Midazolam versus diazepam for the treatment of status epilepticus in children and young adults: a meta-analysis

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.

How do doctors in training react to seizures?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There are scant data on how doctors approach seizures in the acute setting. We sought to study (a) exposure to seizure disorders as well as relevant training and (b) reactions to seizures in the acute setting, among medical residents undergoing physician training.

METHODS

The exposure to and training on seizure disorders were assessed using a structured questionnaire first. Then, they were tested with 20 videos consisting of 10 epileptic seizures (ESs) and 10 psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNESs). After each video, we asked three questions to test (a) the diagnosis and the practice of administration of benzodiazepines to terminate the seizure, (b) the estimation of seizure duration, and (c) the practice of intubation. The accuracy of diagnosis was measured by the area under the summary receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). The difference between true seizure duration and estimated duration was evaluated using paired-sample t-test.

RESULTS

A total of 48 trainees participated in the study. The majority witnessed seizures in movies (37, 77.1%) and television (35, 72.9%). Only 12 (25%) received bedside teaching on seizure disorders. Their diagnostic accuracy of seizures was very poor (AUC=0.54). Participants significantly underestimated the duration of seizures. Thirty-five doctors made an illogical decision to intubate but not to terminate the seizure with intravenous benzodiazepine.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic accuracy of seizures is poor among trainees, and their estimates of seizure duration are unreliable. Our study highlights potential pitfalls in the acute management of seizures and the need for more training on seizure disorders.

Intravenous and Intramuscular Formulations of Antiseizure Drugs in the Treatment of Epilepsy

Intravenous and intramuscular antiseizure drugs (ASDs) are essential in the treatment of clinical seizure emergencies as well as in replacement therapy when oral administration is not possible. The parenteral formulations provide rapid delivery and complete (intravenous) or nearly complete (intramuscular) bioavailability. Controlled administration of the ASD is feasible with intravenous but not intramuscular formulations. This article reviews the literature and discusses the chemistry, pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and clinical use of currently available intravenous and intramuscular ASD formulations as well as the development of new formulations and agents. Intravenous or intramuscular formulations of lorazepam, diazepam, midazolam, and clonazepam are typically used as the initial treatment agents in seizure emergencies. Recent studies also support the use of intramuscular midazolam as easier than the intravenous delivery of lorazepam in the pre-hospital setting. However, benzodiazepines may be associated with hypotension and respiratory depression. Although loading with intravenous phenytoin was an early approach to treatment, it is associated with cardiac arrhythmias, hypotension, and tissue injury at the injection site. This has made it less favored than fosphenytoin, a water-soluble, phosphorylated phenytoin molecule. Other drugs being used for acute seizure emergencies are intravenous formulations of valproic acid, levetiracetam, and lacosamide. However, the comparative effectiveness of these for status epilepticus (SE) has not been evaluated adequately. Consequently, guidelines for the medical management of SE continue to recommend lorazepam followed by fosphenytoin, or phenytoin if fosphenytoin is not available. Intravenous solutions for carbamazepine, lamotrigine, and topiramate have been developed but remain investigational. The current ASDs were not developed for use in emergency situations, but were adapted from ASDs approved for chronic oral use. New approaches for bringing drugs from experimental models to treatment of human SE are needed.

Comparison of short-term effects of midazolam and lorazepam in the intra-amygdala kainic acid model of status epilepticus in mice

Benzodiazepines remain as the first-line treatment for status epilepticus (SE), but debate continues as to the choice and delivery route of pharmacotherapy. Lorazepam is currently the preferred anticonvulsant for clinical use, but midazolam has become a popular alternative, particularly as it can be given by nonintravenous routes. Anticonvulsants are also commonly used to terminate SE in animal models. Here, we aimed to compare the efficacy of midazolam with that of lorazepam in an experimental model of focal-onset SE. Status epilepticus was induced by intra-amygdala microinjection of kainic acid in 8week old C57Bl/6 mice. Forty minutes later, mice were treated with an intraperitoneal injection of either lorazepam or midazolam (8mg/kg). Electroencephalogram (EEG) activity, histology, and behavioral tests assessing recovery of function were evaluated and compared between groups. Intraperitoneal injection of either lorazepam or midazolam resulted in similar patterns of reduced EEG epileptiform activity during 1-hour recordings. Damage to the hippocampus and presentation of postinsult anxiety-related behavior did not significantly differ between treatment groups at 72h. However, return of normal behaviors such as grooming, levels of activity, and the evaluation of overall recovery of SE mice were all superior at 24h in animals given midazolam compared with lorazepam. Our results indicate that midazolam is as effective as lorazepam as an anticonvulsant in this model while also providing improved animal recovery after SE. These data suggest that midazolam might be considered by researchers as an anticonvulsant in animal models of SE, particularly as it appears to satisfy the requirements of refining procedures involving experimental animals at early time-points after SE.

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.

