0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Article | Journal Club

Intranasal Midazolam vs Rectal Diazepam for the Home Treatment of Acute Seizures in Pediatric Patients With Epilepsy FREE

Maija Holsti, MD, MPH; Nanette Dudley, MD; Jeff Schunk, MD; Kathleen Adelgais, MD, MPH; Richard Greenberg, MD; Cody Olsen, MS; Aaron Healy, BS; Sean Firth, PhD, MPH; Francis Filloux, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Division of Pediatric Neurology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.


Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010;164(8):747-753. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.130.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Objective  To compare intranasal midazolam, using a Mucosal Atomization Device (IN-MMAD), with rectal diazepam (RD) for the home treatment of seizures in children with epilepsy.

Design  Prospective randomized study.

Setting  Patients' homes and a freestanding children's hospital that serves as a referral center for 5 states.

Patients  A total of 358 pediatric patients who visited a pediatric neurology clinic from July 2006 through September 2008 and were prescribed a home rescue medication for their next seizure.

Intervention  Caretakers were randomized to use either 0.2 mg/kg of IN-MMAD (maximum, 10 mg) or 0.3 to 0.5 mg/kg of RD (maximum, 20 mg) at home for their child's next seizure if it lasted more than 5 minutes.

Outcome Measures  The primary outcome measure was total seizure time after medication administration. Our secondary outcome measures were total seizure time, time to medication administration, respiratory complications, emergency medical service support, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and caretakers' ease of administration and satisfaction with the medication.

Results  A total of 92 caretakers gave the study medication during a child's seizure (50 IN-MMAD, 42 RD). The median time from medication administration to seizure cessation for IN-MMAD was 1.3 minutes less than for RD (95% confidence interval, 0.0-3.5 minutes; P = .09). The median time to medication administration was 5.0 minutes for each group. No differences in complications were found between treatment groups. Caretakers were more satisfied with IN-MMAD and report that it was easier to give than RD.

Conclusions  There was no detectable difference in efficacy between IN-MMAD and RD as a rescue medication for terminating seizures at home in pediatric patients with epilepsy. Ease of administration and overall satisfaction was higher with IN-MMAD compared with RD.

Trial Registration  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00326612

Figures in this Article

Seizures are the most common medical problem requiring emergency medical services (EMS) transport in pediatric patients, accounting for up to 25% of all pediatric EMS calls in the United States.1 Seizures may also account for up to 15% of pediatric air transports.2

Most seizures stop within 5 minutes and do not mandate immediate medical treatment.3 Seizures that last longer than 5 to 10 minutes, however, are unlikely to stop without treatment and become more difficult to control with time.3 Prolonged or recurrent seizure activity persisting for 30 minutes may result in significant morbidity and mortality that correlates directly with seizure duration.3

Benzodiazepines are currently used as the initial therapy for the treatment of acute seizure activity.36 The administration of benzodiazepines in home and prehospital settings has proven to be safe and effective and may shorten seizure duration.7,8 Diazepam and midazolam are 2 benzodiazepines commonly used as rescue medications for seizure activity.

In the United States, rectal diazepam (RD) is the most common rescue medication given to families for home treatment of seizures. It is not available intranasally or buccally. Its advantage is that no refrigeration or intravenous line is needed. Disadvantages of RD include the social awkwardness for patients and providers, potential for rejection, and its short half-life. Respiratory depression and need for ventilatory support has been reported in some patients who receive diazepam.9,10 In the United States, the cost of RD (Diastat) is roughly $212 per dose.11

Midazolam is available for intranasal (IN) and buccal administration but has not been developed for rectal administration. Intranasal midazolam is also an effective rescue medication that can be given safely.1226 Midazolam is effective after buccal administration but has not been studied in the prehospital setting.2731 Midazolam is water-soluble but becomes fat-soluble at physiological pH, allowing it to cross the nasal mucosa into adjacent tissues including the cerebrospinal fluid, resulting in rapid onset of action.32 In addition to the pharmacological advantages, the convenience of IN administration and the social acceptability may make IN midazolam the preferred treatment of seizures in the prehospital setting. The cost of IN midazolam is $12 per dose.11

The Mucosal Atomization Device (Wolf Tory Medical Inc, Salt Lake City, Utah) is an applicator placed on the syringe hub that distributes liquid for nasal administration in a 30-μ particle size, coating the mucosa.33 It is relatively inexpensive at $4 per applicator.11 The Intranasal Midazolam Mucosal Atomization Device (IN-MMAD) should enhance rapid nasal absorption, achieving effective plasma and cerebrospinal fluid concentrations. A previous study at our institution demonstrated that IN-MMAD controlled seizures better than RD in the prehospital setting and resulted in fewer respiratory complications and admissions.12 We sought to compare the effectiveness and complications of IN-MMAD with those of RD for the home treatment of childhood seizures by primary caretakers.

The setting for this study was a freestanding children's hospital that serves as a referral center for 5 states. Patients were identified and recruited through the pediatric neurology clinic. Patients were eligible for the study if they had a known seizure disorder (of any type), were younger than 18 years, and were prescribed a rescue antiepileptic for home use by their neurologist. Patients were excluded from the study if their neurologist did not prescribe a home rescue medication, they were aged 18 years or older, or they were prescribed lorazepam as a home rescue medication.

