.

Results

IN‐MDZ and IV‐MDZ successfully stopped status epilepticus in 76% and 61% of cases, respectively (P = .34). The median seizure cessation time was 33 and 64 seconds for IN‐MDZ and IV‐MDZ, respectively (P = .63). When the time to place an IV catheter was taken into account, IN‐MDZ (100 seconds) was superior (P = .04) to IV‐MDZ (270 seconds). Sedation and ataxia were seen in 88% and 79% of the dogs treated with IN‐MDZ and IV‐MDZ, respectively.

Conclusions and Clinical Importance

Both routes are quick, safe, and effective for controlling status epilepticus. However, the IN route demonstrated superiority when the time needed to place an IV catheter was taken into account.

Safety and efficacy of midazolam nasal spray in the outpatient treatment of patients with seizure clusters: An open-label extension trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate safety- and seizure-related outcomes with repeated intermittent use of a novel formulation of midazolam administered as a single-dose nasal spray (MDZ-NS) in the outpatient treatment of patients experiencing seizure clusters (SCs).

METHODS

In this open-label extension trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01529034), patients aged ≥12 years and on a stable regimen of antiepileptic drugs who completed the original phase III, randomized controlled trial were enrolled. Caregivers administered MDZ-NS 5 mg when patients experienced SCs; a second dose could be given if seizures did not terminate within 10 minutes or recurred within 10 minutes-6 hours. Patients were monitored for treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) throughout, and the main seizure-related outcome was treatment success, defined as seizure termination within 10 minutes and no recurrence 10 minutes-6 hours after drug administration.

RESULTS

Of 175 patients enrolled, 161 (92.0%) received ≥1 MDZ-NS dose, for a total of 1998 SC episodes. Median time spent by patients in the trial was 16.8 months (range = 1-55.7 months). TEAEs were experienced by 40.4% of patients within 2 days of drug administration and 57.1% overall. TEAEs reported by most patients (within 2 days and overall) were nasal discomfort (12.4%) and somnolence (9.3%). One patient each discontinued due to treatment-related nasal discomfort and somnolence. There were no patients with treatment-related respiratory depression, and none with TEAEs indicative of drug abuse or dependence. Treatment success criteria were met in 55% (1108/1998) of SC episodes after administration of a single 5-mg dose and in 80.2% (617/769) with the second dose. Treatment success was consistent over treated episode number.

SIGNIFICANCE

Repeated, intermittent, acute treatment of patients experiencing SCs with MDZ-NS in the outpatient setting was well tolerated over an extended period, with maintenance of efficacy suggesting lack of development of tolerance.

Treatment of Seizures in Children and Adults in the Emergency Medical System of the City of Zurich, Switzerland - Midazolam vs. Diazepam - A Retrospective Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Seizures count to critical situations emergency medical systems (EMS) are confronted with.

OBJECTIVES

Evaluation of a modified treatment algorithm (MTAS-EMS) using diazepam and midazolam due to a supply bottleneck of iv lorazepam in 2012.

METHODS

Retrospective study where data from patients treated for seizures by the EMS of the city of Zurich were analyzed. Effectiveness of the MTAS-EMS and i.v. diazepam in children and adults was compared with respect of cessation of seizure without recurrence over the period until arrival at the hospital. The chi-square and Fisher's exact test were used to compare categorical data. The Student's t-test and Mann Whitney test were used to compare numerical data. p-values < 0.05 are considered significant.

RESULTS

Of 584 documented missions, 165 treated patients (126 adults and 39 children) were included. 115 patients (80 adults and 35 children) were treated according the MTAS-EMS. Cessation of seizure was achieved in 85% of the adults and in 97% of the children, if all options of the MTAS-EMS were used. The first dose of nasal midazolam was more successful in children compared to adults (p = 0.012). In adults, the single dose of i.v. diazepam terminated the seizure in 98% (p = 0.001) compared to 57% for the single dose of iv and 64% for nasal midazolam.

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment success of the MTAS-EMS is high. However, in adults the single dose of i.v. diazepam is as successful as the completely used MTAS-EMS and seems to be superior to the single dose iv and nasal midazolam.

Safety and efficacy of midazolam nasal spray in the outpatient treatment of patients with seizure clusters-a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Objective

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a novel formulation of midazolam administered as a single‐dose nasal spray (MDZ–NS) in the outpatient treatment of patients experiencing seizure clusters (SCs).

Methods

This was a phase III, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01390220) with patients age ≥12 years on a stable regimen of antiepileptic drugs. Following an in‐clinic test dose phase (TDP), patients entered an outpatient comparative phase (CP) and were randomized (2:1) to receive double‐blind MDZ–NS 5 mg or placebo nasal spray, administered by caregivers when they experienced an SC. The primary efficacy end point was treatment success (seizure termination within 10 minutes and no recurrence 10 minutes to 6 hours after trial drug administration). Secondary efficacy end points were proportion of patients with seizure recurrence 10 minutes to 4 hours, and time‐to‐next seizure >10 minutes after double‐blind drug administration. Safety was monitored throughout.

Results

Of 292 patients administered a test dose, 262 patients were randomized, and 201 received double‐blind treatment for an SC (n = 134 MDZ–NS, n = 67 placebo, modified intent‐to‐treat population). A significantly greater proportion of MDZ–NS‐ than placebo‐treated patients achieved treatment success (53.7% vs 34.4%; P = 0.0109). Significantly, fewer MDZ–NS‐ than placebo‐treated patients experienced seizure recurrence (38.1% vs 59.7%; P = 0.0043). Time‐to‐next seizure analysis showed early separation (within 30 minutes) between MDZ–NS and placebo that was maintained throughout the 24‐hour observation period (21% difference at 24 hours; P = 0.0124). Sixteen patients (5.5%) discontinued because of a treatment‐emergent adverse event (TEAE) during the TDP and none during the CP. During the CP, 27.6% and 22.4% of patients in the MDZ–NS and placebo groups, respectively, experienced ≥1 TEAE.

