Nasal rather than rectal benzodiazepines in the management of acute childhood seizures?

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.

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.

The Nose Knows: Intranasal Midazolam To Treat Acute Seizures During Inpatient Epilepsy Monitoring

Efficacy, Tolerability, and Safety of Concentrated Intranasal Midazolam Spray as Emergency Medication in Epilepsy Patients During Video-EEG Monitoring

von Blomberg A, Kay L, Knake S, Fuest S, Zöllner JP, Reif PS, Herrmann E, Balaban Ü, Schubert-Bast S, Rosenow F, Strzelczyk A. CNS Drugs. 2020;34(5):545-553. doi: 10.1007/s40263-020-00720-w

Background:

An efficient, well tolerated, and safe emergency treatment with a rapid onset of action is needed to prevent seizure clusters and to terminate prolonged seizures and status epilepticus. Objectives: This study aimed to examine the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of intranasal midazolam (in-MDZ) spray in clinical practice.

Methods:

In this retrospective, multicenter observational study, we evaluated all patients with peri-ictal application of in-MDZ during video-electroencephalography (EEG) monitoring at the epilepsy centers in Frankfurt and Marburg between 2 014 and 2017. For every patient, we analyzed the recurrence of any seizure or generalized tonic-clonic seizures after index seizures with and without in-MDZ administration. Treatment-emergent adverse events were also evaluated.

Results:

Intranasal MDZ was used in 243 patients with epilepsy (mean age 35.5 years; range 5-76 years; 46.5% female) for treatment of 459 seizures. A median dose of in-MDZ 5 mg (ie, 2 puffs; range 2.5-15 mg) was administered within a median time from EEG seizure onset until in-MDZ application of 1.18 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 1.27), while median time from clinical seizure onset until in-MDZ administration was 1.08 minutes (IQR 1.19). Intranasal MDZ was given within 1 minute after EEG seizure onset in 171 seizures. An intraindividual comparison of seizures with and without application of in-MDZ was feasible in 171 patients, demonstrating that in-MDZ reduced the occurrence of any (Cox proportional-hazard model P < .001) and generalized tonic-clonic seizure (Cox proportional-hazard model P = .0167) over a period of 24 hours. The seizure-free time span was doubled from a median of 5.0 hours in controls to a median of 10.67 hours after in-MDZ administration. We additionally clustered in-MDZ administrations for the 119 patients who received in-MDZ more than once, comparing them with the index cases without in-MDZ. Even when considering subsequent seizures with in-MDZ administration, a patient receiving in-MDZ is still half as likely to incur another seizure in the upcoming 24 hours as compared with when the same patient does not receive in-MDZ (hazard ratio 0.50; 95% CI: 0.42-0.60; P < .01). Intranasal MDZ was well tolerated without major adverse events. The most common side effects were irritation of the nasal mucosa (37 cases [8.1%]), prolonged sedation (26 cases [5.7%]), and nausea and vomiting (12 cases [2.6%]). A decline in oxygen saturation was measured after 78 seizures (17%).

Conclusion:

We conclude that in-MDZ is a safe and efficient treatment option to prevent short-term recurrence of seizures. Intranasal MDZ can be administered very quickly by trained staff within 1 to 2 minutes after seizure onset. No major cardiocirculatory or respiratory adverse events were observed.

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.

The Winner by a Nose: Intranasal Midazolam

Safety and Efficacy of Midazolam Nasal Spray in the Outpatient Treatment of Patients With Seizure Clusters—A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

Detyniecki K, Van Ess PJ, Sequeira DJ, Wheless JW, Meng TC, Pullmnaan WE. Epilepsia. 2019. doi:10.1111/epi.15159. Epub ahead of print.

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 aged ≥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 = .0109). Significantly, fewer MDZ-NS- than placebo-treated patients experienced seizure recurrence (38.1% vs 59.7%; P = .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 = .0124). Sixteen (5.5%) patients 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:

The 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.

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.

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.