A research assistant present in the pediatric neurology clinic helped identify potential patients. If a patient was eligible, the attending neurologist who was aware of the study would ask their patient and/or caretakers if they wanted information about a research study comparing home rescue medications. If verbal consent was obtained, a research assistant would explain the study and obtain written consent and assent. Randomization occurred in blocks of 6 using a computer program by a statistician. The sequence was inside a numbered folder and concealed until the intervention was assigned. A secretary assembled the randomized folders. Attending physicians, research assistants, and patients/caretakers were blinded to the rescue drug to be prescribed until after written consent was obtained.

Caretakers were then randomized to use either 0.2 mg/kg of IN-MMAD (maximum, 10 mg) or 0.3 to 0.5 mg/kg of RD (maximum, 20 mg) at home for their child's next seizure that lasted longer than 5 minutes. Caretakers who were present at the clinic visit watched a 5-minute instructional video on how to use their prescribed medication. They were instructed to only give 1 dose of study medication and call “911.” If the seizure persisted, EMS could then give a second medication and transport the patient to an emergency department (ED) per their established protocol. Caretakers who gave the study medication recorded their observations using a stopwatch and timing sheets. Times of seizure initiation, medication administration, and seizure cessation were recorded, and sheets were mailed to the principal investigator.

Once the data sheets were received, a research assistant interviewed the caretaker by phone. Those who gave the rescue medication were then asked a series of questions to gauge their satisfaction with the medication. Caretakers answered questions regarding ease of administration and overall satisfaction with the study medication by rating them on an 11-point nominal scale (0, not satisfied and 10, greatly satisfied). Data for several other secondary outcomes were collected (need for additional medical support, hospitalization, length of stay, disposition, repeated seizures within 12 hours).

Recruited caretakers who did not spontaneously report use of the study medication were contacted by phone monthly to address any questions and to remind them of the study. Data was not collected on seizure type associated with study medication administration. If a caretaker reported use of study medication at the time of the phone call, information was obtained at that time.

When available, EMS, ED, and hospital medical records were reviewed for patients who were seen at the study hospital. If a patient was seen at an ED outside the study site, information was obtained from the caretaker by phone.

Our objective was to compare IN-MMAD with RD for the home treatment of seizures in children with epilepsy. Our primary outcome was total seizure time after study medication administration. Our hypothesis was that IN-MMAD would stop seizures faster than RD. Our secondary outcome measures were total seizure time, time to medication administration, respiratory complications, EMS support, ED visits, hospitalizations, and caretakers' ease of administration and satisfaction with the medication.

We conducted a power analysis based on a 10-minute difference in seizure time after administration of study medication. Our previous study found a difference of 19 minutes in seizure time after study medication.12 To achieve 90% power, we estimated that we would need 61 patients in each group. We also estimated that we would need to enroll 350 patients to collect a total of 120 treated seizures. Once a patient used either study medication, their participation in the study was terminated.

We used Wilcoxon rank sum and Mann-Whitney U tests to compare times between the IN-MMAD and RD groups and to estimate 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences.34,35 Treatment differences for categorical outcomes were estimated using exact odds ratios from logistic regression models. Analyses were performed using SAS/STAT software (version 9; SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North Carolina).

Approval for research with human subjects was obtained from the University of Utah Institutional Review Board. Investigational New Drug approval was obtained from the Food and Drug Administration. The project was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. This research project was not sponsored or funded by a company. There is no relationship between the authors and the development, evaluation, and promotion of the IN-MMAD.

Three hundred fifty-eight pediatric subjects with epilepsy were prospectively enrolled from July 2006 through September 2008 (Figure 1). Ninety-two caretakers gave study medication to a child during a seizure (50 IN-MMAD, 42 RD). Two hundred fifty-five patients remained in the study but did not receive study medication during enrollment. Eight patients/caretakers withdrew from the study, 6 of whom had been assigned to receive RD. Three withdrew because RD was too expensive and they wanted IN-MMAD, and 4 patients withdrew for no stated reason. Two patients randomized to IN-MMAD withdrew from the study for no stated reason. Four enrolled patients died during the study period but never used study medication. One patient had degenerative neurological disease and died of respiratory failure, and 3 with chronic medical problems died at home of unknown cause.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Patient enrollment flowchart. IN-MMAD indicates Intranasal-Midazolam Mucosal Atomization Device; RD, rectal diazepam.

Graphic Jump Location

Table 1 presents the demographic data for the RD and IN-MMAD groups. Groups were similar with regard to age, sex, daily antiepileptic medication use, and percentage of caretakers' experience with RD. Satisfaction with RD was also similar among the 13 patients in the RD group and the 21 in the IN-MMAD group who had previously used RD. The mean dose was 0.41 mg/kg (95% CI, 0.37-0.45) for RD and 0.20 mg/kg (95% CI, 0.19-0.21) for IN-MMAD. In all 92 seizures treated with a study medication, either the child's mother, father, or both parents gave the medication.