Intramuscular and rectal therapies of acute seizures

The intramuscular (IM) and rectal routes are alternative routes of delivery for antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) when the intravenous route is not practical or possible. For treatment of acute seizures, the AED used should have a short time to maximum concentration (Tmax). Some AEDs have preparations that may be given intramuscularly. These include the benzodiazepines (diazepam, lorazepam, and midazolam) and others (fosphenytoin, levetiracetam). Although phenytoin and valproate have parenteral preparations, these should not be given intramuscularly. A recent study of prehospital treatment of status epilepticus evaluated a midazolam (MDZ) autoinjector delivering IM drug compared to IV lorazepam (LZP). Seizures were absent on arrival to the emergency department in 73.4% of the IM MDZ compared to a 63.4% response in LZP-treated subjects (p < 0.001 for superiority). Almost all AEDs have been evaluated for rectal administration as solutions, gels, and suppositories. In a placebo-controlled study, diazepam (DZP) was administered at home by caregivers in doses that ranged from 0.2 to 0.5 mg/kg. Diazepam was superior to placebo in reduced seizure frequency in children (p < 0.001) and in adults (p = 0.02) and time to recurrent seizures after an initial treatment (p < 0.001). Thus, at this time, only MZD given intramuscularly and DZP given rectally appear to have the properties required for rapid enough absorption to be useful when intravenous routes are not possible. Some drugs cannot be administered rectally owing to factors such as poor absorption or poor solubility in aqueous solutions. The relative rectal bioavailability of gabapentin, oxcarbazepine, and phenytoin is so low that the current formulations are not considered to be suitable for administration by this route. When administered as a solution, diazepam is rapidly absorbed rectally, reaching the Tmax within 5-20 min in children. By contrast, rectal administration of lorazepam is relatively slow, with a Tmax of 1-2h. The dependence of gabapentin on an active transport system, and the much-reduced surface area of the rectum compared with the small intestine, may be responsible for its lack of absorption from the rectum. 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.

Antiseizure Activity of Midazolam in Mice Lacking δ-Subunit Extrasynaptic GABA(A) Receptors

Midazolam is a benzodiazepine anticonvulsant with rapid onset and short duration of action. Midazolam is the current drug of choice for acute seizures and status epilepticus, including those caused by organophosphate nerve agents. The antiseizure activity of midazolam is thought to result from its allosteric potentiation of synaptic GABA(A) receptors in the brain. However, there are indications that benzodiazepines promote neurosteroid synthesis via the 18-kDa cholesterol transporter protein (TSPO). Therefore, we investigated the role of neurosteroids and their extrasynaptic GABA(A) receptor targets in the antiseizure activity of midazolam. Here, we used δ-subunit knockout (DKO) mice bearing a targeted deletion of the extrasynaptic receptors to investigate the contribution of the extrasynaptic receptors to the antiseizure activity of midazolam using the 6-Hz and hippocampus kindling seizure models. In both models, midazolam produced rapid and dose-dependent protection against seizures (ED50, 0.4 mg/kg). Moreover, the antiseizure potency of midazolam was undiminished in DKO mice compared with control mice. Pretreatment with PK11195 [1-(2-chlorophenyl)-N-methyl-N-(1-methylpropyl)-3-isoquinolinecarboxamide], a TSPO blocker, or finasteride, a 5α-reductase neurosteroid inhibitor, did not affect the antiseizure effect of midazolam. The antiseizure activity of midazolam was significantly reversed by pretreatment with flumazenil, a benzodiazepine antagonist. Plasma and brain levels of the neurosteroid allopregnanolone were not significantly greater in midazolam-treated animals. These studies therefore provide strong evidence that neurosteroids and extrasynaptic GABA(A) receptors are not involved in the antiseizure activity of midazolam, which mainly occurs through synaptic GABA(A) receptors via direct binding to benzodiazepine sites. This study reaffirms midazolam's use for controlling acute seizures and status epilepticus.

Midazolam as an anticonvulsant antidote for organophosphate intoxication--A pharmacotherapeutic appraisal

OBJECTIVE

This review summarizes the therapeutic potential of midazolam as an anticonvulsant antidote for organophosphate (OP) intoxication.

METHODS

Benzodiazepines are widely used to treat acute seizures and status epilepticus (SE), a neurologic emergency of persistent seizures that can lead to severe neuronal damage or death. Midazolam is a benzodiazepine hypnotic with a rapid onset and short duration of action.

RESULTS

Midazolam is considered the new drug of choice for persistent acute seizures and SE, including those caused by neurotoxic OPs and nerve agents. Midazolam is a positive allosteric modulator of synaptic γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA)A receptors in the brain. It potentiates GABAergic inhibition and thereby controls hyperexcitability and seizures. Midazolam is administered intravenously or intramuscularly to control acute seizures and SE. Due to its favorable pharmacokinetic features, midazolam is being considered as a replacement anticonvulsant for diazepam in the antidote kit for nerve agents. Clinical studies such as the recent Rapid Anticonvulsant Medication Prior to Arrival Trial (RAMPART) trial have confirmed the anticonvulsant efficacy of midazolam in SE in prehospital settings.