Midazolan nasal no tratamento de crises convulsivas

Pacientes com crises agudas incluindo estado de mal epiléptico, podem apresentar dificuldades no tratamento que geralmente envolve um benzodiazepínico. As drogas mais amplamente utilizadas em pacientes com crises agudas incluem diazepam, lorazepam e midazolam. Nós revisamos a eficácia e a segurança das diversas formas de administração do midazolam. A administração intranasal e bucal do midazolam pode ser uma alternativa a administração retal e intravenosa do diazepam.

Seizing the Opportunity: Exploring Barriers to Use of Transmucosal Midazolam in Hospice Patients

BACKGROUND

Status epilepticus seizures are distressing events for hospice and palliative care patients. Currently, rectal diazepam is the only abortive therapy approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for seizures occurring out of hospital. However, transmucosal (buccal and intranasal) midazolam hydrochloride is a less expensive, equally effective, and a more socially acceptable alternative.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the use of transmucosal midazolam in out-of-hospital hospice patients in the State of Alabama.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional survey was used explore hospice providers' knowledge and use of transmucosal midazolam in clinical practice within Alabama. Setting Subjects: Hospice providers (physicians, nurses, and administrators) in the State of Alabama (n = 27).

MEASUREMENTS

An electronic survey was used to elicit transmucosal midazolam use among hospice providers.

RESULTS

Transmucosal midazolam has been documented throughout the literature and reported by expert clinicians as an efficacious, safe, and appropriate pharmaceutical intervention for the abortive treatment of seizures in adult and pediatric out-of-hospital patients. However, barriers to the use of transmucosal midazolam with hospice patients included unfamiliarity with transmucosal route and lack of provider orders. None of the participants reported transmucosal midazolam use in out-of-hospital hospice settings.

CONCLUSION

Evidence in the literature supports the use of transmucosal midazolam; however, further research is necessary to understand and address barriers in a more diverse and generalizable population.

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.

Nasal and buccal treatment of midazolam in epileptic seizures in pediatrics

Acute seizure and status epilepticus constitute major medical emergencies in children. Four to six percent of children will have at least one seizure in the first 16 years of life. Status epilepticus is a common neurological emergency in childhood and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The early application of antiepileptic treatment is very important. Because early treatment prevents the status epilepticus formation and shortens the duration of seizure activity. For this reason administration of anticonvulsant therapy in the prehospital setting is very important. Seizures generally begin outside the hospital, and thus parents and caregivers need simple, safe and effective treatment options to ensure early intervention. The only special preparation used for this purpose is rectal diazepam but has some disadvantages. Midazolam is a safe, short-acting benzodiazepin. It is suitable to use oral, buccal, nasal, im and iv routes. This provides a wide area for clinical applications. Recently there are many clinical studies about the usage of nasal and buccal midazolam for treatment of pediatric epileptic seizures. The nasal and buccal applications in pediatric seizures are very practical and effective. Parents and caregivers can apply easily outside the hospital.

Current oral and non-oral routes of antiepileptic drug delivery

Antiepileptic drugs are commonly given orally for chronic treatment of epilepsy. The treatment of epilepsy requires administration of medications for both acute and chronic treatment using multiple types of formulations. Parenteral routes are used when the oral route is unavailable or a rapid clinical response is required. Lorazepam and midazolam can be administered by the buccal, sublingual or intranasal routes. Consensus documents recommend rectal diazepam, buccal midazolam or intranasal midazolam for the out-of-hospital treatment of early status epilepticus. In the United States, diazepam is the only FDA approved rectal formulation. With the lack of parenteral, buccal or intranasal formulations for many of the antiepileptic drugs, the use of the rectal route of delivery to treat acute seizures or to maintain therapeutic concentrations is suitable for many, but not all antiepileptic medications. There is a significant need for new non-oral formulations of the antiepileptic drugs when oral administration is not possible.

