Download Intranasal Midazolam vs Rectal Diazepam for the

Intranasal Midazolam vs Rectal Diazepam for the
Home Treatment of Acute Seizures in Pediatric
Patients With Epilepsy
Holsti M, Dudley N, Schunk J, et al. Intranasal midazolam vs rectal
diazepam for the home treatment of acute seizures in pediatric patients
with epilepsy. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010;164(8):747-753.
Copyright restrictions may apply
Introduction
•
Rectal diazepam (RD) is a rescue medication frequently prescribed for the
home treatment of seizures.
•
Intranasal midazolam has also been used as a home rescue medication for
the treatment of seizures.
•
The Mucosal Atomization Device has been developed for nasal drug
delivery.
•
We sought to compare the effectiveness of the Intranasal Midazolam
Mucosal Atomization Device (IN-MMAD) with that of RD for the home
treatment of seizures in children with epilepsy.
Copyright restrictions may apply
Methods
•
Patients who visited a pediatric neurology clinic were identified and enrolled
from July 2006 through September 2008.
•
Prospective randomized trial; not blinded.
•
Inclusion criteria:
• Aged <18 years, with diagnosis of epilepsy.
• Pediatric neurologist to send patient home with rescue medication for
his or her next seizure.
•
Exclusion criteria:
• Patients who receive home treatment with benzodiazepines other than
diazepam or midazolam (ie, lorazepam).
Copyright restrictions may apply
Methods
•
Primary outcome measure: seizure duration after administration of study
medication.
• Analyzed by Wilcoxon rank sum test.
•
Limitations:
• Variability in seizure start times and stop times.
• Potential selection bias.
- Some caretakers decided not to participate when told they could
not choose the study medication.
• Experience.
- Some caretakers had more experience treating seizures at home.
Copyright restrictions may apply
Results
Copyright restrictions may apply
Results
Copyright restrictions may apply
Results
Copyright restrictions may apply
Results
Copyright restrictions may apply
Results
Copyright restrictions may apply
Comment
•
There was no difference between IN-MMAD and RD in terminating pediatric
seizures at home and no differences in complications.
•
Ease of administration and overall satisfaction were higher in the IN-MMAD
group compared with the RD group.
Copyright restrictions may apply
Comment
Future Directions
• IN-MMAD may be a good alternative for older pediatric patients with
seizures.
• Patients/caretakers may not want not to receive/give medications
rectally.
• The intranasal volume may limit the maximum amount given to an older
patient.
•
IN-MMAD may be a less expensive alternative for the treatment of
seizures.
• Cost analysis must be done.
•
IN-MMAD may be difficult to give to young children with congestion unless
suctioning is available.
Copyright restrictions may apply
Contact Information
•
If you have questions, please contact the corresponding author:
Maija Holsti, MD, MPH ([email protected]).
Funding/Support
•
This study was supported by Primary Children’s Medical Center Foundation,
Salt Lake City, Utah.
Copyright restrictions may apply