SIGNIFICANCE

In experimental models, midazolam is effective when given at the onset of seizures caused by nerve agents. However, benzodiazepines are less effective at terminating seizures when given 30 min or later after OP exposure or seizure onset, likely because of internalization or downregulation of synaptic, but not extrasynaptic, GABAA receptors, which can lead to diminished potency and seizure recurrence.

Efficacy and safety of intramuscular midazolam versus rectal diazepam in controlling status epilepticus in children

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intramuscular midazolam in controlling convulsive status epilepticus in children, by comparing it with rectal diazepam.

METHODS

In this randomized trial, 100 children (50 in each group) with convulsive status epilepticus aged 1 month to 16 years were enrolled and randomly assigned into two groups to receive either 0.3 mg/kg intramuscular midazolam or 0.5 mg/kg rectal diazepam. Main outcome measure was stopping of all motor activity after drug administration. Another measures were times between patient's arrival to emergency department till drug administration, between drug administration to seizure cessation, and between patient's arrival to seizure cessation.

RESULTS

Both medication were effective for seizure control and no significant difference was found between successful treatments after administering the medication (P = 0.061). In the midazolam group, in 96% (48/50) of cases treatment was successful and in the diazepam group, in 94% (47/50) of cases treatment was successful. Time from arrival to administering the medication was significantly shorter in midazolam group (P = 0.017). The majority of seizures in midazolam group were stopped in less than 66 s (median) compared to 130 s (median) for diazepam group, (P < 0.001). No serious adverse effects were seen in both groups.

CONCLUSION

IM midazolam is not superior but may be at least as effective as rectal diazepam for controlling of status epilepticus in children. Midazolam via IM route could be one of the choices in children with convulsive status seizures who have difficult IV access.

Therapeutic choices in convulsive status epilepticus

INTRODUCTION

Convulsive status epilepticus (SE) is one of the most frequent and severe neurological emergencies in both adults and children. A timely administration of appropriate antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) can stop seizures early and markedly improve outcome.

AREAS COVERED

The main treatment strategies for SE are reviewed with an emphasis on initial treatments. The established first-line treatment consists of benzodiazepines, most frequently intravenous lorazepam. Benzodiazepines that do not require intravenous administration like intranasal midazolam or intramuscular midazolam are becoming more popular because of easier administration in the field. Other benzodiazepines may also be effective. After treatment with benzodiazepines, treatment with fosphenytoin and phenobarbital is usually recommended. Other intravenously available AEDs, such as valproate and levetiracetam, may be as effective and safe as fosphenytoin and phenobarbital, have a faster infusion time and better pharmacokinetic profile. The rationale behind the need for an early treatment of SE is discussed. The real-time delays of AED administration in clinical practice are described.

EXPERT OPINION

There is limited evidence to support what the best initial benzodiazepine or the best non-benzodiazepine AED is. Recent and developing multicenter trials are evaluating the best treatment options and will likely modify the recommended treatment choices in SE in the near future. Additionally, more research is needed to understand how different treatment options modify prognosis in SE. Timely implementation of care protocols to minimize treatment delays is crucial.

Intramuscular midazolam versus intravenous lorazepam for the prehospital treatment of status epilepticus in the pediatric population

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effectiveness of intramuscular (IM) midazolam versus intravenous (IV) lorazepam for the treatment of pediatric patients with status epilepticus (SE) in the prehospital care setting.

METHODS

This multicenter clinical trial randomized patients diagnosed with SE to receive either IM midazolam or IV lorazepam administered by paramedics in the prehospital care setting. Included in this secondary analysis were only patients younger than 18 years of age. Evaluated were the associations of the treatment group (IM vs. IV) with the primary outcome, defined as seizure cessation prior to emergency department (ED) arrival, and with patient characteristics, time to important events, and adverse events. Descriptive statistics and 99% confidence intervals (CIs) were used for the analysis.

RESULTS

Of 893 primary study subjects, 120 met criteria for this study (60 in each treatment group). There were no differences in important baseline characteristics or seizure etiologies between groups. The primary outcome was met in 41 (68.3%) and 43 (71.7%) of subjects in the IM and IV groups, respectively (risk difference [RD] -3.3%, 99% CI -24.9% to 18.2%). Similar results were noted for those younger than 11 years (RD -1.3%, 99% CI -25.7% to 23.1%). Time from initiating the treatment protocol was shorter for children who received IM midazolam, mainly due to the shorter time to administer the active treatment. Safety profiles were similar.

SIGNIFICANCE

IM midazolam can be rapidly administered and appears to be safe and effective for the management of children with SE treated in the prehospital setting. The results must be interpreted in the context of the secondary analysis design and sample size of the study.