Pharmacokinetics and tolerability of nasal versus intravenous midazolam in healthy Dutch volunteers: a single-dose, randomized-sequence, open-label, 2-period crossover pilot study

BACKGROUND

Intranasal (IN) midazolam is a potential alternative to rectal diazepam for the acute treatment of epileptic seizures.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this pilot study was to investigate the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of IN midazolam (50 mg/mL) compared with intravenous (IV) midazolam (2.5 mg) in healthy adult volunteers.

METHODS

In this single-dose, randomized-sequence, open-label, 2-period crossover pilot study subjects were randomly assigned to receive IN or IV midazolam, with a washout period of at least 5 days between treatments. The 50-mg/mL IN midazolam formulation consisted of 5 mg midazolam base per 0.1 mL (1 spray) and was administered once in 1 nostril. The IV midazolam solution (2.5 mg) was infused over 10 seconds. Blood samples were taken before and at regular intervals up to 240 minutes after dosing. Pharmacokinetic data (ie, C(max), T(max), t(½), and AUC) were analyzed using a 2-compartment model.

RESULTS

Of 9 volunteers screened and enrolled, 7 completed the study (mean age 34.1 [9.0] years; mean weight, 68.6 [10.4] kg, range 53-89 kg; 6 men, 3 women; all white). The mean C(max) of 78 (40) ng/mL was reached 44 minutes after IN administration, whereas the mean C(max) was 51 (5) ng/mL after IV administration. The mean estimated C(t=5 min) was 31.4 (28.1) ng/mL after IN administration. The elimination t(½) was 1.9 (0.41) hours for IN midazolam and 2.3 (0.19) hours for IV midazolam. The bioavailability of IN midazolam was 82%. There were few adverse events, with a local burning feeling in the nose being the most reported event (6 of 7 subjects).

CONCLUSIONS

In this select group of healthy volunteers, concentrations of midazolam >30 ng/mL were reached within 5 minutes of IN administration at a dose of 5 mg/0.1 mL. A burning feeling in the nostril was the main adverse effect. Additional research is needed to evaluate the safety profile, convenience, satisfaction, and efficacy of nasal midazolam in the treatment of adults with seizures. This trial is registered at www.isrctn.org, No. ISRCTN79059168.

Acute drug administration in epilepsy: a review

AIMS

To review acute administration of drugs in epilepsy for indications other than status epilepticus.

DISCUSSION

This review looks into the application of acute drug administration (ADA) against febrile and prolonged nonfebrile seizures in children, seizure clustering (habitual or at drug withdrawal), catamenial epilepsy, response to seizure "warnings", and prophylaxis of seizures at perceived increased risk (reflex epilepsies, long-distance travel, lifestyle, and social occasions). The drugs most commonly used for ADA are the benzodiazepines diazepam (oral or rectal), clobazam and buccal or nasal midazolam, and lorazepam. Others include valproic acid, nitrazepam, acetazolamide, chloral hydrate, pyridoxine, and antipyretics.

CONCLUSIONS

The best evidence for the efficacy of ADA exists in febrile and nonfebrile childhood seizures, whereas the evidence in catamenial epilepsy is weak. Prevention of clusters is a well-proven principle but its application has been little studied. Prevention of imminent seizures predicted by well-established triggers, defined risk factors, or premonitory minor seizure activity seems to be at the same time the most intelligent and the least investigated application of ADA and would deserve to be better studied.