Our primary outcome measure, time to seizure cessation from medication administration, is summarized by treatment group in Figure 2. The median time to seizure cessation from medication administration was shorter for the IN-MMAD group (median, 3.0 minutes; interquartile range [IQR], 1.0-10.0) compared with the RD group (median, 4.3 minutes; IQR, 2.0-14.5), with a difference of 1.3 minutes (95% CI, 0.0-3.5; P = .09).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Time from medication use to seizure cessation (difference, 1.3 minutes; 95% confidence interval, 0.0-3.5; P = .09). Confidence intervals and P values were calculated using Wilcoxon rank sum tests and Mann-Whitney U tests. IN-MMAD indicates Intranasal-Midazolam Mucosal Atomization Device; RD, rectal diazepam.

Graphic Jump Location

Figure 3 shows total seizure time for the IN-MADD (median, 10.5 minutes; IQR, 7.0-18.0) and RD (median, 12.5 minutes; IQR, 7.0-30.0) groups, with a difference in median total seizure time of 2.0 minutes (95% CI, −1.0 to 5.7; P = .25). Time to rescue medication administration (Figure 4) did not differ between the IN-MADD (median, 5.0 minutes; IQR, 4.0-7.0) and RD (median, 5.0 minutes; IQR, 4.0-8.0) groups; the difference in median time to rescue medication administration was 0.0 minutes (95% CI, −1.0 to 1.0; P = .57).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Witnessed total seizure time (difference, 2.0 minutes; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-5.7; P = .25). Confidence intervals and P values were calculated using Wilcoxon rank sum tests and Mann-Whitney Utests. IN-MMAD indicates Intranasal-Midazolam Mucosal Atomization Device; RD, rectal diazepam.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 4.

Witnessed time to medication administration (difference, 0.0 minutes; 95% confidence interval, −1.0 to 1.0; P = .57). Confidence intervals and P values were calculated using Wilcoxon rank sum tests and Mann-Whitney U tests. IN-MMAD indicates Intranasal-Midazolam Mucosal Atomization Device; RD, rectal diazepam.

Graphic Jump Location

No differences between groups were identified with respect to the other secondary outcome measures of repeated seizures, need for emergency services, respiratory depression, emergency department visits, or disposition (Table 2). One child in the IN-MMAD group required intubation compared with none in the RD group. In addition, the absolute numbers of patients who needed EMS and ED services was slightly higher in the IN-MMAD group.

Caretakers were asked about ease of administration and overall satisfaction with study medication (Table 3). They were asked to respond on an 11-point nominal scale with zero indicating not at all satisfied and 10, very satisfied. Caretakers reported that IN-MMAD was easier to give than RD (10 vs 9; 95% CI, 0-1; P = .02). Overall satisfaction with medication was also higher in the IN-MMAD group (9.3 vs 7.3; 95% CI, 0-2; P = .02).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Ease of Administration and Overall Satisfaction

This is the first study that compares IN-MMAD with RD as a home rescue medication for pediatric epilepsy. Our study found no detectable difference in efficacy or adverse effects between IN-MMAD and RD when used as a rescue medication in children with a seizure disorder. However, our data suggest that there may be a trend toward faster seizure control in the IN-MMAD group. More patients in the IN-MMAD group required EMS and ED services, and 1 patient in the IN-MMAD group was intubated but the differences were not significant. Caretakers in our study were required to call EMS if they gave the study medication. More patients might have followed through on this instruction with a medication used for the first time, which may account for the increase in EMS and ED use in the IN-MMAD group. The ease of administration and overall satisfaction were higher in the IN-MMAD group compared with the RD group. Our results indicate that IN-MMAD may be a good alternative to RD for pediatric patients with epilepsy.

Rectal diazepam is approved for the home treatment of seizures and has facilitated earlier treatment of prolonged seizures in children, thereby preventing unnecessary ED visits.6 With longer seizure duration, seizure control becomes increasingly difficult. An easily accessible home treatment can help limit seizure duration in children with epilepsy. However, RD may not be ideal in some cases. It can be socially awkward for some patients and caretakers, is expensive, and may cause respiratory adverse effects (especially if given in multiple doses or with other medications).9,10 Of particular note, adolescents and their parents or caretakers may prefer IN-MMAD because of the social awkwardness associated with RD administration.

Midazolam, a water-soluble benzodiazepine, becomes lipophilic at physiological pH and readily crosses the blood-brain barrier into the central nervous system.13,32,36 This mechanism of action allows for rapid delivery to the central nervous system to treat seizure activity.32 Medications that are dripped into the nares, though, do not reliably coat the nasal mucosa because large droplets pass through the nasopharynx and are swallowed. Midazolam's clinical effects still occur if ingested orally but the availability of the drug directly into the central nervous system may be reduced. The Mucosal Atomization Device provides a mist of particle size (30 μ) that is too small to be aspirated but not large enough to be swallowed and, therefore, may allow more rapid penetration into the central nervous system.32,33 Future studies should optimize the dose of IN-MMAD and compare IN-MMAD with that of buccal midazolam or intranasal lorazepam.2730,32,37,38

Intranasal midazolam has been studied for the treatment of seizures. Studies performed in the ED and prehospital setting have demonstrated effectiveness of intranasal midazolam for the treatment of seizures.1416,28,39 Doses used have ranged from 0.2 to 0.5 mg/kg and, in these studies, the medication was simply dripped into the nares with a syringe,1416,28,39 subject to the concerns above.