Significance

MDZ–NS was superior to placebo in providing rapid, sustained seizure control when administered to patients experiencing an SC in the outpatient setting and was associated with a favorable safety profile.

Paramedic-Identified Enablers of and Barriers to Pediatric Seizure Management: A Multicenter, Qualitative Study

Background: Seizures have the potential to cause significant morbidity and mortality, and are a common reason emergency medical services (EMS) are requested for a child. An evidence-based guideline (EBG) for pediatric prehospital seizures was published and has been implemented as protocol in multiple EMS systems. Knowledge translation and protocol adherence in medicine can be incomplete. In EMS, systems-based factors and providers' attitudes and beliefs may contribute to incomplete knowledge translation and protocol implementation. Objective: The purpose of this study was to identify paramedic attitudes and beliefs regarding pediatric seizure management and regarding potential barriers to and enablers of adherence to evidence-based pediatric seizure protocols in multiple EMS systems. Methods: This was a qualitative study utilizing semi-structured interviews of paramedics who recently transported actively seizing 0-17 year-old patients in 3 different urban EMS systems. Interviewers explored the providers' decision-making during their recent case and regarding seizures in general. Interview questions explored barriers to and enablers of protocol adherence. Two investigators used the grounded theory approach and constant comparison to independently analyze transcribed interview recordings until thematic saturation was reached. Findings were validated with follow-up member-checking interviews. Results: Several themes emerged from the 66 interviewed paramedics. Enablers of protocol adherence included point-of-care references, the availability of different routes for midazolam and availability of online medical control. Systems-level barriers included equipment availability, controlled substance management, infrequent pediatric training, and protocol ambiguity. Provider-level barriers included concerns about respiratory depression, provider fatigue, preferences for specific routes, febrile seizure perceptions, and inaccurate methods of weight estimation. Paramedics suggested system improvements to address dose standardization, protocol clarity, simplified controlled substance logistics, and equipment availability. Conclusions: Paramedics identified enablers of and barriers to adherence to evidence-based pediatric seizure protocols. The identified barriers existed at both the provider and systems levels. Paramedics identified multiple potential solutions to overcome several barriers to protocol adherence. Future research should focus on using the findings of this study to revise seizure protocols and to deploy measures to improve protocol implementation. Future research should also analyze process and outcome measures before and after the implementation of revised seizure protocols informed by the findings of this study.

The Pharmacological Assessment of GABAA Receptor Activation in Experimental Febrile Seizures in Mice

Hyperthermia-induced febrile seizures (FSs) are the most common seizures during childhood, and prolonged complex FSs can result in the development of epilepsy. Currently, GABA_A receptor modulators such as benzodiazepines and barbiturates are used as medications for FSs with the aim of enhancing GABA-mediated inhibition of neuronal activity. However, it is still up for debate whether these enhancers of GABAergic neurotransmission could depolarize immature neurons with relatively higher levels of the intracellular Cl⁻ in the developing brain during FSs. Here, we performed simultaneous video-local field potential monitoring to determine whether benzodiazepines and barbiturates affect the phenotypes of FSs in postnatal day (P)11 and P14 mice. We found that low-dose administration of diazepam decreased the incidence of clonic seizures at P11. We also found that high-dose administration of diazepam and pentobarbital exacerbated the behavioral and electrophysiological phenotypes of the induction phase of experimental FSs at P11 but not at P14. We further found that the deteriorated phenotypes at P11 were suppressed when Na⁺K⁺2Cl⁻ cotransporter isoform 1 (NKCC1), which mediates Cl⁻ influx, was blocked by treatment with the diuretic bumetanide. Though our findings do not exclude the involvement of sedation effect of high-dose GABA_A receptor modulators in worsening experimental FSs at P11, pharmacological enhancement of GABAergic signaling could aggravate seizure activity in the early phase of FSs.

Evaluation of intranasal delivery route of drug administration for brain targeting

The acute or chronic drug treatments for different neurodegenerative and psychiatric disorders are challenging from several aspects. The low bioavailability and limited brain exposure of oral drugs, the rapid metabolism, elimination, the unwanted side effects and also the high dose to be added mean both inconvenience for the patients and high costs for the patients, their family and the society. The reason of low brain penetration of the compounds is that they have to overcome the blood-brain barrier which protects the brain against xenobiotics. Intranasal drug administration is one of the promising options to bypass blood-brain barrier, to reduce the systemic adverse effects of the drugs and to lower the doses to be administered. Furthermore, the drugs administered using nasal route have usually higher bioavailability, less side effects and result in higher brain exposure at similar dosage than the oral drugs. In this review the focus is on giving an overview on the anatomical and cellular structure of nasal cavity and absorption surface. It presents some possibilities to enhance the drug penetration through the nasal barrier and summarizes some in vitro, ex vivo and in vivo technologies to test the drug delivery across the nasal epithelium into the brain. Finally, the authors give a critical evaluation of the nasal route of administration showing its main advantages and limitations of this delivery route for CNS drug targeting.

Decreasing Seizure Treatment Time Through Quality Improvement Reduces Critical Care Utilization

BACKGROUND

Rapid, effective treatment for status epilepticus reduces associated morbidity and mortality, yet medication delivery remains slow in many hospitalized patients. We utilized quality improvement (QI) methodology to improve treatment times for hospitalized children with status epilepticus. We hypothesized rapid initial seizure treatment would decrease seizure morbidity.

