Therapeutic choices in convulsive status epilepticus

Intramuscular Midazolam for treatment of Status Epilepticus

INTRODUCTION

Status epilepticus (SE) is a common neurological and medical emergency. It has high mortality and morbidity rates, which typically correlate with seizure semiology and duration; therefore, prompt and proper pharmacological intervention is paramount. In a pre-hospital setting, establishing venous access can be difficult, so other routes of drug administration should be considered.

AREAS COVERED

The paper summarizes the data from the literature and provides an evaluation of the efficacy and safety of intramuscular midazolam (IM MDZ) as it pertains to the management of acute seizures and SE.

EXPERT OPINION

The cascade of events involved in the genesis and sustenance of seizures, if not promptly stopped, lead to the perpetuation of the condition and may contribute to the refractoriness of pharmacological treatment. Hence, non-venous routes for drug administration were developed to allow untrained personnel to rapidly stop seizures. Among benzodiazepines (BDZs), IM MDZ is at least as effective and safe as other intravenously administered BDZs. Moreover, thanks to IM MDZ's favorable pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profile, it is a promising alternative to other non-venous drugs such as intranasal-MDZ, buccal-MDZ, and rectal-diazepam in the pre-hospital management of SE cases with motor features.

Efficacy, Safety, and Economics of Intravenous Levetiracetam for Status Epilepticus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

To evaluate efficacy, safety, and economics profiles of intravenous levetiracetam (LEV) for status epilepticus (SE).

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.gov, and OpenGrey.eu for eligible studies published from inception to June 12^th 2019. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effect model to calculate odds ratio (OR) of included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with RevMan 5.3 software.

Results

A total of 478 studies were obtained. Five systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses, 9 RCTs, 1 non-randomized trial, and 27 case series/reports and 1 economic study met the inclusion criteria. Five SRs indicated no statistically significant difference in rates of seizure cessation when LEV was compared with lorazepam (LOR), phenytoin (PHT), or valproate (VPA). Pooled results of included RCTs indicated no statistically significant difference in seizure cessation when LEV was compared with LOR [OR = 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 2.92], PHT (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.27), and VPA (OR = 1.47, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.67); and no statistically significant difference in seizure freedom within 24 h compared with LOR [OR = 1.83, 95% CI 0.57 to 5.90] and PHT (OR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.87). Meanwhile, LEV did not increase the risk of mortality during hospitalization compared with LOR (OR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.39), PHT (OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.10), VPA (OR = 1.28, 95% CI 0.32 to 5.07), and placebo (plus clonazepam, OR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.38). LEV had lower need for artificial ventilation (OR = 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.92) and a lower risk of hypotension (OR = 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.84) compared to LOR. A trend of lower risk of hypotension and higher risk of agitation was found when LEV was compared with PHT. Case series and case report studies indicated psychiatric and behavioral adverse events of LEV. Cost-effectiveness evaluations indicated LEV as the most cost-effective non-benzodiazepines anti-epileptic drug (AED).

Conclusions

LEV has a similar efficacy as LOR, PHT, and VPA for SE, but a lower need for ventilator assistance and risk of hypotension, thus can be used as a second-line treatment for SE. However, more well-conducted studies to confirm the role of intravenous LEV for SE are still needed.

Novel drugs and early polypharmacotherapy in status epilepticus

PURPOSE

Rescue medications for status epilepticus (SE) have a relatively high rate of failure. The purpose of this review is to summarize the evidence for the efficacy of novel drugs and early polypharmacotherapy for SE.

METHOD

Literature review.

RESULTS

New drugs and treatment strategies aim to target the pathophysiology of SE in order to improve seizure control and outcomes. Changes at the synapse level during SE include a progressive decrease in synaptic GABA_A receptors and increase in synaptic NMDA receptors. These changes tend to promote self-sustaining seizures. Current SE guidelines recommend a rapid stepwise treatment using benzodiazepines in monotherapy as the first-line treatment, targeting GABA_A synaptic receptors. Novel treatment approaches target GABA_A synaptic and extrasynaptic receptors with allopregnanolone, and NMDA receptors with ketamine. Novel rescue treatments used for SE include topiramate, brivaracetam, and perampanel, which are already marketed in epilepsy. Some available drugs not marketed for use in epilepsy have been used in the treatment of SE, and other agents are being studied for this purpose. Early polytherapy, most frequently combining a benzodiazepine with a second-line drug or an NMDA receptor antagonist, might potentially increase seizure control with relatively minor increase in side effects. Although many preclinical studies support novel drugs and early polytherapy in SE, human studies are scarce and inconclusive. Currently, evidence is lacking to recommend specific combinations of these new agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Novel drugs and strategies target the underlying pathophysiology of SE with the intent to improve seizure control and outcomes.

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.