A few studies have compared diazepam and midazolam in the prehospital or ED setting and have shown midazolam to be equally or more effective in treating seizure activity, sometimes with fewer adverse effects.13,1720,27,29,30,40,41 Some of those studies have also compared intranasal midazolam with rectal diazepam.12,21,22 Fisgin et al21 compared intranasal midazolam with RD in the ED setting. Intranasal midazolam was significantly more likely to successfully control seizure activity within the first 10 minutes (87%, 20 of 23 patients vs 60%, 13 of 22 patients).21 Bhattacharyya et al22 compared physician administration of intranasal midazolam or RD in 46 children (188 seizures) and found seizure control to be faster with intranasal midazolam, with fewer adverse effects. In both studies, study medication was given by a physician in an ED setting. Times documented as part of a research study are presumably done in a standard fashion and are thus more reliable than those of the parents in our study who may have given a medication to stop their child's seizure for the first time.

Holsti et al12 also found that IN-MMAD controlled seizures better than RD in the prehospital setting, resulting in fewer respiratory complications and fewer admissions. In this study, historical RD controls were compared with a new IN-MMAD protocol used by EMS. We found that the mean seizure time with RD was 19 minutes longer than with IN-MMAD.12 This study was conducted in a different setting and, owing to the study design, we were not able to collect data on time to administration of study medication, which may have contributed to longer seizure times in the RD group.12

In the community setting, midazolam dripped intranasally has been described as an effective rescue medication alternative for seizure activity.15,2326 Jeannet et al23 used IN midazolam to control seizure activity in 26 patients for a total of 125 seizures. One hundred twenty-two seizures (98%) stopped within 10 minutes (mean, 3.6 minutes) without serious adverse effects noted.23 Three patients had a seizure reoccur within 3 hours.23 Fisgin et al24 treated 54 seizures with IN midazolam (22 children). Seizure activity was controlled on 48 occasions (89%) without any respiratory compromise. Satisfaction questionnaires revealed that 90% had no difficulty giving the medication and 14 of 15 people with previous RD experience preferred IN midazolam.24 Scheepers et al15 also followed up adolescents and adults whose caretaker gave IN midazolam as a rescue medication for seizure activity. They found 79 of 84 seizures to be effectively treated, with no significant adverse effects.15 Lastly, Harbord et al26 prospectively followed up 22 children with 54 seizures and found IN midazolam to be effective in 48 of 54 seizures.26 No respiratory arrests were reported, and 90% (27 of 30) of caretakers reported no difficulties in giving the medications.26 These studies demonstrate that IN midazolam has gained widespread use and demonstrated efficacy and relative safety. However, none of the studies compared IN midazolam with RD in a community setting and none used the MAD for delivery.

The chief limitation of our study was the unblinding of study medication and possible selection bias. To keep this study blinded, caretakers would have had to give a study medication and placebo for their child's seizure, one intranasally and one rectally. We concluded that this would prove unacceptable to caretakers. We were able to blind research assistants, patients, and families before they agreed to enroll in the study. However, once enrolled, they were told which medication to use for their child's next seizure. Although some caretakers chose not to participate owing to their wish to receive IN midazolam, we did not separately track patients who were briefed about the study but then opted out because they wanted to choose their home rescue medication. Regardless, very few patients received IN-MMAD from participating neurologists outside of the study so we believe this is unlikely to have biased the outcome significantly. Lastly, some caretakers may have had more experience with a study medication or preference toward one treatment. Some parents, however, gave a medication to stop their child's seizure for the first time. The parent(s) present at the clinic visit received standardized formal training on how to give the medication. It is possible that the parent who gave the medication was not the one trained. No teachers or school nurses gave the medication. This variability in experience could have affected administration of study medication and recorded times.

It is certainly possible that seizure onset or exact time of seizure cessation may have been difficult to determine in every case. There may have been recall bias. Some start times may not have been witnessed, and caretakers may not have recognized when a seizure stopped or may have estimated the duration of seizure. We did, however, provide stopwatches, recording cards, and pens in the same container as the rescue medication in an effort to improve documentation and limit recall bias as much as possible. Additionally, research assistants contacted caretakers from both treatment groups with equal regularity to inquire about study medication usage. We only had full access to medical records at our own institution. The EMS and ED information for patients seen at other institutions was collected by phone from the caretaker. Of the patients admitted to the hospital, all were admitted to the study facility.

Our study was powered to detect a 10-minute difference in seizures between groups. We observed a 1.3-minute difference in the 92 patients who were finally enrolled. A conditional power analysis prompted termination of the study owing to a very low likelihood of showing a statistical difference in treatments unless a larger number of patients were enrolled than the expected 120. This study was not sufficiently powered to show equivalence between the 2 treatment modalities.

Early treatment of unremitting seizures reduces seizure duration and the morbidity and mortality associated with seizure activity. Use of IN-MMAD may be a less expensive alternative for the home treatment of seizures. To determine a true difference in overall expense, a cost analysis needs to be done.