Parenteral midazolam is superior to diazepam for treatment of prehospital seizures

INTRODUCTION

Diazepam and midazolam are commonly used by paramedics to treat seizures. A period of drug scarcity was used as an opportunity to compare their effectiveness in treating prehospital seizures.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of a single, large, commercial agency during a 29-month period was performed. The period included alternating shortages of both medications. Ambulances were stocked with either diazepam or midazolam based on availability of the drugs. Adult patients who received at least 1 parenteral dose of diazepam or midazolam for treatment of seizures were included. The regional prehospital protocol recommended 5 mg intravenous (IV) diazepam, 5 mg intramuscular (IM) diazepam, 5 mg IM midazolam, or 2.5 mg IV midazolam. Medication effectiveness was compared with respect to the primary end point: cessation of seizure without repeat seizure during the prehospital encounter.

RESULTS

A total of 440 study subjects received 577 administrations of diazepam or midazolam and met the study criteria. The subjects were 52% male, with a mean age of 48 (range 18-94) years. A total of 237 subjects received 329 doses of diazepam, 64 (27%) were treated with first-dose IM. A total of 203 subjects received 248 doses of midazolam; 71 (35%) were treated with first-dose IM. Seizure stopped and did not recur in 49% of subjects after parenteral diazepam and 65% of subjects after parenteral midazolam (p = 0.002). Diazepam and midazolam exhibited similar first dose success for IV administration (58 vs. 62%; p = 0.294). Age, gender, seizure history, hypoglycemia, the presence of trauma, time to first administration, prehospital contact time, and frequency of IM administration were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

For parenteral administration, midazolam demonstrated superior first-dose seizure suppression. This study demonstrates how periods of drug scarcity can be utilized to study prehospital medication effectiveness.

Epilepsy in the end of life phase of brain tumor patients: a systematic review

Epileptic seizures are common in patients with primary or secondary malignant brain tumor. However, current knowledge on the occurrence of seizures during the end of life (EOL) phase of brain tumor patients is limited. Because symptom management with preservation of quality of life is of major importance for patients with a malignant brain tumor, particularly in the EOL, it is necessary to gain a deeper understanding of seizures and their management during this phase. We performed a systematic review of literature related to epilepsy in the EOL phase of brain tumor patients, based on the electronic resources PubMed, Embase, and Cinahl. The search yielded 442 unique records, of which 11 articles were eligible for further analysis after applying predefined inclusion criteria. Seizures occur relatively frequently in the EOL phase, particularly in patients with high-grade glioma. However, seizure management is often hampered by swallowing difficulties and impaired consciousness. Treatment decisions are largely dependent on expert opinion because a standardized approach for treating seizures in the terminal stage of brain tumor patients is still lacking.

Pediatric critical care

Care of the ill and injured child requires knowledge of unique pediatric anatomic and physiologic differences. Subtleties in presentation and pathophysiologic differences impact management. This article discusses pediatric resuscitation, the presentation and management of common childhood illness, pediatric trauma, and common procedures required in the critically ill child.

Intramuscular midazolam versus intravenous diazepam for treatment of seizures in the pediatric emergency department: a randomized clinical trial

AIM

To compare the therapeutic efficacy of intramuscular midazolam (MDZ-IM) with that of intravenous diazepam (DZP-IV) for seizures in children.

DESIGN

Randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

Pediatric emergency department.

PATIENTS

Children aged 2 months to 14 years admitted to the study facility with seizures.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomized to receive DZP-IV or MDZ-IM.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

Groups were compared with respect to time to treatment start (min), time from drug administration to seizure cessation (min), time to seizure cessation (min), and rate of treatment failure. Treatment was considered successful when seizure cessation was achieved within 5min of drug administration.

RESULTS

Overall, 32 children (16 per group) completed the study. Intravenous access could not be obtained within 5min in four patients (25%) in the DZP-IV group. Time from admission to active treatment and time to seizure cessation was shorter in the MDZ-IM group (2.8 versus 7.4min; p<0.001 and 7.3 versus 10.6min; p=0.006, respectively). In two children per group (12.5%), seizures continued after 10min of treatment, and additional medications were required. There were no between-group differences in physiological parameters or adverse events (p=0.171); one child (6.3%) developed hypotension in the MDZ-IM group and five (31%) developed hyperactivity or vomiting in the DZP-IV group.

CONCLUSION

Given its efficacy and ease and speed of administration, intramuscular midazolam is an excellent option for treatment of childhood seizures, enabling earlier treatment and shortening overall seizure duration. There were no differences in complications when applying MDZ-IM or DZP-IV.

Management of pediatric status epilepticus

OPINION STATEMENT

Status epilepticus (SE) is a medical emergency consisting of persistent or recurring seizures without a return to baseline mental status. SE can be divided into subtypes based on seizure types and underlying etiologies. Management should be implemented rapidly and based on pre-determined care pathways. The aim is to terminate seizures while simultaneously identifying and managing precipitant conditions. Seizure management involves "emergent" treatment with benzodiazepines (lorazepam intravenously, midazolam intramuscularly, or diazepam rectally) followed by "urgent" therapy (phenytoin/fosphenytoin, phenobarbital, levetiracetam or valproate sodium). If seizures persist, "refractory" treatments include infusions of midazolam or pentobarbital. Prognosis is dependent on the underlying etiology and seizure persistence. This article reviews the current management strategies for pediatric convulsive SE.

