Nonintravenous midazolam versus intravenous or rectal diazepam for the treatment of early status epilepticus: A systematic review with meta-analysis
Introduction
Status epilepticus (SE) can be regarded as the most extreme and severe form of seizure activity, being associated with high morbidity and mortality [1]. In clinical practice, SE has been traditionally defined as epileptic activity persisting for more than 30 min or as two or more sequential seizures without full interictal recovery [2]. However, over the years, this timeframe has been progressively shortened to the pragmatic definition of 5 min because of the seriousness of the condition and the urge to treat it as early as possible [3]. Its prompt treatment can prevent death or irreversible brain damage. In fact, early treatment is associated with lower morbidity and mortality, fewer drugs required in hospitals, and shorter overall seizure duration [4], [5].
There are, however, several factors, including education regarding seizure emergencies and transferring of patients to the hospital, that may hinder prompt treatment, resulting in a significant treatment delay. Hence, prehospital management of SE might be beneficial provided that administered drugs are effective in terminating seizures, safe, and easy to use.
Diazepam (DZP) and midazolam (MDZ) are commonly used in the treatment of early (stage I) SE. Midazolam is a water-soluble benzodiazepine, which may be administered by different routes: intravenous, intramuscular, buccal, and intranasal. Conversely, DZP can be administered either intravenously or per rectum. Rectal DZP is the most common drug used in the prehospital management of early SE in Spain [6] and possibly also in other countries. However, its administration is most of the time socially unacceptable. Furthermore, its administration requires the removal of clothes and positioning the patient appropriately, which may result in relevant treatment delay. The same limitation holds true for intravenous administration of DZP or other drugs such as lorazepam, which requires the placement of an intravenous access.
Hence, MDZ, which can be administered by different and more practical routes (buccal, intranasal, intramuscular), has emerged as an alternative to drugs administered by intravenous or rectal route, such as lorazepam or DZP [7], [8].
The aim of this systematic review was to determine if nonintravenous (non-IV) MDZ is as effective and safe as intravenous or rectal DZP in terminating early SE in children and adults. Furthermore, we aimed to evaluate whether non-IV MDZ administration is faster than intravenous or rectal DZP administration and, if so, whether this “time gain” results in higher seizure control.
Section snippets
Methods
This review was guided by a written prespecified protocol describing research questions, review methods, and a plan for data extraction and synthesis. The protocol is available at: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/DisplayPDF.php?ID=CRD42015016179.
Study selection
Retrieved articles were independently assessed for inclusion by two review authors; any disagreement was resolved through discussion.
Quality assessment
Trials were scrutinized, and the methodological quality of all included studies was evaluated. Quality assessment included the following aspects of methodology: study design, definition and clinical relevance of outcomes, type of control, method of allocation concealment, total study duration, completeness of follow-up, intention-to-treat analysis, data concerning
Description of studies (Tables 1 and 2)
The search strategy described earlier yielded 771 results (671 MEDLINE, 84 CENTRAL, and 16 ClinicalTrials.gov). The pharmaceutical companies Viropharma and Accord Healthcare were contacted (January 2015), but no additional unpublished trials were found. After excluding duplicate publications (38), case reports and case series, letters, reviews, and uncontrolled and nonrandomized trials, 30 studies potentially includible were provisionally selected. No additional unpublished study was
Discussion
In this systematic review, we used systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise studies and to extract and analyze data with a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is the statistical combination of results from two or more separate studies (pairwise comparisons of interventions), allowing an increase in statistical power and an improvement in precision and sometimes permitting questions to be answered that were not posed by individual studies and to settle
Conclusions
Non-IV MDZ is as effective and safe as intravenous or rectal DZP in terminating early SE in children. 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 translate into higher seizure control. An exception may be the buccal MDZ, which, besides being socially more acceptable and easier to administer, might also have higher efficacy than rectal DZP in seizure
Acknowledgments
We thank Piero Bonzano and Vincenzo De Simone (Accord Healthcare) and Alberto Liuti (ViroPharma) for seeking information on unpublished randomized controlled trials on buccal midazolam or studies in progress.
Conflict of interest
FB received speakers' honoraria from UCB Pharma.
ET has acted as a paid consultant to Bial, Biogen Idec, Eisai, Ever Neuropharma, Medtronics, Takeda, Upsher-Smith, and UCB; has received speakers' honoraria from Bial, Boehringer, Eisai, GL Lannacher, and UCB Pharma; and
References (37)
- et al.
Effect of prehospital treatment on the outcome of status epilepticus in children
Pediatr Neurol
(1995) - et al.
Use of benzodiazepines in prolonged seizures and status epilepticus in the community
An Pediatr (Barc)
(2014) - et al.
Buccal midazolam and rectal diazepam for treatment of prolonged seizures in childhood and adolescence: a randomised trial
Lancet
(1999) - et al.
Comparison of intranasal midazolam with intravenous diazepam for treating acute seizures in children
Epilepsy Behav
(2004) - et al.
Safety and efficacy of buccal midazolam versus rectal diazepam for emergency treatment of seizures in children: a randomised controlled trial
Lancet
(2005) - et al.
Intranasal midazolam vs rectal diazepam in acute childhood seizures
Pediatr Neurol
(2006) - et al.
Efficacy of buccal midazolam compared to intravenous diazepam in controlling convulsions in children: a randomized controlled trial
Brain Dev
(2009) - et al.
Efficacy and usability of buccal midazolam in controlling acute prolonged convulsive seizures in children
Eur J Paediatr Neurol
(2010) - et al.
Epidemiology of status epilepticus
J Clin Neurophysiol
(1995) Treatment of convulsive status epilepticus. Recommendations of the Epilepsy Foundation of America's Working Group on Status Epilepticus
JAMA
(1993)
It's time to revise the definition of status epilepticus
Epilepsia
Lessons from the RAMPART study—and which is the best route of administration of benzodiazepines in status epilepticus
Epilepsia
Intramuscular versus intravenous therapy for prehospital status epilepticus
N Engl J Med
Intramuscular midazolam versus intravenous lorazepam for the prehospital treatment of status epilepticus in the pediatric population
Epilepsia
Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
BMJ
A prospective, randomized study comparing intramuscular midazolam with intravenous diazepam for the treatment of seizures in children
Pediatr Emerg Care
Comparison of intranasal midazolam with intravenous diazepam for treating febrile seizures in children: prospective randomised study
BMJ
Cited by (75)
Epilepsy care in nursing facilities: Knowledge gaps and opportunities
2023, Epilepsy and BehaviorOptimized Benzodiazepine Treatment of Pediatric Status Epilepticus Through a Standardized Emergency Medical Services Resuscitation Tool
2022, Pediatric NeurologyCitation Excerpt :Development of a standard approach to pediatric SE including adoption of IN BZD also likely played a role in optimized BZD dosing as well. Use of IN midazolam has been shown to improve time to treatment16,17 in other settings, although time to treatment did not significantly decrease in our study. Standardization has also been shown to decrease cognitive load, decrease provider error, and improve time to intervention.18,19
Oro-mucosal midazolam maleate: Use and effectiveness in adults with epilepsy in the UK
2021, Epilepsy and BehaviorStatus epilepticus: Practice variation and adherence to treatment guideline in a large community hospital
2021, Journal of the Neurological Sciences