Intranasal delivery of antiepileptic medications for treatment of seizures

Acute isolated seizure, repetitive or recurrent seizures, and status epilepticus are all deemed medical emergencies. Mortality and worse neurologic outcome are directly associated with the duration of seizure activity. A number of recent reviews have described consensus statements regarding the pharmacologic treatment protocols for seizures when patients are in pre-hospital, institutional, and home-bound settings. Benzodiazepines, such as lorazepam, diazepam, midazolam, and clonazepam are considered to be medications of first choice. The rapidity by which a medication can be delivered to the systemic circulation and then to the brain plays a significant role in reducing the time needed to treat seizures and reduce opportunity for damage to the CNS. Speed of delivery, particularly outside of the hospital, is enhanced when transmucosal routes of delivery are used in place of an intravenous injection. Intranasal transmucosal delivery of benzodiazepines is useful in reducing time to drug administration and cessation of seizures in the pre-hospital setting, when actively seizing patients arrive in the emergency room, and at home where caregivers treat their dependents. This review summarizes factors to consider when choosing a benzodiazepine for intranasal administration, including formulation and device considerations, pharmacology and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles. A review of the most relevant clinical studies in epilepsy patients will provide context for the relative success of this technique with a number of benzodiazepines and relatively less sophisticated nasal preparations. Neuropeptides delivered intranasally, crossing the blood-brain barrier via the olfactory system, may increase the availability of medications for treatment of epilepsy. Consequently, there remains a significant unmet medical need to serve the pharamcotherapeutic requirements of epilepsy patients through commercial development and marketing of intranasal antiepileptic products.

A pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study, in healthy volunteers, of a rapidly absorbed intranasal midazolam formulation

PURPOSE

To compare 2.5 mg and 5.0 mg single-dose pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD) and tolerability of an intranasal (i.n.) midazolam formulation, to a 2.5-mg intravenous (i.v.) dose.

METHODS

Design was an open-label, three-way crossover, randomized PK and PD study in seventeen healthy volunteers. Twelve-hour PK parameters were determined for each treatment arm. Subjects completed serial self-ratings for sedation and other drug effects. Nurse observers made serial observations for sedation and adverse effects. An otolaryngologist conducted a nasal endoscopy, pre-dose, 2-4 h, and at end of study, to examine the nasal cavity for formulation-induced changes in nasal anatomy.

RESULTS

Midazolam was rapidly absorbed following i.n. administration, with a median t(max) of 10 min; dose proportionate increases for C(max) and AUC; t(1/2) of 4 h; and, 60% (+/-23) nasal administration bioavailability compared to the i.v. dose. PD responses were rapid, paralleled the PK, and in magnitude was in a rank order of i.v. 2.5 mg > or = i.n. 5.0 mg > i.n. 2.5 mg doses. The formulation was well tolerated with no serious cardiovascular or respiratory complications. Fourteen subjects complained of at least one of the following: a brief and mild to moderate intensity facial flushing, nasal passage burning, sore throat or bad taste after drug administration. There were no adverse findings from the nasal endoscopic exam.

CONCLUSION

Dosages of an investigational i.n. midazolam formulation resulted in rapid absorption and attained plasma concentrations that correlated with pharmacodynamic effects.

Intranasal delivery: physicochemical and therapeutic aspects

Interest in intranasal (IN) administration as a non-invasive route for drug delivery continues to grow rapidly. The nasal mucosa offers numerous benefits as a target issue for drug delivery, such as a large surface area for delivery, rapid drug onset, potential for central nervous system delivery, and no first-pass metabolism. A wide variety of therapeutic compounds can be delivered IN, including relatively large molecules such as peptides and proteins, particularly in the presence of permeation enhancers. The current review provides an in-depth discussion of therapeutic aspects of IN delivery including consideration of the intended indication, regimen, and patient population, as well as physicochemical properties of the drug itself. Case examples are provided to illustrate the utility of IN dosing. It is anticipated that the present review will prove useful for formulation scientists considering IN delivery as a delivery route.

Intranasal midazolam vs rectal diazepam in acute childhood seizures

One hundred eighty-eight seizure episodes in 46 children were randomly assigned to receive treatment with rectal diazepam and intranasal midazolam with doses of 0.3 mg/kg body weight and 0.2 mg/kg body weight, respectively. Efficacy of the drugs was assessed by drug administration time and seizure cessation time. Heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation were measured before and after 5, 10, and 30 minutes following administration of the drugs in both groups. Mean time from arrival of doctor to drug administration was 68.3 +/- 55.12 seconds in the diazepam group and 50.6 +/- 14.1 seconds in the midazolam group (P = 0.002). Mean time from drug administration to cessation of seizure was significantly less in the midazolam group than the diazepam group (P = 0.005). Mean heart rate and blood pressure did not vary significantly between the two drug groups. However, mean respiratory rate and oxygen saturation differed significantly between the two drug groups at 5, 10, and 30 minutes after drug administration. Intranasal midazolam is preferable to rectal diazepam in the treatment of acute seizures in children. Its administration is easy, it has rapid onset of action, has no significant effect on respiration and oxygen saturation, and is socially acceptable.