We found no detectable difference in efficacy between IN-MMAD and RD as a rescue medication. However, our data suggest that there may be a trend toward faster seizure control in the IN-MMAD group. The published literature in the ED setting also suggests that IN midazolam may stop seizures more quickly than RD. Adverse effects appear to be minimal. Given the ease of administration/overall satisfaction, IN-MMAD may be considered an alternative to rectal diazepam as a rescue medication for the in-home treatment of prolonged seizures in children.

Correspondence: Maija Holsti, MD, MPH, 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84108 (maija.holsti@hsc.utah.edu).

Accepted for Publication: February 18, 2010.

Author Contributions:Study concept and design: Holsti, Dudley, Schunk, Adelgais, Greenberg, Firth, and Filloux. Acquisition of data: Holsti and Healy. Analysis and interpretation of data: Holsti, Dudley, and Olsen. Drafting of the manuscript: Holsti and Dudley. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Holsti, Dudley, Schunk, Adelgais, Greenberg, Olsen, Healy, Firth, and Filloux. Statistical analysis: Holsti, Olsen, and Firth. Obtained funding: Holsti. Administrative, technical, and material support: Holsti and Healy. Study supervision: Holsti, Dudley, Schunk, Adelgais, Greenberg, and Filloux.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by Primary Children's Medical Center Foundation, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Online-Only Material: This article is featured in the Archives Journal Club. Go here http://archpediatrics.com to download teaching PowerPoint slides.

