Buccal, intranasal or intravenous lorazepam for the treatment of acute convulsions in children in Malawi: An open randomized trial

A Short Review on the Intranasal Delivery of Diazepam for Treating Acute Repetitive Seizures

Benzodiazepines such as diazepam, lorazepam and midazolam remained the mainstay of treatment for acute repetitive seizures (ARS). The immediate care for ARS should often begin at home by a caregiver. This prevents the progression of ARS to prolonged seizures or status epilepticus. For a long time and despite social objections rectal diazepam gel remained only FDA-approved rescue medication. Intranasal administration of benzodiazepines is considered attractive and safe compared with rectal, buccal and sublingual routes. Intranasal delivery offers numerous advantages such as large absorptive surface area, bypass the first-pass metabolism and good patient acceptance as it is needle free and painless. Recent clinical studies have demonstrated that diazepam nasal spray (NRL-1; Valtoco^®, Neurelis Inc.,San Diego, CA, USA) showed less pharmacokinetic variability and reliable bioavailability compared with the diazepam rectal gel. Diazepam nasal spray could be considered as a suitable alternative for treating seizure emergencies outside the hospital. This review summarizes the treatment options for ARS and findings from clinical studies involving intranasal diazepam for treating seizure emergencies.

Intravenous Versus Nonintravenous Benzodiazepines for the Cessation of Seizures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

The acquisition of intravenous (IV) access in the actively convulsing patient is difficult. This often delays the administration of the IV benzodiazepine (BDZ) necessary for seizure cessation. Delays in seizure cessation are associated with increased pharmacoresistance, increased risk of neuronal injury, worse patient outcomes, and increased morbidity.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to assess whether the delay imposed by IV access acquisition is justified by improved outcomes. We compared IV versus non-IV BDZ efficacy in the real world with regard to failure rates (primary outcome), interval to seizure control, and observed complications (secondary outcomes).

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. All studies published or in press from the inception of the respective database to July 2016 were included. Only randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials directly comparing IV to non-IV (buccal, rectal, intranasal, or intramuscular) BDZ were included.

RESULTS

Our search strategy retrieved 2,604 citations for review. A total of 11 studies were finally included in qualitative synthesis and 10 in quantitative analysis. Only one was of high quality. For treatment failure, non-IV BDZ was superior to IV BDZ (odd ratio [OR] = 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.56-0.92). However, no significant difference was found between the two treatments in the pediatric subgroup (OR = 1.16; 95% CI = 0.74-1.81). Non-IV BDZ was administered faster than IV BDZ and therefore controlled seizures faster (mean difference = 3.41 minutes; 95% CI = 1.69-5.13 minutes) despite a longer interval between drug administration and seizure cessation (mean difference = 0.74 minutes; 95% CI = 0.52-0.95 minutes). Respiratory complications requiring intervention were similar between non-IV BDZ and IV BDZ, regardless of administration route (risk difference = 0.00; 95% CI = -0.02 to 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Non-IV BDZ, compared to IV BDZ, terminate seizures faster and have a superior efficacy and side effect profile. Higher-quality studies and further evaluation in different age groups are warranted.