Determination of midazolam and its major metabolite 1'-hydroxymidazolam by high-performance liquid chromatography-electrospray mass spectrometry in plasma from children

We have developed a sensitive, selective and reproducible reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography method coupled with electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (HPLC-ESI-MS) for the simultaneous quantification of midazolam (MDZ) and its major metabolite, 1'-hydroxymidazolam (1'-OHM) in a small volume (200 microl) of human plasma. Midazolam, 1'-OHM and 1'-chlordiazepoxide (internal standard) were extracted from alkalinised (pH 9.5) spiked and clinical plasma samples using a single step liquid-liquid extraction with 1-chlorobutane. The chromatographic separation was performed on a reversed-phase HyPURITY Elite C18 (5 microm particle size; 100 mm x 2.1mm i.d.) analytical column using an acidic (pH 2.8) mobile phase (water-acetonitrile; 75:25% (v/v) containing formic acid (0.1%, v/v)) delivered at a flow-rate of 200 microl/min. The mass spectrometer was operated in the positive ion mode at the protonated-molecular ions [M+l]+ of parent drug and metabolite. Calibration curves in spiked plasma were linear (r2 > or = 0.99) from 15 to 600 ng/ml (MDZ) and 5-200 ng/ml (1'-OHM). The limits of detection and quantification were 2 and 5 ng/ml, respectively, for both MDZ and 1'-OHM. The mean relative recoveries at 40 and 600 ng/ml (MDZ) were 79.4+/-3.1% (n = 6) and 84.2+/-4.7% (n = 8), respectively; for 1'-OHM at 30 and 200 ng/ml the values were 89.9+/-7.2% (n = 6) and 86.9+/-5.6% (n = 8), respectively. The intra-assay and inter-assay coefficients of variation (CVs) for MDZ were less than 8%, and for 1'-OHM were less than 13%. There was no interference from other commonly used antimalarials, antipyretic drugs and antibiotics. The method was successfully applied to a pharmacokinetic study of MDZ and 1'-OHM in children with severe malaria and convulsions following administration of MDZ either intravenously (i.v.) or intramuscularly (i.m.).

Inappropriate emergency management of status epilepticus in children contributes to need for intensive care

OBJECTIVES

To characterise the clinical features, emergency pre-paediatric intensive care (PIC) treatment, and course of status epilepticus (SE) in children admitted to PIC. This may provide insight into reasons for admission to PIC and provide a framework for the development of strategies that decrease the requirement for intensive care.

DESIGN

Cross sectional, retrospective study.

SETTING

A tertiary paediatric institution's intensive care unit.

PARTICIPANTS

The admission database and all discharge summaries of each admission to a tertiary paediatric institution's PIC over a three year period were searched for children aged between 29 days and 15 years with a diagnosis of SE or related diagnoses. The case notes of potential cases of SE were systematically reviewed, and clinical and demographic data extracted using a standard data collection form.

RESULTS

Most children with SE admitted to PIC are aged less than 5 years, male to female ratio 1:1, and most (77%) will have had no previous episodes of SE. Prolonged febrile convulsions, SE related to central nervous system infection, and SE associated with epilepsy occur in similar proportions. Contrary to the Advanced Paediatric Life Support guidelines many children admitted to PIC for SE receive over two doses, or inadequate doses, of benzodiazepine. There is a risk of respiratory depression following administration of over two doses of benzodiazepine (chi2 = 3.4, p = 0.066). Children with SE admitted to PIC who had prehospital emergency treatment are more likely to receive over two doses of benzodiazepines (chi2 = 11.5, p = 0.001), and to subsequently develop respiratory insufficiency (chi2 = 6.2, p = 0.01). Mortality is low. Further study is required to determine the morbidity associated with SE in childhood requiring intensive care.