Joyce  SMBrown  DENelson  EA Epidemiology of pediatric EMS practice: a multistate analysis. Prehosp Disaster Med 1996;11 (3) 180- 187
PubMed
Diller  EVernon  DDean  JMSuruda  A The epidemiology of pediatric air medical transports in Utah. Prehosp Emerg Care 1999;3 (3) 217- 224
PubMed Link to Article
Abend  NSHuh  JWHelfaer  MADlugos  DJ Anticonvulsant medications in the pediatric emergency room and intensive care unit. Pediatr Emerg Care 2008;24 (10) 705- 721
PubMed Link to Article
Treiman  DM Pharmacokinetics and clinical use of benzodiazepines in the management of status epilepticus. Epilepsia 1989;30 ((suppl 2)) S4- S10
PubMed Link to Article
Treiman  DMMeyers  PDWalton  NY  et al. Veterans Affairs Status Epilepticus Cooperative Study Group, A comparison of four treatments for generalized convulsive status epilepticus. 1998;339 (12) 792- 798
Alldredge  BKWall  DFerriero  DM Effect of pre-hospital treatment on the outcome of status epilepticus in children. Pediatr Neurol 1995;12 (3) 213- 216
PubMed Link to Article
Kriel  RLCloyd  JCHadsall  RSCarlson  AMFloren  KLJones-Saete  CM Home use of rectal diazepam for cluster and prolonged seizures: efficacy, adverse reactions, quality of life, and cost analysis. Pediatr Neurol 1991;7 (1) 13- 17
PubMed Link to Article
O’Dell  CShinnar  SBallaban-Gil  KR  et al.  Rectal diazepam gel in the home management of seizures in children. Pediatr Neurol 2005;33 (3) 166- 172
PubMed Link to Article
Orr  RADimand  RJVenkataraman  STKarr  VAKennedy  KJ Diazepam and intubation in emergency treatment of seizures in children. Ann Emerg Med 1991;20 (9) 1009- 1013
PubMed Link to Article
Norris  EMarzouk  ONunn  A McIntyre  JChoonara  I Respiratory depression in children receiving diazepam for acute seizures: a prospective study. Dev Med Child Neurol 1999;41 (5) 340- 343
PubMed Link to Article
 Outpatient pharmacist quote of cost to patient at Primary Children's Medical Center February 8, 2010. http://www.drugstore.com:80/pharmacy/drugindex/rxsearch.asp?search=Diastat. Accessed May 6, 2010
Holsti  MSill  BLFirth  SDFilloux  FMJoyce  SMFurnival  RA Prehospital intranasal midazolam for the treatment of pediatric seizures. Pediatr Emerg Care 2007;23 (3) 148- 153
PubMed Link to Article
Lahat  EGoldman  MBarr  JBistritzer  TBerkovitch  M Comparison of intranasal midazolam with intravenous diazepam for treating febrile seizures in children: prospective randomised study. BMJ 2000;321 (7253) 83- 86
PubMed Link to Article
Kutlu  NOYakinci  CDogrul  MDurmaz  Y Intranasal midazolam for prolonged convulsive seizures. Brain Dev 2000;22 (6) 359- 361
PubMed Link to Article
Scheepers  MScheepers  BClarke  MComish  SIbitoye  M Is intranasal midazolam an effective rescue medication in adolescents and adults with severe epilepsy? Seizure 2000;9 (6) 417- 422
PubMed Link to Article
McGlone  RSmith  M Intranasal midazolam: an alternative in childhood seizures. Emerg Med J 2001;18 (3) 234
PubMed Link to Article
Rainbow  JBrowne  GJLam  LT Controlling seizures in the prehospital setting: diazepam or midazolam. J Paediatr Child Health 2002;38 (6) 582- 586
PubMed Link to Article
Lahat  EGoldman  MBarr  JEshel  GBerkovitch  M Intranasal midazolam for childhood seizures. Lancet 1998;352 (9128) 620
PubMed Link to Article
Mahmoudian  TZadeh  MM Comparison of intranasal midazolam with intravenous diazepam for treating acute seizure in children. Epilepsy Behav 2004;5 (2) 253- 255
PubMed Link to Article
Warden  CRFrederick  C Midazolam and diazepam for pediatric seizures in the prehospital setting. Prehosp Emerg Care 2006;10 (4) 463- 467
PubMed Link to Article
Fişgin  TGurer  YTeziç  T  et al.  Effects of intranasal midazolam and rectal diazepam on acute convulsions in children: prospective randomized study. J Child Neurol 2002;17 (2) 123- 126
PubMed Link to Article
Bhattacharyya  MKalra  VGulati  S Intranasal midazolam vs rectal diazepam in acute childhood seizures. Pediatr Neurol 2006;34 (5) 355- 359
PubMed Link to Article
Jeannet  PYRoulet  EMaeder-Ingvar  MGehri  MJutzi  ADeonna  T Home and hospital treatment of acute seizures in children with nasal midazolam. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 1999;3 (2) 73- 77
PubMed Link to Article
Fişgin  TGürer  YSenbil  N  et al.  Nasal midazolam effects on childhood acute seizures. J Child Neurol 2000;15 (12) 833- 835
PubMed Link to Article