METHODS

We utilized QI and statistical process control analysis in a nonintensive care setting within a tertiary care pediatric hospital. We performed Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles including (1) revising the nursing process for responding to seizures, (2) emphasizing intranasal midazolam over intravenous lorazepam, (3) relocating medications and supplies, (4) developing documentation tools and reinforcing correct processes, (5) developing and disseminating an online education module for residents and nurse practitioners, and (6) completing standardization to intranasal midazolam.

RESULTS

Seventeen months after starting the project, 66 seizures had been treated with a benzodiazepine in a median (p₂₅-p₇₅) time of 7.5 minutes (5 to 10), decreased from a baseline of 14 minutes (8-30) (P = 0.01). The proportion of patients receiving a benzodiazepine in 10 minutes or less improved from 39% to 79%. The proportion of patients transferred to intensive care decreased from a baseline of 39% to 9% (P < 0.005), resulting in an estimated $2.1 million in mitigated hospital charges. Significant harm did not occur during the implementation of these interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Children with status epilepticus were treated with benzodiazepines more rapidly and effectively following implementation of QI methodology. These interventions reduced utilization of critical care and mitigated hospital charges.

Drug management for acute tonic-clonic convulsions including convulsive status epilepticus in children

BACKGROUND

Tonic-clonic convulsions and convulsive status epilepticus (currently defined as a tonic-clonic convulsion lasting at least 30 minutes) are medical emergencies and require urgent and appropriate anticonvulsant treatment. International consensus is that an anticonvulsant drug should be administered for any tonic-clonic convulsion that has been continuing for at least five minutes. Benzodiazepines (diazepam, lorazepam, midazolam) are traditionally regarded as first-line drugs and phenobarbital, phenytoin and paraldehyde as second-line drugs. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and updated in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of anticonvulsant drugs used to treat any acute tonic-clonic convulsion of any duration, including established convulsive (tonic-clonic) status epilepticus in children who present to a hospital or emergency medical department.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (23 May 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 23 May 2017), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 23 May 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov (23 May 2017), and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 23 May 2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing any anticonvulsant drugs used for the treatment of an acute tonic-clonic convulsion including convulsive status epilepticus in children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 18 randomised trials involving 2199 participants, and a range of drug treatment options, doses and routes of administration (rectal, buccal, nasal, intramuscular and intravenous). The studies vary by design, setting and population, both in terms of their ages and also in their clinical situation. We have made many comparisons of drugs and of routes of administration of drugs in this review; our key findings are as follows:(1) This review provides only low- to very low-quality evidence comparing buccal midazolam with rectal diazepam for the treatment of acute tonic-clonic convulsions (risk ratio (RR) for seizure cessation 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 1.38; 4 trials; 690 children). However, there is uncertainty about the effect and therefore insufficient evidence to support its use. There were no included studies which compare intranasal and buccal midazolam.(2) Buccal and intranasal anticonvulsants were shown to lead to similar rates of seizure cessation as intravenous anticonvulsants, e.g. intranasal lorazepam appears to be as effective as intravenous lorazepam (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.13; 1 trial; 141 children; high-quality evidence) and intranasal midazolam was equivalent to intravenous diazepam (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.06; 2 trials; 122 children; moderate-quality evidence).(3) Intramuscular midazolam also showed a similar rate of seizure cessation to intravenous diazepam (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.09; 2 trials; 105 children; low-quality evidence).(4) For intravenous routes of administration, lorazepam appears to be as effective as diazepam in stopping acute tonic clonic convulsions: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.16; 3 trials; 414 children; low-quality evidence. Furthermore, we found no statistically significant or clinically important differences between intravenous midazolam and diazepam (RR for seizure cessation 1.08, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.21; 1 trial; 80 children; moderate-quality evidence) or intravenous midazolam and lorazepam (RR for seizure cessation 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.04; 1 trial; 80 children; moderate-quality evidence). In general, intravenously-administered anticonvulsants led to more rapid seizure cessation but this was usually compromised by the time taken to establish intravenous access.(5) There is limited evidence from a single trial to suggest that intranasal lorazepam may be more effective than intramuscular paraldehyde in stopping acute tonic-clonic convulsions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.52; 160 children; moderate-quality evidence).(6) Adverse side effects were observed and reported very infrequently in the included studies. Respiratory depression was the most common and most clinically relevant side effect and, where reported, the frequency of this adverse event was observed in 0% to up to 18% of children. None of the studies individually demonstrated any difference in the rates of respiratory depression between the different anticonvulsants or their different routes of administration; but when pooled, three studies (439 children) provided moderate-quality evidence that lorazepam was significantly associated with fewer occurrences of respiratory depression than diazepam (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93).Much of the evidence provided in this review is of mostly moderate to high quality. However, the quality of the evidence provided for some important outcomes is low to very low, particularly for comparisons of non-intravenous routes of drug administration. Low- to very low-quality evidence was provided where limited data and imprecise results were available for analysis, methodological inadequacies were present in some studies which may have introduced bias into the results, study settings were not applicable to wider clinical practice, and where inconsistency was present in some pooled analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have not identified any new high-quality evidence on the efficacy or safety of an anticonvulsant in stopping an acute tonic-clonic convulsion that would inform clinical practice. There appears to be a very low risk of adverse events, specifically respiratory depression. Intravenous lorazepam and diazepam appear to be associated with similar rates of seizure cessation and respiratory depression. Although intravenous lorazepam and intravenous diazepam lead to more rapid seizure cessation, the time taken to obtain intravenous access may undermine this effect. In the absence of intravenous access, buccal midazolam or rectal diazepam are therefore acceptable first-line anticonvulsants for the treatment of an acute tonic-clonic convulsion that has lasted at least five minutes. There is no evidence provided by this review to support the use of intranasal midazolam or lorazepam as alternatives to buccal midazolam or rectal diazepam.