CONCLUSIONS

As the risk of respiratory depression is greater with more than two doses of benzodiazepines, clinicians should not disregard prehospital treatment of SE. As pre-PIC treatment of SE is inadequate in many cases, appropriate audit and modifications of standard guidelines are required.

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

Midazolam, a water-soluble benzodiazepine, is usually given intravenously in status epilepticus. The aim of this study was to determine whether intranasal midazolam is as safe and effective as intravenous diazepam in the treatment of acute childhood seizures. Seventy children aged 2 months to 15 years with acute seizures (febrile or afebrile) admitted to the pediatric emergency department of a general hospital during a 14-month period were eligible for inclusion. Intranasal midazolam 0.2 mg/kg and intravenous diazepam 0.2 mg/kg were administered after intravenous lines were established. Intranasal midazolam and intravenous diazepam were equally effective. The mean time to control of seizures was 3.58 (SD 1.68) minutes in the midazolam group and 2.94 (SD 2.62) in the diazepam group, not counting the time required to insert the intravenous line. No significant side effects were observed in either group. Although intranasal midazolam was as safe and effective as diazepam, seizures were controlled more quickly with intravenous diazepam than with intranasal midazolam. Intranasal midazolam can possibly be used not only in medical centers, but also in general practice and at home after appropriate instructions are given to families of children with recurrent seizures.

Treatment of out-of-hospital status epilepticus with diazepam rectal gel

Intravenous access cannot always be promptly obtained when treating status epilepticus outside the hospital. We compared the efficacy and safety of diazepam rectal gel to IV lorazepam in our long-term care facility for adults with developmental disabilities. Diazepam rectal gel was given more quickly and reliably, reducing total seizure time, potential neuronal injury and other complications. A treatment protocol for treating status epilepticus with diazepam rectal gel is given.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of midazolam administered as a concentrated intranasal spray. A study in healthy volunteers

AIMS

To investigate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile of midazolam administered as a concentrated intranasal spray, compared with intravenous midazolam, in healthy adult subjects.

METHODS

Subjects were administered single doses of 5 mg midazolam intranasally and intravenously in a cross-over design with washout period of 1 week. The total plasma concentrations of midazolam and the metabolite 1-hydroxymidazolam after both intranasal and intravenous administration were described with a single pharmacokinetic model. beta-band EEG activity was recorded and related to midazolam plasma concentrations using an exponential pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model.

RESULTS

Administration of the intranasal spray led to some degree of temporary irritation in all six subjects, who nevertheless found intranasal administration acceptable and not painful. The mean (+/-s.d.) peak plasma concentration of midazolam of 71 (+/-25 ng ml-1) was reached after 14 (+/-5 min). Mean bioavailability following intranasal administration was 0.83+/-0.19. After intravenous and intranasal administration, the pharmacokinetic estimates of midazolam were: mean volume of distribution at steady state 1.11+/-0.25 l kg-1, mean systemic clearance 16.1+/-4.1 ml min-1 kg-1 and harmonic mean initial and terminal half lives 8.4+/-2.4 and 79+/-30 min, respectively. Formation of the 1-hydroxymetabolite after intranasal administration did not exceed that after intravenous administration.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study in healthy volunteers a concentrated midazolam nasal spray was easily administered and well tolerated. No serious complications of the mode of administration or the drug itself were reported. Rapid uptake and high bioavailability were demonstrated. The potential of midazolam given via a nasal spray in the acute treatment of status epilepticus and other seizure disruptions should be evaluated.

Management of Seizures in Brain Tumor Patients at the End of Life

Few data exist on the management of seizures in brain tumor patients near the end of life. This article provides information on the epidemiology and phenomenology of seizures, as well as on differential diagnostic considerations. Based largely on empirical data from the pediatric epilepsy literature, guidelines for management of seizures near the end of life are given, with emphasis on the use of rectal antiepileptic drugs.