ADRIC: Adverse Drug Reactions In Children – a programme of research using mixed methods

Aims

To comprehensively investigate the incidence, nature and risk factors of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in a hospital-based population of children, with rigorous assessment of causality, severity and avoidability, and to assess the consequent impact on children and families. We aimed to improve the assessment of ADRs by development of new tools to assess causality and avoidability, and to minimise the impact on families by developing better strategies for communication.

Review methods

Two prospective observational studies, each over 1 year, were conducted to assess ADRs in children associated with admission to hospital, and those occurring in children who were in hospital for longer than 48 hours. We conducted a comprehensive systematic review of ADRs in children. We used the findings from these studies to develop and validate tools to assess causality and avoidability of ADRs, and conducted interviews with parents and children who had experienced ADRs, using these findings to develop a leaflet for parents to inform a communication strategy about ADRs.

Results

The estimated incidence of ADRs detected in children on admission to hospital was 2.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.5% to 3.3%]. Of the reactions, 22.1% (95% CI 17% to 28%) were either definitely or possibly avoidable. Prescriptions originating in the community accounted for 44 out of 249 (17.7%) of ADRs, the remainder originating from hospital. A total of 120 out of 249 (48.2%) reactions resulted from treatment for malignancies. Off-label and/or unlicensed (OLUL) medicines were more likely to be implicated in an ADR than authorised medicines [relative risk (RR) 1.67, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.02;p < 0.001]. When medicines used for the treatment of oncology patients were excluded, OLUL medicines were not more likely to be implicated in an ADR than authorised medicines (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.48;p = 0.830). For children who had been in hospital for > 48 hours, the overall incidence of definite and probable ADRs based on all admissions was 15.9% (95% CI 15.0 to 16.8). Opiate analgesic drugs and drugs used in general anaesthesia (GA) accounted for > 50% of all drugs implicated in ADRs. The odds ratio of an OLUL drug being implicated in an ADR compared with an authorised drug was 2.25 (95% CI 1.95 to 2.59;p < 0.001). Risk factors identified were exposure to a GA, age, oncology treatment and number of medicines. The systematic review estimated that the incidence rates for ADRs causing hospital admission ranged from 0.4% to 10.3% of all children [pooled estimate of 2.9% (95% CI 2.6% to 3.1%)] and from 0.6% to 16.8% of all children exposed to a drug during hospital stay. New tools to assess causality and avoidability of ADRs have been developed and validated. Many parents described being dissatisfied with clinician communication about ADRs, whereas parents of children with cancer emphasised confidence in clinician management of ADRs and the way clinicians communicated about medicines. The accounts of children and young people largely reflected parents’ accounts. Clinicians described using all of the features of communication that parents wanted to see, but made active decisions about when and what to communicate to families about suspected ADRs, which meant that communication may not always match families’ needs and expectations. We developed a leaflet to assist clinicians in communicating ADRs to parents.

Conclusion

The Adverse Drug Reactions In Children (ADRIC) programme has provided the most comprehensive assessment, to date, of the size and nature of ADRs in children presenting to, and cared for in, hospital, and the outputs that have resulted will improve the management and understanding of ADRs in children and adults within the NHS. Recommendations for future research: assess the values that parents and children place on the use of different medicines and the risks that they will find acceptable within these contexts; focusing on high-risk drugs identified in ADRIC, determine the optimum drug dose for children through the development of a gold standard practice for the extrapolation of adult drug doses, alongside targeted pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies; assess the research and clinical applications of the Liverpool Causality Assessment Tool and the Liverpool Avoidability Assessment Tool; evaluate, in more detail, morbidities associated with anaesthesia and surgery in children, including follow-up in the community and in the home setting and an assessment of the most appropriate treatment regimens to prevent pain, vomiting and other postoperative complications; further evaluate strategies for communication with families, children and young people about ADRs; and quantify ADRs in other settings, for example critical care and neonatology.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Degradation of benzodiazepines after 120 days of EMS deployment

INTRODUCTION

EMS treatment of status epilepticus improves outcomes, but the benzodiazepine best suited for EMS use is unclear, given potential high environmental temperature exposures.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the degradation of diazepam, lorazepam, and midazolam as a function of temperature exposure and time over 120 days of storage on active EMS units.

METHODS

Study boxes containing vials of diazepam, lorazepam, and midazolam were distributed to 4 active EMS units in each of 2 EMS systems in the southwestern United States during May-August 2011. The boxes logged temperature every minute and were stored in EMS units per local agency policy. Two vials of each drug were removed from each box at 30-day intervals and underwent high-performance liquid chromatography to determine drug concentration. Concentration was analyzed as mean (and 95%CI) percent of initial labeled concentration as a function of time and mean kinetic temperature (MKT).