EEG for children with complex febrile seizures

BACKGROUND

Febrile seizures can be classified as simple or complex. Complex febrile seizures are associated with fever that lasts longer than 15 minutes, occur more than once within 24 hours, and are confined to one side of the child's body. It is common in some countries for doctors to recommend an electroencephalograph (EEG) for children with complex febrile seizures. A limited evidence base is available to support the use of EEG and its timing after complex febrile seizures among children.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the use of EEG and its timing after complex febrile seizures in children younger than five years of age.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update of this review, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (23 January 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 23 January 2017), MEDLINE (Ovid, 23 January 2017), and ClinicalTrials.gov (23 January 2017). We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the utility of an EEG and its timing after complex febrile seizures in children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors selected and retrieved the articles and independently assessed which articles should be included. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion and by consultation with the Cochrane Epilepsy Group. We applied standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 41 potentially eligible studies, no RCTs met the inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no RCTs as evidence to support or refute the use of EEG and its timing after complex febrile seizures among children. An RCT can be planned in such a way that participants are randomly assigned to the EEG group and to the non-EEG group with sufficient sample size. Since the last version of this review, we have found no new studies.

Intravenous Versus Nonintravenous Benzodiazepines for the Cessation of Seizures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

The acquisition of intravenous (IV) access in the actively convulsing patient is difficult. This often delays the administration of the IV benzodiazepine (BDZ) necessary for seizure cessation. Delays in seizure cessation are associated with increased pharmacoresistance, increased risk of neuronal injury, worse patient outcomes, and increased morbidity.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to assess whether the delay imposed by IV access acquisition is justified by improved outcomes. We compared IV versus non-IV BDZ efficacy in the real world with regard to failure rates (primary outcome), interval to seizure control, and observed complications (secondary outcomes).

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. All studies published or in press from the inception of the respective database to July 2016 were included. Only randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials directly comparing IV to non-IV (buccal, rectal, intranasal, or intramuscular) BDZ were included.

RESULTS

Our search strategy retrieved 2,604 citations for review. A total of 11 studies were finally included in qualitative synthesis and 10 in quantitative analysis. Only one was of high quality. For treatment failure, non-IV BDZ was superior to IV BDZ (odd ratio [OR] = 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.56-0.92). However, no significant difference was found between the two treatments in the pediatric subgroup (OR = 1.16; 95% CI = 0.74-1.81). Non-IV BDZ was administered faster than IV BDZ and therefore controlled seizures faster (mean difference = 3.41 minutes; 95% CI = 1.69-5.13 minutes) despite a longer interval between drug administration and seizure cessation (mean difference = 0.74 minutes; 95% CI = 0.52-0.95 minutes). Respiratory complications requiring intervention were similar between non-IV BDZ and IV BDZ, regardless of administration route (risk difference = 0.00; 95% CI = -0.02 to 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Non-IV BDZ, compared to IV BDZ, terminate seizures faster and have a superior efficacy and side effect profile. Higher-quality studies and further evaluation in different age groups are warranted.

Intranasal Midazolam versus Rectal Diazepam for the Management of Canine Status Epilepticus: A Multicenter Randomized Parallel-Group Clinical Trial

Background

Intranasal administration of benzodiazepines has shown superiority over rectal administration for terminating emergency epileptic seizures in human trials. No such clinical trials have been performed in dogs.

Objective

To evaluate the clinical efficacy of intranasal midazolam (IN‐MDZ), via a mucosal atomization device, as a first‐line management option for canine status epilepticus and compare it to rectal administration of diazepam (R‐DZP) for controlling status epilepticus before intravenous access is available.

Animals

Client‐owned dogs with idiopathic or structural epilepsy manifesting status epilepticus within a hospital environment were used. Dogs were randomly allocated to treatment with IN‐MDZ (n = 20) or R‐DZP (n = 15).

Methods

Randomized parallel‐group clinical trial. Seizure cessation time and adverse effects were recorded. For each dog, treatment was considered successful if the seizure ceased within 5 minutes and did not recur within 10 minutes after administration. The 95% confidence interval was used to detect the true population of dogs that were successfully treated. The Fisher's 2‐tailed exact test was used to compare the 2 groups, and the results were considered statistically significant if P < .05.

Results

IN‐MDZ and R‐DZP terminated status epilepticus in 70% (14/20) and 20% (3/15) of cases, respectively (P = .0059). All dogs showed sedation and ataxia.

Conclusions and Clinical Importance

IN‐MDZ is a quick, safe and effective first‐line medication for controlling status epilepticus in dogs and appears superior to R‐DZP. IN‐MDZ might be a valuable treatment option when intravenous access is not available and for treatment of status epilepticus in dogs at home.

Prehospital Care for the Adult and Pediatric Seizure Patient: Current Evidence-based Recommendations

INTRODUCTION

We sought to develop evidence-based recommendations for the prehospital evaluation and treatment of adult and pediatric patients with a seizure and to compare these recommendations against the current protocol used by the 33 emergency medical services (EMS) agencies in California.

METHODS

We performed a review of the evidence in the prehospital treatment of patients with a seizure, and then compared the seizure protocols of each of the 33 EMS agencies for consistency with these recommendations. We analyzed the type and route of medication administered, number of additional rescue doses permitted, and requirements for glucose testing prior to medication. The treatment for eclampsia and seizures in pediatric patients were analyzed separately.