The treatment of convulsive status epilepticus in children. The Status Epilepticus Working Party, Members of the Status Epilepticus Working Party

There is currently little agreement between hospital protocols when treating convulsive status epilepticus in children, and a working party has been set up to produce a national evidence based guideline for treating this condition. This four step guideline is presented in this paper. Its effectiveness will be highlighted and its use audited in a number of centres.

Is intranasal midazolam an effective rescue medication in adolescents and adults with severe epilepsy?

The aim of this study was to determine whether intranasal midazolam is a safe and effective rescue medication in adolescent and adult patients with severe epilepsy. This field trial was designed to test the feasibility of the use of intranasal midazolam as an alternative to rectal diazepam in a cohort of patients with severe epilepsy who require rescue medication as part of their treatment. A dose of intranasal midazolam (5 mg if the patient weighed less than 50 kg and 10 mg if the patient weighed over 50 kilograms) was prescribed for those who had previously responded to other rescue medication. Midazolam was prescribed buccally if excessive head movement accompanied seizures. The protocol reverted to the usual rescue medication if there was no response to midazolam within 10 minutes. Vital signs were monitored for half an hour following the administration of the treatment. Twenty-two patients received 84 treatment episodes and 79 of these were considered clinically effective. Five treatment failures were recorded, three due to poor technique in delivering the midazolam. Two patients were successfully retried on midazolam and a third is awaiting a retrial of this drug. The two other treatment failures received the drug buccally. In the first patient the clinical opinion was that this was possibly a psychogenic non-epileptic seizure. The other patient responded initially, but within an hour had another seizure requiring further rescue treatment. No significant adverse effects were reported. Our study shows that intranasal midazolam, when used appropriately, is an effective treatment in those who require rescue treatment. There are clear advantages in the use of midazolam over diazepam in the treatment of acute seizures. These include the favourable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of midazolam as well as the potential of a more acceptable and dignified administration route.

Comparison of intranasal midazolam with intravenous diazepam for treating febrile seizures in children: prospective randomised study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and efficacy of midazolam given intranasally with diazepam given intravenously in the treatment of children with prolonged febrile seizures.

DESIGN

Prospective randomised study.

SETTING

Paediatric emergency department in a general hospital.

SUBJECTS

47 children aged six months to five years with prolonged febrile seizure (at least 10 minutes) during a 12 month period.

INTERVENTIONS

Intranasal midazolam (0.2 mg/kg) and intravenous diazepam (0.3 mg/kg).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Time from arrival at hospital to starting treatment and cessation of seizures.

RESULTS

Intranasal midazolam and intravenous diazepam were equally effective. Overall, 23 of 26 seizures were controlled with midazolam and 24 out of 26 with diazepam. The mean time from arrival at hospital to starting treatment was significantly shorter in the midazolam group (3.5 (SD 1.8) minutes, 95% confidence interval 3.3 to 3.7) than the diazepam group (5.5 (2.0), 5.3 to 5.7). The mean time to control of seizures was significantly sooner (6.1 (3.6), 6.3 to 6.7) in the midazolam group than the diazepam group (8.0 (0.5), 7. 9 to 8.3). No significant side effects were observed in either group.

CONCLUSION

Seizures were controlled more quickly with intravenous diazepam than with intranasal midazolam, although midazolam was as safe and effective as diazepam. The overall time to cessation of seizures after arrival at hospital was faster with intranasal midazolam than with intravenous diazepam. The intranasal route can possibly be used not only in medical centres but in general practice and, with appropriate instructions, by families of children with recurrent febrile seizures at home.

Status epilepticus in children and adults

Status epilepticus (SE) in children and adults is one of the most common neurology problems confronting the intensivist. Recognition of SE is usually straightforward, but may be complicated by the effects of other diseases or therapies. Emergent treatment is necessary to prevent further brain damage. This article reviews protocols for standard treatments of SE patients and includes recommendations for the management of refractory SE.