RESULTS

192 samples were collected (2 samples of each drug from each of 4 units per city at 4 time-points). After 120 days, the mean relative concentration (95%CI) of diazepam was 97.0% (95.7-98.2%) and of midazolam was 99.0% (97.7-100.2%). Lorazepam experienced modest degradation by 60 days (95.6% [91.6-99.5%]) and substantial degradation at 90 days (90.3% [85.2-95.4%]) and 120 days (86.5% [80.7-92.3%]). Mean MKT was 31.6°C (95%CI 27.1-36.1). Increasing MKT was associated with greater degradation of lorazepam, but not midazolam or diazepam.

CONCLUSIONS

Midazolam and diazepam experienced minimal degradation throughout 120 days of EMS deployment in high-heat environments. Lorazepam experienced significant degradation over 120 days and appeared especially sensitive to higher MKT exposure.

Manipulation of olfactory tight junctions using papaverine to enhance intranasal delivery of gemcitabine to the brain

CONTEXT

Delivery of drugs from the nasal cavity to the brain is becoming more widely accepted, due to the non-invasive nature of this route and the ability to circumvent the blood brain barrier (BBB).

OBJECTIVE

Because of similarities in the proteins comprising the olfactory epithelial tight junction (TJ) proteins and those of the BBB, we sought to determine whether papaverine (PV), which is known to reversibly enhance BBB permeability, could increase the delivery of intranasally administered gemcitabine to the central nervous system in rats. Experimental methods: Included intranasal administration of gemcitabine, fluorescein isothiocyanate-dextran beads and PV, histopathology, immunostaining, RT-PCR, western blot analysis, immunofluorescence localization, spectrofluorometric analysis, in vivo brain microdialysis, HPLC analysis and in vitro gemcitabine recovery.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

PV transiently decreased the levels and altered immunolocalization of the TJ protein phosphorylated-occludin in the olfactory epithelium, while causing an approximately four-fold increase in gemcitabine concentration reaching the brain. The enhanced delivery was not accompanied by nasal epithelial damage or toxicity to distant organs.

CONCLUSIONS

The ability to transiently and safely increase drug delivery from the nose to the brain represents a non-invasive way to improve treatment of patients with brain disorders.

First line management of prolonged convulsive seizures in children and adults: good practice points

Over the past decades, it has become clear that the most efficient way to prevent status epilepticus is to stop the seizure as fast as possible, and early treatment of prolonged convulsive seizures has become an integral part of the overall treatment strategy in epilepsy. Benzodiazepines are the first choice drugs to be used as emergency medication. This treatment in the early phases of a seizure often implies a 'pre-medical' setting before intervention of medically trained persons. In this paper, we propose "good practice points" for first line management of prolonged convulsive seizures in children and adults in a 'pre-medical' setting.

Lessons from the RAMPART study--and which is the best route of administration of benzodiazepines in status epilepticus

Early treatment of prolonged seizures with benzodiazepines given intravenously by paramedics in the prehospital setting had been shown to be associated with improved outcomes, but the comparative efficacy and safety of an intramuscular (IM) route, which is faster and consistently achievable, was previously unknown. RAMPART (the Rapid Anticonvulsant Medication Prior to Arrival Trial) was a double-blind randomized clinical trial to determine if the efficacy of intramuscular (IM) midazolam is noninferior by a margin of 10% to that of intravenous (IV) lorazepam in patients treated by paramedics for status epilepticus (SE). In children and adults with >5 min of convulsions and who are still seizing at paramedic arrival, midazolam administered by IM autoinjector was noninferior to IV lorazepam on the primary efficacy outcome with comparable safety. Patients treated with IM midazolam were more likely to have stopped seizing at emergency department (ED) arrival, without emergency medical services (EMS) rescue therapy, and were less likely to require any hospitalization or admission to an intensive care unit. Lessons from the RAMPART study's findings and potential implications on clinical practice, on the potential role of other routes of administration, on the effect of timing of interventions, and on future clinical trials are discussed.

Gaps and opportunities in refractory status epilepticus research in children: a multi-center approach by the Pediatric Status Epilepticus Research Group (pSERG)

PURPOSE

Status epilepticus (SE) is a life-threatening condition that can be refractory to initial treatment. Randomized controlled studies to guide treatment choices, especially beyond first-line drugs, are not available. This report summarizes the evidence that guides the management of refractory convulsive SE (RCSE) in children, defines gaps in our clinical knowledge and describes the development and works of the 'pediatric Status Epilepticus Research Group' (pSERG).

METHODS

A literature review was performed to evaluate current gaps in the pediatric SE and RCSE literature. In person and online meetings helped to develop and expand the pSERG network.

RESULTS

The care of pediatric RCSE is largely based on extrapolations of limited evidence derived from adult literature and supplemented with case reports and case series in children. No comparative effectiveness trials have been performed in the pediatric population. Gaps in knowledge include risk factors for SE, biomarkers of SE and RCSE, second- and third-line treatment options, and long-term outcome.