RESULTS

Protocols across EMS Agencies in California varied widely. We identified multiple drugs, dosages, routes of administration, re-dosing instructions, and requirement for blood glucose testing prior to medication delivery. Blood glucose testing prior to benzodiazepine administration is required by 61% (20/33) of agencies for adult patients and 76% (25/33) for pediatric patients. All agencies have protocols for giving intramuscular benzodiazepines and 76% (25/33) have protocols for intranasal benzodiazepines. Intramuscular midazolam dosages ranged from 2 to 10 mg per single adult dose, 2 to 8 mg per single pediatric dose, and 0.1 to 0.2 mg/kg as a weight-based dose. Intranasal midazolam dosages ranged from 2 to 10 mg per single adult or pediatric dose, and 0.1 to 0.2 mg/kg as a weight-based dose. Intravenous/intrasosseous midazolam dosages ranged from 1 to 6 mg per single adult dose, 1 to 5 mg per single pediatric dose, and 0.05 to 0.1 mg/kg as a weight-based dose. Eclampsia is specifically addressed by 85% (28/33) of agencies. Forty-two percent (14/33) have a protocol for administering magnesium sulfate, with intravenous dosages ranging from 2 to 6 mg, and 58% (19/33) allow benzodiazepines to be administered.

CONCLUSION

Protocols for a patient with a seizure, including eclampsia and febrile seizures, vary widely across California. These recommendations for the prehospital diagnosis and treatment of seizures may be useful for EMS medical directors tasked with creating and revising these protocols.

When to Pick the Nose: Out-of-Hospital and Emergency Department Intranasal Administration of Medications

The intranasal route for medication administration is increasingly popular in the emergency department and out-of-hospital setting because such administration is simple and fast, and can be used for patients without intravenous access and in situations in which obtaining an intravenous line is difficult or time intensive (eg, for patients who are seizing or combative). Several small studies (mostly pediatric) have shown midazolam to be effective for procedural sedation, anxiolysis, and seizures. Intranasal fentanyl demonstrates both safety and efficacy for the management of acute pain. The intranasal route appears to be an effective alternative for naloxone in opioid overdose. The literature is less clear on roles for intranasal ketamine and dexmedetomidine.

New Non-Intravenous Routes for Benzodiazepines in Epilepsy: A Clinician Perspective

Benzodiazepines represent the first-line treatment for the acute management of epileptic seizures and status epilepticus. The emergency use of benzodiazepines must be timely, and because most seizures occur outside of the hospital environment, there is a significant need for delivery methods that are easy for nonclinical caregivers to use and administer quickly and safely. In addition, the ideal route of administration should be reliable in terms of absorption. Rectal diazepam is the only licensed formulation in the USA, whereas rectal diazepam and buccal midazolam are currently licensed in the EU. However, the sometimes unpredictable absorption with rectal and buccal administration means they are not ideal routes. Several alternative routes are currently being explored. This is a narrative review of data about delivery methods for benzodiazepines alternative to the intravenous and oral routes for the acute treatment of seizures. Unconventional delivery options such as direct delivery to the central nervous system or inhalers are reported. Data show that intranasal diazepam or midazolam and the intramuscular auto-injector for midazolam are as effective as rectal or intravenous diazepam. Head-to-head comparisons with buccal midazolam are urgently needed. In addition, the majority of trials focused on children and adolescents, and further trials in adults are warranted.

Benzodiazepine use in seizure emergencies: A systematic review

PURPOSE

The aim of this review was to systematically examine safety and efficacy outcomes, as well as patient/caregiver satisfaction, from clinical studies in pediatric and adult patients treated with benzodiazepines (BZDs) through various administration routes in response to seizure emergencies.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted to identify articles describing the use of various routes of administration (RoAs) of BZDs for the treatment of seizure emergencies through April 21, 2015, using Embase™ and PubMed®. Eligible studies included (a) randomized controlled trials or (b) controlled nonrandomized clinical trials, either retrospective or prospective. Outcome assessments reviewed were 1) time to administration, 2) time to seizure termination, 3) rate of treatment failure, 4) prevention of seizure recurrence, 5) patient and caregiver treatment satisfaction, 6) adverse events related to BDZ treatment or RoA, and 7) respiratory adverse events.

RESULTS

Seventy-five studies evaluated safety and efficacy using individual or comparator BDZs of various RoAs for treating seizure emergencies in all-aged patients with epilepsy. Buccal, intranasal (IN), or intramuscular (IM) BZDs were often more rapidly administered compared with rectal and intravenous (IV) formulations. Time to seizure termination, seizure recurrence rates, and adverse events were generally similar among RoAs, whereas nonrectal RoAs resulted in greater patient and caregiver satisfaction compared with rectal RoA.

SIGNIFICANCE

Results of this systematic literature review suggest that nonrectal and non-IV BZD formulations provide equal or improved efficacy and safety outcomes compared with rectal and IV formulations for the treatment of seizure emergencies.

A Comparison of Midazolam, Lorazepam, and Diazepam for the Treatment of Status Epilepticus in Children: A Network Meta-analysis

Midazolam, lorazepam, and diazepam were recommended as emergent initial therapy for status epilepticus. However, there are no current studies to confirm the best agent for pediatric status epilepticus. We compared the efficacy of midazolam, lorazepam, and diazepam in treating pediatric status epilepticus using a network meta-analysis method. In total, 16 randomized controlled trials containing 1821 patients were included. Nonintravenous midazolam, intravenous lorazepam, and intravenous diazepam were more successful in achieving seizure cessation when compared with nonintravenous diazepam (odds ratio = 2.23, 95% credibility interval: 1.62, 3.10; odds ratio = 2.71, 95% credibility interval: 1.25, 5.89; odds ratio = 2.65, 95% credibility interval: 1.12, 6.29; respectively). Among lorazepam, midazolam, and diazepam, midazolam had the highest probability (surface under the cumulative ranking area [SUCRA] = 0.792) of achieving seizure cessation, and lorazepam had the largest probability (surface under the cumulative ranking area = 0.4346) of being the best treatment in reduction of respiratory depression. In conclusion, nonintravenous midazolam and intravenous lorazepam were superior to intravenous or nonintravenous diazepam, and intravenous lorazepam was at least as effective as nonintravenous midazolam in treating pediatric status epilepticus.