Scheepers  MScheepers  BClough  P Midazolam via the intranasal route: an effective rescue medication for severe epilepsy in adults with a learning disability. Seizure 1998;7 (6) 509- 512
PubMed Link to Article
Harbord  MGKyrkou  NEKyrkou  MRKay  DCoulthard  KP Use of intranasal midazolam to treat acute seizures in paediatric community settings. J Paediatr Child Health 2004;40 (9-10) 556- 558
PubMed Link to Article
McIntyre  JRobertson  SNorris  E  et al.  Safety and efficiacy of buccal midazolam versus rectal diazepam for emergency treatment of seizures in children: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2005;366 (9481) 205- 210
PubMed Link to Article
Scott  RCBesag  FMNeville  BG Intranasal midazolam for treating febrile seizures in children: buccal midazolam should be preferred to nasal midazolam. BMJ 2001;322 (7278) 107
PubMed Link to Article
Scott  RCBesag  FMNeville  BG Buccal midazolam and rectal diazepam for treatment of prolonged seizures in childhood and adolescence: a randomised trial. Lancet 1999;353 (9153) 623- 626
PubMed Link to Article
Mpimbaza  ANdeezi  GStaedke  SRosenthal  PJByarugaba  J Comparison of buccal midazolam with rectal diazepam in the treatment of prolonged seizures in Ugandan children: a randomized clinical trial. Pediatrics 2008;121 (1) e58- e64
PubMed Link to Article
Scott  RC Buccal midazolam as rescue therapy for acute seizures. Lancet Neurol 2005;4 (10) 592- 593
PubMed Link to Article
Knoester  PDJonker  DMvan der Hoeven  RTM  et al.  Pharmacokinectics and pharmacodynamics of midazolam administered as a concentrated intranasal spray: a study in health volunteers. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2002;53501- 507
Link to Article
 Mucosal Atomization Device (MAD). Wolfe Tory Medical Web site. www.wolfetory.com. Accessed December 1, 2009
Hollander  MWolfe  DA The Two Sample Location Problem: 4.3 A Distribution-Free Confidence Interval Based on Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test (Moses). Hollander M, Wolfe DA. Nonparametric Statistical Methods.  New York, NY John Wiley & Sons1999;132- 135
Han  L SouthEast SAS Users Group.  Calculating the point estimate and confidence interval of Hodges-Lehmann's median using SAS® software: SESUG 2008: The Proceedings of the SouthEast SAS Users Group St Pete Beach, FL2008;http://analytics.ncsu.edu/sesug/2008/ST-154.pdf. Accessed April 8, 2009
Rey  ETréluyer  JMPons  G Pharmacokinetic optimization of benzodiazepine therapy for acute seizures. Focus on delivery routes. Clin Pharmacokinet 1999;36 (6) 409- 424
PubMed Link to Article
Ahmad  SEllis  JCKamwendo  HMolyneux  E Efficacy and safety of intranasal lorazepam versus intramuscular paraldehyde for protracted convulsions in children: an open randomised trial. Lancet 2006;367 (9522) 1591- 1597
PubMed Link to Article
Goyal  MWiznitzer  M Emergency management of seizures in children. Lancet 2006;367 (9522) 1555- 1556
PubMed Link to Article
Wallace  SJ Nasal benzodiazepines for management of acute childhood seizures? Lancet 1997;349 (9047) 222
PubMed Link to Article
Chamberlain  JMAltieri  MAFutterman  CYoung  GMOchsenschlager  DWWaisman  Y A prospective, randomized study comparing intramuscular midazolam wit intravenous diazepam for the treatment of seizures in children. Pediatr Emerg Care 1997;13 (2) 92- 94
PubMed Link to Article
Lahat  E A prospective, randomized study comparing intramuscular midazolam with intravenous diazepam for the treatment of seizures in children. Pediatr Emerg Care 1997;13 (6) 449
PubMed Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Patient enrollment flowchart. IN-MMAD indicates Intranasal-Midazolam Mucosal Atomization Device; RD, rectal diazepam.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Time from medication use to seizure cessation (difference, 1.3 minutes; 95% confidence interval, 0.0-3.5; P = .09). Confidence intervals and P values were calculated using Wilcoxon rank sum tests and Mann-Whitney U tests. IN-MMAD indicates Intranasal-Midazolam Mucosal Atomization Device; RD, rectal diazepam.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Witnessed total seizure time (difference, 2.0 minutes; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-5.7; P = .25). Confidence intervals and P values were calculated using Wilcoxon rank sum tests and Mann-Whitney Utests. IN-MMAD indicates Intranasal-Midazolam Mucosal Atomization Device; RD, rectal diazepam.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 4.

