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

Intranasal midazolam compared with intravenous diazepam in patients suffering from acute seizure: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Acute seizure attack is a stressful experience both for health care personnel and parents. These attacks might cause morbidity and mortality among patients, so reliable methods to control the seizure preferably at home should be developed. This study was performed to measure the time needed to control seizure attacks using intranasal midazolam compared to the common treatment (intravenous diazepam) and to evaluate its probable side effects.

METHODS

This study was conducted as a not blind randomized clinical trial among 60 patients coming to Imam Ali Hospital, Zahedan, Iran. The patients were 2 months to 15 years old children coming to our emergency department suffering from an acute seizure episode. Intranasal midazolam was administered 0.2 mg/kg equally dropped in both nostrils for case group and intravenous diazepam was administered 0.3mg/kg via IV line for control group. After both treatments the time needed to control the seizure was registered by the practitioner. Pulse rate and O2 saturation were recorded at patients' entrance and in minutes 5 and 10 after drug administration.

FINDINGS

The time needed to control seizure using intranasal midazolam (3.16±1.24) was statistically shorter than intravenous diazepam (6.42±2.59) if the time needed to establish IV line in patients treated by intravenous diazepam is taken into account (P<0.001). The readings for O2 saturation or heart rate did not indicate a statistically significant difference between two groups of patients either at entrance or 5 and 10 minutes after drug administration.

CONCLUSION

Considering the shorter time needed to control acute seizure episodes compared to intravenous diazepam and its safety record, intranasal midazolam seems to be a good candidate to replace diazepam, as the drug of choice, in controlling this condition.

Intramuscular versus intravenous therapy for prehospital status epilepticus

BACKGROUND

Early termination of prolonged seizures with intravenous administration of benzodiazepines improves outcomes. For faster and more reliable administration, paramedics increasingly use an intramuscular route.

METHODS

This double-blind, randomized, noninferiority trial compared the efficacy of intramuscular midazolam with that of intravenous lorazepam for children and adults in status epilepticus treated by paramedics. Subjects whose convulsions had persisted for more than 5 minutes and who were still convulsing after paramedics arrived were given the study medication by either intramuscular autoinjector or intravenous infusion. The primary outcome was absence of seizures at the time of arrival in the emergency department without the need for rescue therapy. Secondary outcomes included endotracheal intubation, recurrent seizures, and timing of treatment relative to the cessation of convulsive seizures. This trial tested the hypothesis that intramuscular midazolam was noninferior to intravenous lorazepam by a margin of 10 percentage points.

RESULTS

At the time of arrival in the emergency department, seizures were absent without rescue therapy in 329 of 448 subjects (73.4%) in the intramuscular-midazolam group and in 282 of 445 (63.4%) in the intravenous-lorazepam group (absolute difference, 10 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 4.0 to 16.1; P<0.001 for both noninferiority and superiority). The two treatment groups were similar with respect to need for endotracheal intubation (14.1% of subjects with intramuscular midazolam and 14.4% with intravenous lorazepam) and recurrence of seizures (11.4% and 10.6%, respectively). Among subjects whose seizures ceased before arrival in the emergency department, the median times to active treatment were 1.2 minutes in the intramuscular-midazolam group and 4.8 minutes in the intravenous-lorazepam group, with corresponding median times from active treatment to cessation of convulsions of 3.3 minutes and 1.6 minutes. Adverse-event rates were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

For subjects in status epilepticus, intramuscular midazolam is at least as safe and effective as intravenous lorazepam for prehospital seizure cessation. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00809146.).