Safety and efficacy of intranasally administered medications in the emergency department and prehospital settings

PURPOSE

The safety and efficacy of medications that may be administered via the intranasal route in adult patients in the prehospital and emergency department (ED) settings are reviewed.

SUMMARY

When medications of appropriate molecular character and concentration are delivered intranasally, they are quickly transported across this capillary network and delivered to the systemic circulation, thereby avoiding the absorption-limiting effects of first-pass metabolism. Therapeutic drug concentrations are rapidly attained in the cerebrospinal fluid, making intranasal administration a very effective mode of delivery. To optimize the bioavailability of intranasally administered drugs, providers must minimize the barriers to absorption, minimize the volume by maximizing the concentration, maximize the absorptive surface of the nasal mucosa, and use a delivery system that maximizes drug dispersion and minimizes drug runoff. Medications can be instilled into the nasal cavity with syringes or droppers by applying a few drops at a time or via atomization. The intranasal route of administration may be advantageous for patients who require analgesia, sedation, anxiolysis, termination of seizures, hypoglycemia management, narcotic reversal, and benzodiazepine reversal in the ED or prehospital settings. Medications that have been studied in the adult population include fentanyl, sufentanil, hydromorphone, ketamine, midazolam, haloperidol, naloxone, flumazenil, and glucagon. The available data do indicate, however, that intranasal administration may be a safe, effective, and well tolerated route of administration.

CONCLUSION

Based on the published literature, intranasal administration of fentanyl, sufentanil, ketamine, hydromorphone, midazolam, haloperidol, naloxone, glucagon, and, in limited cases, flumazenil may be a safe, effective, and well-tolerated alternative to intramuscular or intravenous administration in the prehospital and ED settings.

Efficacy and safety of anti-epileptic drugs in patients with active convulsive seizures when no IV access is available: Systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To explore the existing evidence for anti-convulsant drugs and their routes of administration in treating acute seizures in children and adults when intravenous access is not available.

METHODS

All major databases including Medline via Ovid, PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched till May 2015. Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing two anti-convulsant drugs (at least one comparator being administered through non-intravenous route) for treatment of acute seizures were included.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measure was proportion of children with clinical seizure cessation within 10min of drug administration. Secondary outcome measures were time taken to clinical seizure cessation from the time of admission and from the time of drug administration, and incidence of significant adverse effects.

RESULTS

Out of the 19,165 citations, 26 studies were finally included. Regarding the primary outcome measure, the quality of evidence was 'moderate' for following 3 comparisons: buccal midazolam being superior to per-rectal diazepam (RR 1.14; 95% CI, 1.06-1.24), intra-nasal lorazepam being same as intravenous lorazepam (RR 1.04; 95% CI, 0.89-1.22) and intramuscular paraldehyde (RR 1.22; 95% CI, 0.99-1.52). The quality of evidence was 'very-low' for 1 comparison: per-rectal lorazepam being superior to per-rectal diazepam (RR 3.17; 95% CI, 1.63-6.14). The quality of evidence was 'low' for following 2 comparisons: sub-lingual lorazepam being inferior to rectal diazepam (RR 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62-0.81), and intranasal midazolam being superior to per-rectal diazepam (RR 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.25). The rest of the comparisons did not show any difference, but the quality of evidence was 'low' to 'very low'. The time to seizure cessation after drug administration was lower in the intravenous group. However, time to seizure cessation after presentation (includes time for drug administration) was lower in the non-intravenous group. Significant adverse effects were infrequently reported and when present, were similar in both the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

When intravenous access is not available, non-intravenous routes of administration of benzodiazepines should be considered for the control of acute seizures in children/adults. The preference may be guided by availability, expertise and social preference. [PROSPERO No: CRD42015019012].

Evidence-Based Guideline: Treatment of Convulsive Status Epilepticus in Children and Adults: Report of the Guideline Committee of the American Epilepsy Society

CONTEXT

The optimal pharmacologic treatment for early convulsive status epilepticus is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze efficacy, tolerability and safety data for anticonvulsant treatment of children and adults with convulsive status epilepticus and use this analysis to develop an evidence-based treatment algorithm.

DATA SOURCES

Structured literature review using MEDLINE, Embase, Current Contents, and Cochrane library supplemented with article reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials of anticonvulsant treatment for seizures lasting longer than 5 minutes.

DATA EXTRACTION

Individual studies were rated using predefined criteria and these results were used to form recommendations, conclusions, and an evidence-based treatment algorithm.

RESULTS

A total of 38 randomized controlled trials were identified, rated and contributed to the assessment. Only four trials were considered to have class I evidence of efficacy. Two studies were rated as class II and the remaining 32 were judged to have class III evidence. In adults with convulsive status epilepticus, intramuscular midazolam, intravenous lorazepam, intravenous diazepam and intravenous phenobarbital are established as efficacious as initial therapy (Level A). Intramuscular midazolam has superior effectiveness compared to intravenous lorazepam in adults with convulsive status epilepticus without established intravenous access (Level A). In children, intravenous lorazepam and intravenous diazepam are established as efficacious at stopping seizures lasting at least 5 minutes (Level A) while rectal diazepam, intramuscular midazolam, intranasal midazolam, and buccal midazolam are probably effective (Level B). No significant difference in effectiveness has been demonstrated between intravenous lorazepam and intravenous diazepam in adults or children with convulsive status epilepticus (Level A). Respiratory and cardiac symptoms are the most commonly encountered treatment-emergent adverse events associated with intravenous anticonvulsant drug administration in adults with convulsive status epilepticus (Level A). The rate of respiratory depression in patients with convulsive status epilepticus treated with benzodiazepines is lower than in patients with convulsive status epilepticus treated with placebo indicating that respiratory problems are an important consequence of untreated convulsive status epilepticus (Level A). When both are available, fosphenytoin is preferred over phenytoin based on tolerability but phenytoin is an acceptable alternative (Level A). In adults, compared to the first therapy, the second therapy is less effective while the third therapy is substantially less effective (Level A). In children, the second therapy appears less effective and there are no data about third therapy efficacy (Level C). The evidence was synthesized into a treatment algorithm.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the paucity of well-designed randomized controlled trials, practical conclusions and an integrated treatment algorithm for the treatment of convulsive status epilepticus across the age spectrum (infants through adults) can be constructed. Multicenter, multinational efforts are needed to design, conduct and analyze additional randomized controlled trials that can answer the many outstanding clinically relevant questions identified in this guideline.