Witnessed time to medication administration (difference, 0.0 minutes; 95% confidence interval, −1.0 to 1.0; P = .57). Confidence intervals and P values were calculated using Wilcoxon rank sum tests and Mann-Whitney U tests. IN-MMAD indicates Intranasal-Midazolam Mucosal Atomization Device; RD, rectal diazepam.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Ease of Administration and Overall Satisfaction

References

Joyce  SMBrown  DENelson  EA Epidemiology of pediatric EMS practice: a multistate analysis. Prehosp Disaster Med 1996;11 (3) 180- 187
PubMed
Diller  EVernon  DDean  JMSuruda  A The epidemiology of pediatric air medical transports in Utah. Prehosp Emerg Care 1999;3 (3) 217- 224
PubMed Link to Article
Abend  NSHuh  JWHelfaer  MADlugos  DJ Anticonvulsant medications in the pediatric emergency room and intensive care unit. Pediatr Emerg Care 2008;24 (10) 705- 721
PubMed Link to Article
Treiman  DM Pharmacokinetics and clinical use of benzodiazepines in the management of status epilepticus. Epilepsia 1989;30 ((suppl 2)) S4- S10
PubMed Link to Article
Treiman  DMMeyers  PDWalton  NY  et al. Veterans Affairs Status Epilepticus Cooperative Study Group, A comparison of four treatments for generalized convulsive status epilepticus. 1998;339 (12) 792- 798
Alldredge  BKWall  DFerriero  DM Effect of pre-hospital treatment on the outcome of status epilepticus in children. Pediatr Neurol 1995;12 (3) 213- 216
PubMed Link to Article
Kriel  RLCloyd  JCHadsall  RSCarlson  AMFloren  KLJones-Saete  CM Home use of rectal diazepam for cluster and prolonged seizures: efficacy, adverse reactions, quality of life, and cost analysis. Pediatr Neurol 1991;7 (1) 13- 17
PubMed Link to Article
O’Dell  CShinnar  SBallaban-Gil  KR  et al.  Rectal diazepam gel in the home management of seizures in children. Pediatr Neurol 2005;33 (3) 166- 172
PubMed Link to Article
Orr  RADimand  RJVenkataraman  STKarr  VAKennedy  KJ Diazepam and intubation in emergency treatment of seizures in children. Ann Emerg Med 1991;20 (9) 1009- 1013
PubMed Link to Article
Norris  EMarzouk  ONunn  A McIntyre  JChoonara  I Respiratory depression in children receiving diazepam for acute seizures: a prospective study. Dev Med Child Neurol 1999;41 (5) 340- 343
PubMed Link to Article
 Outpatient pharmacist quote of cost to patient at Primary Children's Medical Center February 8, 2010. http://www.drugstore.com:80/pharmacy/drugindex/rxsearch.asp?search=Diastat. Accessed May 6, 2010
Holsti  MSill  BLFirth  SDFilloux  FMJoyce  SMFurnival  RA Prehospital intranasal midazolam for the treatment of pediatric seizures. Pediatr Emerg Care 2007;23 (3) 148- 153
PubMed Link to Article
Lahat  EGoldman  MBarr  JBistritzer  TBerkovitch  M Comparison of intranasal midazolam with intravenous diazepam for treating febrile seizures in children: prospective randomised study. BMJ 2000;321 (7253) 83- 86
PubMed Link to Article
Kutlu  NOYakinci  CDogrul  MDurmaz  Y Intranasal midazolam for prolonged convulsive seizures. Brain Dev 2000;22 (6) 359- 361
PubMed Link to Article
Scheepers  MScheepers  BClarke  MComish  SIbitoye  M Is intranasal midazolam an effective rescue medication in adolescents and adults with severe epilepsy? Seizure 2000;9 (6) 417- 422
PubMed Link to Article
McGlone  RSmith  M Intranasal midazolam: an alternative in childhood seizures. Emerg Med J 2001;18 (3) 234
PubMed Link to Article
Rainbow  JBrowne  GJLam  LT Controlling seizures in the prehospital setting: diazepam or midazolam. J Paediatr Child Health 2002;38 (6) 582- 586
PubMed Link to Article
Lahat  EGoldman  MBarr  JEshel  GBerkovitch  M Intranasal midazolam for childhood seizures. Lancet 1998;352 (9128) 620
PubMed Link to Article
Mahmoudian  TZadeh  MM Comparison of intranasal midazolam with intravenous diazepam for treating acute seizure in children. Epilepsy Behav 2004;5 (2) 253- 255
PubMed Link to Article
Warden  CRFrederick  C Midazolam and diazepam for pediatric seizures in the prehospital setting. Prehosp Emerg Care 2006;10 (4) 463- 467
PubMed Link to Article
Fişgin  TGurer  YTeziç  T  et al.  Effects of intranasal midazolam and rectal diazepam on acute convulsions in children: prospective randomized study. J Child Neurol 2002;17 (2) 123- 126
PubMed Link to Article
Bhattacharyya  MKalra  VGulati  S Intranasal midazolam vs rectal diazepam in acute childhood seizures. Pediatr Neurol 2006;34 (5) 355- 359
PubMed Link to Article
Jeannet  PYRoulet  EMaeder-Ingvar  MGehri  MJutzi  ADeonna  T Home and hospital treatment of acute seizures in children with nasal midazolam. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 1999;3 (2) 73- 77
PubMed Link to Article
Fişgin  TGürer  YSenbil  N  et al.  Nasal midazolam effects on childhood acute seizures. J Child Neurol 2000;15 (12) 833- 835
PubMed Link to Article
Scheepers  MScheepers  BClough  P Midazolam via the intranasal route: an effective rescue medication for severe epilepsy in adults with a learning disability. Seizure 1998;7 (6) 509- 512
PubMed Link to Article
Harbord  MGKyrkou  NEKyrkou  MRKay  DCoulthard  KP Use of intranasal midazolam to treat acute seizures in paediatric community settings. J Paediatr Child Health 2004;40 (9-10) 556- 558
PubMed Link to Article
McIntyre  JRobertson  SNorris  E  et al.  Safety and efficiacy of buccal midazolam versus rectal diazepam for emergency treatment of seizures in children: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2005;366 (9481) 205- 210
PubMed Link to Article
Scott  RCBesag  FMNeville  BG Intranasal midazolam for treating febrile seizures in children: buccal midazolam should be preferred to nasal midazolam. BMJ 2001;322 (7278) 107
PubMed Link to Article
Scott  RCBesag  FMNeville  BG Buccal midazolam and rectal diazepam for treatment of prolonged seizures in childhood and adolescence: a randomised trial. Lancet 1999;353 (9153) 623- 626
PubMed Link to Article
Mpimbaza  ANdeezi  GStaedke  SRosenthal  PJByarugaba  J Comparison of buccal midazolam with rectal diazepam in the treatment of prolonged seizures in Ugandan children: a randomized clinical trial. Pediatrics 2008;121 (1) e58- e64
PubMed Link to Article
Scott  RC Buccal midazolam as rescue therapy for acute seizures. Lancet Neurol 2005;4 (10) 592- 593
PubMed Link to Article
Knoester  PDJonker  DMvan der Hoeven  RTM  et al.  Pharmacokinectics and pharmacodynamics of midazolam administered as a concentrated intranasal spray: a study in health volunteers. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2002;53501- 507
Link to Article
 Mucosal Atomization Device (MAD). Wolfe Tory Medical Web site. www.wolfetory.com. Accessed December 1, 2009
Hollander  MWolfe  DA The Two Sample Location Problem: 4.3 A Distribution-Free Confidence Interval Based on Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test (Moses). Hollander M, Wolfe DA. Nonparametric Statistical Methods.  New York, NY John Wiley & Sons1999;132- 135
Han  L SouthEast SAS Users Group.  Calculating the point estimate and confidence interval of Hodges-Lehmann's median using SAS® software: SESUG 2008: The Proceedings of the SouthEast SAS Users Group St Pete Beach, FL2008;http://analytics.ncsu.edu/sesug/2008/ST-154.pdf. Accessed April 8, 2009
Rey  ETréluyer  JMPons  G Pharmacokinetic optimization of benzodiazepine therapy for acute seizures. Focus on delivery routes. Clin Pharmacokinet 1999;36 (6) 409- 424
PubMed Link to Article
Ahmad  SEllis  JCKamwendo  HMolyneux  E Efficacy and safety of intranasal lorazepam versus intramuscular paraldehyde for protracted convulsions in children: an open randomised trial. Lancet 2006;367 (9522) 1591- 1597
PubMed Link to Article
Goyal  MWiznitzer  M Emergency management of seizures in children. Lancet 2006;367 (9522) 1555- 1556
PubMed Link to Article
Wallace  SJ Nasal benzodiazepines for management of acute childhood seizures? Lancet 1997;349 (9047) 222
PubMed Link to Article
Chamberlain  JMAltieri  MAFutterman  CYoung  GMOchsenschlager  DWWaisman  Y A prospective, randomized study comparing intramuscular midazolam wit intravenous diazepam for the treatment of seizures in children. Pediatr Emerg Care 1997;13 (2) 92- 94
PubMed Link to Article
Lahat  E A prospective, randomized study comparing intramuscular midazolam with intravenous diazepam for the treatment of seizures in children. Pediatr Emerg Care 1997;13 (6) 449
PubMed Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 21

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles