Treatment of acute seizures: is intranasal midazolam a viable option?

Efficacy and Tolerability of Intranasal Midazolam Administration for Antiseizure Treatment in Adults: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of intranasal midazolam (in-MDZ) administration for antiseizure treatment in adults.

METHODS

Embase and Medline literature databases were searched. We included randomized trials and cohort studies (excluding case series) of adult patients (≥ 18 years of age) examining in-MDZ administration for epilepsy, epileptic seizures, or status epilepticus published in English between 1985 and 2022. Studies were screened for eligibility based on predefined criteria. The primary outcome was the efficacy of in-MDZ administration, and the secondary outcome was its tolerability. Extracted data included study design, patient characteristics, intervention details, and outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies with 929 individuals treated with in-MDZ were included. Most studies were retrospective, with their number increasing over time. Administered in-MDZ doses ranged from 2.5 to 20 mg per single dose. The mean proportion of successful seizure termination after first in-MDZ administration was 72.7% (standard deviation [SD] 18%), and the proportion of seizure recurrence or persistent seizures ranged from 61 to 75%. Most frequent adverse reactions to in-MDZ were dizziness (mean 23.5% [SD 38.6%]), confusion (one study; 17.4%), local irritation (mean 16.6% [SD 9.6%]), and sedation (mean 12.7% [SD 9.7%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of in-MDZ seems promising for the treatment of prolonged epileptic seizures and seizure clusters in adults. Limited evidence suggests that intranasal administration is safe. Further research is warranted because of the heterogeneity of cohorts, the variation in dosages, and the lack of uniformity in defining successful seizure termination.

Midazolam nasal spray to treat intermittent, stereotypic episodes of frequent seizure activity: pharmacology and clinical role, a comprehensive review

An intranasal formulation of midazolam, Nayzilam, has been FDA-approved to treat intermittent, stereotypic episodes of frequent seizure activity. Nayzilam is easy to administer and can quickly treat seizures that occur outside of the hospital. The intra-nasal route of administration allows non-medical personal to administer the drug which makes it more accessible and user-friendly in the event of a seizure. Many studies have indicated quick cessation of seizures with Nayzilam compared to rectal diazepam, which has been the standard of care treatment. Nayzilam has been proven to be safe and effective for acute seizures in children, deeming it a revolutionary alternative in times where intravenous administration is not possible.

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.

Using the Intranasal Route to Administer Drugs to Treat Neurological and Psychiatric Illnesses: Rationale, Successes, and Future Needs

While the intranasal administration of drugs to the brain has been gaining both research attention and regulatory success over the past several years, key fundamental and translational challenges remain to fully leveraging the promise of this drug delivery pathway for improving the treatment of various neurological and psychiatric illnesses. In response, this review highlights the current state of understanding of the nose-to-brain drug delivery pathway and how both biological and clinical barriers to drug transport using the pathway can been addressed, as illustrated by demonstrations of how currently approved intranasal sprays leverage these pathways to enable the design of successful therapies. Moving forward, aiming to better exploit the understanding of this fundamental pathway, we also outline the development of nanoparticle systems that show improvement in delivering approved drugs to the brain and how engineered nanoparticle formulations could aid in breakthroughs in terms of delivering emerging drugs and therapeutics while avoiding systemic adverse effects.

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

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-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 (TEAEs) were also evaluated.

RESULTS

In-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 (i.e., two puffs; range 2.5-15 mg) was administered within a median time from EEG seizure onset until in-MDZ application of 1.18 min [interquartile range (IQR) 1.27], while median time from clinical seizure onset until in-MDZ administration was 1.08 min (IQR 1.19). In-MDZ was given within 1 min 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 < 0.001) and generalized tonic-clonic seizure (Cox proportional-hazard model p = 0.0167) over a period of 24 h. The seizure-free timespan was doubled from a median of 5.0 h in controls to a median of 10.67 h 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 h as compared with when the same patient does not receive in-MDZ (hazard ratio 0.50; 95% CI 0.42-0.60; p < 0.01). In-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. In-MDZ can be administered very quickly by trained staff within 1-2 min after seizure onset. No major cardiocirculatory or respiratory adverse events were observed.

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.

Intranasal midazolam for seizure cessation in the community setting

QUESTION

There are times when parents arrive to my clinic after their child has had a seizure and a second seizure takes place in the clinic. While waiting for transport to the hospital, are there ways to stop the seizures without the need to obtain intravenous access in the clinic?

ANSWER

Intravenous diazepam has been a first-line therapy to stop seizures in children for many years. Other routes of drug administration such as intramuscular, rectal, and buccal are available but have several limitations. More evidence suggests that the intranasal route to administer drugs is quick and effective in children, and the use of midazolam has been continuing to show promise in seizure cessation. With its good safety profile, intranasal midazolam can be used in the clinic and prehospital setting for seizure cessation in children.

Intranasal midazolam administration enhances amnesic effect in rats

Intranasal (i.n.) administration of midazolam has been shown to be effective and safe for its sedative, anxiolytic, and anticonvulsant effects. However, there has been no investigation on the influence of i.n. administration on midazolam-induced anterograde amnesia. In addition, although the potential of direct drug delivery from the nose to the central nervous system (CNS) has recently become a topic of great interest, it remains unclear whether this pathway is also involved after i.n. midazolam. In this study, we examined the efficacy and the underlying mechanism of i.n. administration compared with intramuscular (i.m.) administration on midazolam-induced amnesia in rats. Equivalent doses of 0.6 mg/kg midazolam were administered via either the i.m or the i.n. route. Anterograde amnesia was assessed by a contextual/cued fear conditioning test. Each animal was conditioned 20 min after drug administration and then tested for a freezing response 24 h later. Midazolam administration by either route produced a similar level of light sedation (minimum spontaneous activity). However, i.n. administration of midazolam induced significantly less freezing behavior compared with i.m. midazolam. Furthermore, in rats with disrupted electrical input from the olfactory epithelium after an olfactotoxicant 3-methylindole administration, the i.n.-mediated enhanced amnesic effect of midazolam was not observed. Our findings indicate that i.n midazolam could probably generate olfactory signals to the brain via benzodiazepine receptors and, compared with i.m. administration, can produce a more significant amnesic effect without alteration in sedative levels. Further clinical studies are warranted.

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.

Comparison of intranasal and intravenous diazepam on status epilepticus in stroke patients: a retrospective cohort study

Administering diazepam intravenously or rectally in an adult with status epilepticus can be difficult and time consuming. The aim of this study was to examine whether intranasal diazepam is an effective alternative to intravenous diazepam when treating status epilepticus. We undertook a retrospective cohort study based on the medical records of 19 stroke patients presenting with status epilepticus to our institution. We measured the time between arrival at the hospital, the intravenous or intranasal administration of diazepam, and the seizure termination. Intranasal diazepam was administered about 9 times faster than intravenous diazepam (1 vs 9.5 minutes, P = 0.001), resulting in about 3-fold reduction in the time to termination of seizure activity after arrival at the hospital (3 minutes compared with 9.5 minutes in the intravenous group, P = 0.030). No adverse effects of intranasal diazepam were evident from the medical records. Intranasal diazepam administration is safer, easier, and quicker than intravenous administration.