CONCLUSION

The care of children with RCSE is based on limited evidence. In order to address these knowledge gaps, the multicenter pSERG was established to facilitate prospective collection, analysis, and sharing of de-identified data and biological specimens from children with RCSE. These data will allow identification of treatment strategies associated with better outcomes and delineate evidence-based interventions to improve the care of children with SE.

Clinical practice guidelines and practice parameters for the child neurologist

Guidance about how to practice child neurology has been around for decades. Recently, however, clinical practice guidelines, practice parameters, and standardized clinical assessment and management plans are gaining increasing attention. This overview, written for child neurologists, addresses such issues as the following: what are clinical practice guidelines, why are they needed, how are they created, how should they be created, how well are they accepted and adhered to, what influences acceptance and adherence, do guidelines improve care, do they reduce costs, will they be viewed by courts as the standard of care, how can they be updated and improved, and are there better alternatives?

Pediatric seizures

Seizures are a commonly encountered condition within the emergency department and, because of this, can engender complacency on the part of the physicians and staff. Unfortunately, there is significant associated morbidity and mortality with seizures, and they should never be regarded as routine. This point is particularly important with respect to seizures in pediatric patients. The aim of this review is to provide a current view of the various issues that make pediatric seizures unique and to help elucidate emergent evaluation and management strategies.

The cost effectiveness of licensed oromucosal midazolam (Buccolam(®)) for the treatment of children experiencing acute epileptic seizures: an approach when trial evidence is limited

BACKGROUND

In the UK, two treatment options are used for acute epileptic seizures in the community-rectal diazepam and unlicensed buccal midazolam. In practice, the former is rarely used, with unlicensed buccal midazolam being widely recommended and prescribed by physicians. In September 2011, Buccolam(®) (licensed midazolam oromucosal solution) became the first medicine to receive a Paediatric-Use Marketing Authorization (PUMA) and it is indicated for the treatment of prolonged, acute, convulsive seizures by caregivers in the community for children (aged 6 months to <18 years) diagnosed with epilepsy. The approval process for a PUMA product differs from other marketing authorization processes and may be based upon small population subsets and may not, in some cases, require new safety or efficacy data to be generated; a similar situation to that seen for orphan drugs. This can lead to challenges when conducting economic evaluations.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of Buccolam(®) for children with a diagnosis of epilepsy suffering prolonged, acute, convulsive seizures occurring in the UK community setting. DESIGN AND PERSPECTIVE: A hybrid model was developed according to a UK payer perspective. The model included a time-to-event simulation for the frequency and location of occurrence of seizures, along with a decision-tree model that assessed the treatment pathway when a seizure occured. The model compared treatment with Buccolam(®) with standard care in the community (95 % unlicensed buccal midazolam and 5 % rectal diazepam) or either treatment alone. The model was informed by data from a variety of sources, including clinical effectiveness estimates, and costs based on published UK data, using 2012-13 prices, where possible. To determine current practice and real-world effectiveness, a Delphi panel and a survey of parents of children with epilepsy were conducted.

RESULTS

Buccolam(®) showed a reduction in costs of £2,939 compared with standard care, £14,269 compared with rectal diazepam alone and £886 compared with unlicensed buccal midazolam alone. Increases of 0.025, 0.082 and 0.013 quality-adjusted life-years, respectively, were also seen. Buccolam(®) remained dominant across a range of scenario analyses.

CONCLUSION

This model demonstrates the possibility of constructing a thorough economic case when trial or real-world data are not available. The results of the model show Buccolam(®) to be cost saving compared with rectal diazepam due to a reduction in the need for ambulance callouts and hospital stays, and compared with unlicensed buccal midazolam, through reduced drug costs and wastage.

Adverse drug reactions causing admission to a paediatric hospital

Objective(s)

To obtain reliable information about the incidence of adverse drug reactions, and identify potential areas where intervention may reduce the burden of ill-health.

Design

Prospective observational study.

Setting

A large tertiary children’s hospital providing general and specialty care in the UK.

Participants

All acute paediatric admissions over a one year period.

Main Exposure

Any medication taken in the two weeks prior to admission.

Outcome Measures

Occurrence of adverse drug reaction.

Results

240/8345 admissions in 178/6821 patients admitted acutely to a paediatric hospital were thought to be related to an adverse drug reaction, giving an estimated incidence of 2.9% (95% CI 2.5, 3.3), with the reaction directly causing, or contributing to the cause, of admission in 97.1% of cases. No deaths were attributable to an adverse drug reaction. 22.1% (95% CI 17%, 28%) of the reactions were either definitely or possibly avoidable. Prescriptions originating in the community accounted for 44/249 (17.7%) of adverse drug reactions, the remainder originating from hospital. 120/249 (48.2%) reactions resulted from treatment for malignancies. The drugs most commonly implicated in causing admissions were cytotoxic agents, corticosteroids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, vaccines and immunosuppressants. The most common reactions were neutropenia, immunosuppression and thrombocytopenia.

Conclusions

Adverse drug reactions in children are an important public health problem. Most of those serious enough to require hospital admission are due to hospital-based prescribing, of which just over a fifth may be avoidable. Strategies to reduce the burden of ill-health from adverse drug reactions causing admission are needed.