Treatment of pediatric status epilepticus

OPINION STATEMENT

Status epilepticus is characterized by a prolonged, self-sustaining seizure or repeated seizures without return to baseline. The clinical manifestations of status epilepticus in children and adults range from overt generalized convulsions to more subtle behavioral manifestations, including unresponsiveness in the setting of the intensive care unit. Status epilepticus is the most common neurologic emergency of childhood. A large proportion of these episodes are the result of a prolonged febrile seizure or an acute symptomatic etiology. Fortunately, status epilepticus occurs without consequence for many children, but for others, it is correlated with long-term neurologic dysfunction or death. Treatment of status epilepticus should commence promptly upon its recognition, using predefined treatment protocols. The goal of treatment is the rapid termination of the seizure, to minimize the acute and chronic effects of this emergency and to allow for the prompt assessment and management of the underlying precipitant. Currently, the drug class of first choice in the in-hospital and out-of-hospital treatment of status epilepticus is the benzodiazepines, which may need to be quickly followed by a next-line agent, as the efficacy of the benzodiazepines is negatively correlated with seizure duration. Traditionally, these next-line agents have included phenobarbital and phenytoin, but emerging evidence supports the use of intravenous formulations of other antiepileptic drugs. If the first two agents fail, high-dose intravenous midazolam or anesthetic therapy should be rapidly initiated. This paper reviews the current treatment options and strategies for pediatric patients with status epilepticus.

Challenges in the design and analysis of non-inferiority trials: a case study

BACKGROUND

The literature on the design, conduct, and analysis of non-inferiority trials is continuously evolving. Several design issues continue to be researched including the choice of active control, choice of non-inferiority margin, and optimal analytic approaches. To date, there has been relatively little in the literature documenting actual experiences with implementing available methodology for non-inferiority trials.

PURPOSE

This article serves as a case study and highlights some of the challenges encountered in the design of a Phase III non-inferiority trial in status epilepticus that is being conducted under a Food and Drug Administration Investigational New Drug Application (IND).

METHODS

The IND application was put on clinical hold by the Food Drug and Administration due to concerns with the design. Specifically, support for the active control, non-inferiority margin, and overall interpretability of trial results were questioned, and a recommendation was made to consider a superiority design. The authors describe their interactions with the Food Drug and Administration and their application of available methods and approaches to address these concerns.

RESULTS

The investigators' response to the clinical hold provided detailed information to support the conduct of a non-inferiority trial. The study team received Food Drug and Administration approval to initiate the trial in October 2008. The trial enrollment began in June 2009 and is being conducted by roughly 800 paramedic units in over 40 Emergency Medicine Service systems across the United States.

LIMITATIONS

There is still a great deal of methodological research needed to fully understand the application and impact of the non-inferiority trial design.

CONCLUSIONS

It is evident that non-inferiority trials have an important place in clinical trial design and analysis. These trials may be the only way and only opportunity to answer certain questions; so, they must be designed and conducted with rigor. This case study is an attempt to share our experiences in implementation.

Clinical practice: the treatment of acute convulsive seizures in children

An adequate early treatment of a long-lasting convulsive seizure is critical in reducing potential morbidity, and in particular, brain damage. In pre-hospital settings the use of benzodiazepines should become standard. Nowadays, rectal diazepam is used frequently, but midazoloam and lorazepam are becoming more popular, both being given either intranasally or orally. The buccal route is to be preferred because of its easy use and high efficacy. A generally accepted policy for early treatment of convulsive seizures is a crucial issue in the elaboration of an overall treatment plan for the child with epilepsy. Such a plan should include instruction and education of the parents and the caregivers surrounding the child.

Hooked on benzodiazepines: GABAA receptor subtypes and addiction

Benzodiazepines are widely used clinically to treat anxiety and insomnia. They also induce muscle relaxation, control epileptic seizures, and can produce amnesia. Moreover, benzodiazepines are often abused after chronic clinical treatment and also for recreational purposes. Within weeks, tolerance to the pharmacological effects can develop as a sign of dependence. In vulnerable individuals with compulsive drug use, addiction will be diagnosed. Here we review recent observations from animal models regarding the cellular and molecular basis that might underlie the addictive properties of benzodiazepines. These data reveal how benzodiazepines, acting through specific GABA(A) receptor subtypes, activate midbrain dopamine neurons, and how this could hijack the mesolimbic reward system. Such findings have important implications for the future design of benzodiazepines with reduced or even absent addiction liability.