EEG for children with complex febrile seizures

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2014.Febrile seizures can be classified as simple or complex. Complex febrile seizures are associated with fever that lasts longer than 15 minutes, occur more than once within 24 hours and are confined to one side of the child's body. It is common in some countries for doctors to recommend an electroencephalograph (EEG) for children with complex febrile seizures. A limited evidence base is available to support the use of EEG and its timing after complex febrile seizures among children.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the use of EEG and its timing after complex febrile seizures in children younger than five years of age.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update of this review, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (6 July 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2005, Issue 6), MEDLINE (6 July 2015) and ClinicalTrials.gov (6 July 2015). We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the utility of an EEG and its timing after complex febrile seizures in children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors selected and retrieved the articles and independently assessed which articles should be included. We resolved disagreements by discussion and by consultation with the Cochrane Epilepsy Group. We applied standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 37 potentially eligible studies, no RCTs met the inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no RCTs as evidence to support or refute the use of EEG and its timing after complex febrile seizures among children. An RCT can be planned in such a way that participants are randomly assigned to the EEG group and to the non-EEG group with sufficient sample size. Since the last version of this review, we found no new studies.

Efficacy of nonvenous medications for acute convulsive seizures: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This is a network meta-analysis of nonvenous drugs used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for treatment of acute convulsive seizures and convulsive status epilepticus.

METHODS

Literature was searched according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for RCTs examining treatment of acute convulsive seizures or status epilepticus with at least one of the study arms being a nonvenous medication. After demographic and outcome data extraction, a Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed and efficacy results were summarized using treatment effects and their credible intervals (CrI). We also calculated the probability of each route-drug combination being the most clinically effective for a given outcome, and provided their Bayesian hierarchical ranking.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis of 16 studies found that intramuscular midazolam (IM-MDZ) is superior to other nonvenous medications regarding time to seizure termination after administration (2.145 minutes, 95% CrI 1.308-3.489), time to seizure cessation after arrival in the hospital (3.841 minutes, 95% CrI 2.697-5.416), and time to initiate treatment (0.779 minutes, 95% CrI 0.495-1.221). Additionally, intranasal midazolam (IN-MDZ) was adjudged most efficacious for seizure cessation within 10 minutes of administration (90.4% of participants, 95% CrI 79.4%-96.9%), and persistent seizure cessation for ≥1 hour (78.5% of participants, 95% CrI 59.5%-92.1%). Paucity of RCTs produced evidence gaps resulting in small networks, routes/drugs included in some networks but not others, and some trials not being connected to any network.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the evidence gaps, IM-MDZ and IN-MDZ exhibit the best efficacy data for the nonvenous treatment of acute convulsive seizures or status epilepticus.

Pharmacotherapy for Status Epilepticus

Status epilepticus (SE) represents the most severe form of epilepsy. It is one of the most common neurologic emergencies, with an incidence of up to 61 per 100,000 per year and an estimated mortality of 20 %. Clinically, tonic-clonic convulsive SE is divided into four subsequent stages: early, established, refractory, and super-refractory. Pharmacotherapy of status epilepticus, especially of its later stages, represents an "evidence-free zone," due to a lack of high-quality, controlled trials to inform clinical decisions. This comprehensive narrative review focuses on the pharmacotherapy of SE, presented according to the four-staged approach outlined above, and providing pharmacological properties and efficacy/safety data for each antiepileptic drug according to the strength of scientific evidence from the available literature. Data sources included MEDLINE and back-tracking of references in pertinent studies. Intravenous lorazepam or intramuscular midazolam effectively control early SE in approximately 63-73 % of patients. Despite a suboptimal safety profile, intravenous phenytoin or phenobarbital are widely used treatments for established SE; alternatives include valproate, levetiracetam, and lacosamide. Anesthetics are widely used in refractory and super-refractory SE, despite the current lack of trials in this field. Data on alternative treatments in the later stages are limited. Valproate and levetiracetam represent safe and effective alternatives to phenobarbital and phenytoin for treatment of established SE persisting despite first-line treatment with benzodiazepines. To date there are no class I data to support recommendations for most antiepileptic drugs for established, refractory, and super-refractory SE. Limiting the methodologic heterogeneity across studies is required and high-class randomized, controlled trials to inform clinicians about the best treatment in established and refractory status are needed.

A Common Reference-Based Indirect Comparison Meta-Analysis of Buccal versus Intranasal Midazolam for Early Status Epilepticus

BACKGROUND

Intranasal and buccal midazolam have recently emerged as possible alternatives to intravenous or rectal diazepam or intravenous lorazepam in the treatment of early status epilepticus (SE). However, to date no randomized controlled trial (RCT) has directly compared intranasal midazolam with buccal midazolam.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to indirectly compare intranasal midazolam with buccal midazolam in the treatment of early SE using common reference-based indirect comparison meta-analyses.

METHODS

RCTs comparing intranasal or buccal midazolam versus either intravenous or rectal diazepam for early SE were systematically searched. Random-effects Mantel-Haenszel meta-analyses were performed to obtain odds ratios (ORs) for the efficacy and safety of intranasal or buccal midazolam versus either intravenous or rectal diazepam. Adjusted indirect comparisons were then made between intranasal and buccal midazolam using the obtained results.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies, with a total of 1662 seizures in 1331 patients (some studies included patients with more than one episode of SE) were included; 1303 patients were younger than 16 years. Indirect comparisons showed no difference between intranasal and buccal midazolam for seizure cessation (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.32-3.01, comparator: intravenous diazepam; OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.46-1.64, comparator: rectal diazepam). For serious adverse effects, we found a large width and asymmetrical distribution of confidence intervals around the obtained OR of 2.81 (95% CI 0.39-20.12; comparator: rectal diazepam). No data were available for OR using intravenous diazepam as the comparator.

CONCLUSIONS

Indirect comparisons suggest that intranasal and buccal midazolam share similar efficacy in the treatment of early SE in children. Intranasal midazolam should be used with caution and under clinical monitoring of vital functions. RCTs directly comparing intranasal midazolam with buccal midazolam are required to confirm these findings.

Nonintravenous midazolam versus intravenous or rectal diazepam for the treatment of early status epilepticus: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prompt treatment of status epilepticus (SE) is associated with better outcomes. Rectal diazepam (DZP) and nonintravenous (non-IV) midazolam (MDZ) are often used in the treatment of early SE instead of intravenous applications. The aim of this review was to determine if nonintravenous MDZ is as effective and safe as intravenous or rectal DZP in terminating early SE seizures in children and adults.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov, and MEDLINE for randomized controlled trials comparing non-IV MDZ with DZP (by any route) in patients (all ages) with early SE defined either as seizures lasting >5 min or as seizures at arrival in the emergency department. The following outcomes were assessed: clinical seizure cessation within 15 min of drug administration, serious adverse effects, time interval to drug administration, and time from arrival in the emergency department to seizure cessation. Outcomes were assessed using a random-effects Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis to calculate risk ratio (RR), odds ratio (OR) and mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

RESULTS

Nineteen studies with 1933 seizures in 1602 patients (some trials included patients with more than one seizure) were included. One thousand five hundred seventy-three patients were younger than 16 years. For seizure cessation, non-IV MDZ was as effective as DZP (any route) (1933 seizures; RR: 1.03; 95% CIs: 0.98 to 1.08). No difference in adverse effects was found between non-IM MDZ and DZP by any route (1933 seizures; RR: 0.87; 95% CIs: 0.50 to 1.50). Time interval between arrival and seizure cessation was significantly shorter with non-IV MDZ by any route than with DZP by any route (338 seizures; mean difference: -3.67 min; 95% CIs: -5.98 to -1.36); a similar result was found for time from arrival to drug administration (348 seizures; mean difference: -3.56 min; 95% CIs: -5.00 to -2.11). A minimal difference was found for time interval from drug administration to clinical seizure cessation, which was shorter for DZP by any route than for non-IV MDZ by any route (812 seizures; mean difference: 0.56 min; 95% CIs: 0.15 to 0.98 min). Not all studies reported information on time intervals. Comparison by each way of administration failed to find a significant difference in terms of clinical seizure cessation and occurrence of adverse effects. The only exception was the comparison between buccal MDZ and rectal DZP, where MDZ was more effective than rectal DZP in terminating SE but only when results were expressed as OR (769 seizures; OR: 1.78; 95% CIs: 1.11 to 2.85; RR: 1.15; 95% CIs: 0.85 to 1.54). Only one study was entirely conducted in an adult population (21 patients, aged 31 to 69 years), showing no difference in efficacy or time to seizure cessation after drug administration between intranasal MDZ and rectal DZP.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-IV MDZ is as effective and safe as intravenous or rectal DZP in terminating early SE in children and probably also in adults. Times from arrival in the emergency department to drug administration and to seizure cessation are shorter with non-IV MDZ than with intravenous or rectal DZP, but this does not necessarily result in higher seizure control. An exception may be the buccal MDZ, which, besides being socially more acceptable and easier to administer, might also have a higher efficacy than rectal DZP in seizure control. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled Status Epilepticus.

Intranasal therapies for acute seizures

Most seizure emergencies occur outside of the hospital, and there is a need for treatment interventions that can be administered quickly and safely by nonclinical caregivers. Intranasal benzodiazepine administration does not require intravenous access and offers rapid seizure cessation. Intranasal midazolam is faster at aborting seizure activity than rectal diazepam and quicker to administer than intravenous diazepam. Although time to seizure cessation varies from study to study, intranasal midazolam is efficacious when administered not only by emergency department personnel but also by paramedics and caregivers in out-of-hospital and home settings. Absorption of midazolam intranasal formulations appears to be relatively rapid compared to diazepam formulations. Its shorter elimination half-life may also be beneficial in that patients may more quickly return to normal function because of rapid offset of effect. On the other hand, the faster rate of elimination of midazolam may expose patients to a higher rate of seizure recurrence compared with diazepam. Two diazepam formulations and one midazolam formulation are being currently developed for intranasal use. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled "Status Epilepticus".

Treatment of Generalized Convulsive Status Epilepticus in Pediatric Patients

Generalized convulsive status epilepticus (GCSE) is one of the most common neurologic emergencies and can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality if not treated promptly and aggressively. Management of GCSE is staged and generally involves the use of life support measures, identification and management of underlying causes, and rapid initiation of anticonvulsants. The purpose of this article is to review and evaluate published reports regarding the treatment of impending, established, refractory, and super-refractory GCSE in pediatric patients.