Guidelines for the evaluation and management of status epilepticus

Status epilepticus (SE) treatment strategies vary substantially from one institution to another due to the lack of data to support one treatment over another. To provide guidance for the acute treatment of SE in critically ill patients, the Neurocritical Care Society organized a writing committee to evaluate the literature and develop an evidence-based and expert consensus practice guideline. Literature searches were conducted using PubMed and studies meeting the criteria established by the writing committee were evaluated. Recommendations were developed based on the literature using standardized assessment methods from the American Heart Association and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation systems, as well as expert opinion when sufficient data were lacking.

The 60-day temperature-dependent degradation of midazolam and Lorazepam in the prehospital environment

BACKGROUND

The choice of the optimal benzodiazepine to treat prehospital status epilepticus is unclear. Lorazepam is preferred in the emergency department, but concerns about nonrefrigerated storage limits emergency medical services (EMS) use. Midazolam is increasingly popular, but its heat stability is undocumented.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated temperature-dependent degradation of lorazepam and midazolam after 60 days in the EMS environment.

METHODS

Lorazepam or midazolam samples were collected prior to (n = 139) or after (n = 229) 60 days of EMS deployment during spring-summer months in 14 metropolitan areas across the United States. Medications were stored in study boxes that logged temperature every minute and were stored in EMS units per local agency policy. Mean kinetic temperature (MKT) exposure was derived for each sample. Drug concentrations were determined in a central laboratory by high-performance liquid chromatography. Concentration as a function of MKT was analyzed by linear regression.

RESULTS

Prior to deployment, measured concentrations of both benzodiazepines were 1.0 relative to labeled concentration. After 60 days, midazolam showed no degradation (mean relative concentration 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.00) and was stable across temperature exposures (adjusted R(2) -0.008). Lorazepam experienced little degradation (mean relative concentration 0.99, 95% CI 0.98-0.99), but degradation was correlated to increasing MKT (adjusted R(2) 0.278). The difference between the temperature dependence of degradation of midazolam and lorazepam was statistically significant (T = -5.172, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Lorazepam experiences small but statistically significant temperature-dependent degradation after 60 days in the EMS environment. Additional study is needed to evaluate whether clinically significant deterioration occurs after 60 days. Midazolam shows no degradation over this duration, even in high-heat conditions.

Oromucosal midazolam: a guide to its use in paediatric patients with prolonged acute convulsive seizures

Oromucosal midazolam (Buccolam™), a benzodiazepine, is approved in the EU for the treatment of paediatric patients (aged 3 months to <18 years) with acute, prolonged, convulsive seizures. In clinical trials in children with prolonged, acute, convulsive seizures, oromucosal midazolam was at least as effective as rectal diazepam and as effective as intravenous diazepam in the treatment of seizures and was generally well tolerated. It has several advantages over rectal diazepam, the previous gold standard of treatment, such as having a more convenient and socially acceptable administration route.

Oromucosal midazolam: a review of its use in pediatric patients with prolonged acute convulsive seizures

Oromucosal midazolam (Buccolam™) is a benzodiazepine approved for the treatment of pediatric patients with acute, prolonged, convulsive seizures. This article reviews the pharmacologic properties of oromucosal midazolam and its clinical efficacy and tolerability for the treatment of prolonged acute convulsive seizures in pediatric patients aged 3 months to <18 years. Midazolam exerts its action by enhancing the effects of γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) on GABA(A) receptors, resulting in neural inhibition. Oromucosal midazolam has a rapid onset (<10 minutes; due to rapid absorption across the buccal membrane and high lipophilicity) and short duration of effect (categorized by the short elimination half-life of midazolam and its active metabolite). The oromucosal administration of the drug avoids first-pass hepatic metabolism; as a result, it has a higher bioavailability than oral midazolam. Oromucosal midazolam is at least as effective at seizure cessation as rectal or intravenous diazepam and appears as well tolerated as these diazepam formulations in pediatric patients with acute convulsive seizures (additionally, midazolam has been available for use for decades in various formulations, and is historically well tolerated). Moreover, oromucosal midazolam was associated with a similar or shorter time to response than rectal diazepam. While the time to response was longer with oromucosal midazolam than with intravenous diazepam, the latter took significantly longer to apply than the former, leading to a significantly shorter overall controlling time with oromucosal midazolam. Respiratory depression occurred at a similar rate in recipients of oromucosal midazolam to that observed in recipients of rectal diazepam. Overall, oromucosal midazolam is at least as effective as rectal diazepam and as effective as intravenous diazepam in the treatment of children with prolonged acute convulsive seizures, and is generally well tolerated in this population. It has several advantages over rectal diazepam, the previous gold standard of treatment, such as having a more socially acceptable administration route and having a likely more predictable absorption profile. Oromucosal midazolam is a promising first-line treatment option for children with prolonged acute convulsive seizures, in particular where intravenous access is precluded.

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.