Francesco Brigo1,2, Raffaele Nardone3,4, Frediano Tezzon3, Eugen Trinka4,5,6. 1. Section of Clinical Neurology, Department of Neurological and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Piazzale L.A. Scuro, 10, 37134, Verona, Italy. dr.francescobrigo@gmail.com. 2. Department of Neurology, Franz Tappeiner Hospital, Merano, Italy. dr.francescobrigo@gmail.com. 3. Department of Neurology, Franz Tappeiner Hospital, Merano, Italy. 4. Department of Neurology, Christian Doppler Klinik, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria. 5. Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria. 6. Department of Public Health Technology Assessment, UMIT, University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intranasal and buccal midazolam have recently emerged as possible alternatives to intravenous or rectal diazepam or intravenous lorazepam in the treatment of early status epilepticus (SE). However, to date no randomized controlled trial (RCT) has directly compared intranasal midazolam with buccal midazolam. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to indirectly compare intranasal midazolam with buccal midazolam in the treatment of early SE using common reference-based indirect comparison meta-analyses. METHODS: RCTs comparing intranasal or buccal midazolam versus either intravenous or rectal diazepam for early SE were systematically searched. Random-effects Mantel-Haenszel meta-analyses were performed to obtain odds ratios (ORs) for the efficacy and safety of intranasal or buccal midazolam versus either intravenous or rectal diazepam. Adjusted indirect comparisons were then made between intranasal and buccal midazolam using the obtained results. RESULTS: Fifteen studies, with a total of 1662 seizures in 1331 patients (some studies included patients with more than one episode of SE) were included; 1303 patients were younger than 16 years. Indirect comparisons showed no difference between intranasal and buccal midazolam for seizure cessation (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.32-3.01, comparator: intravenous diazepam; OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.46-1.64, comparator: rectal diazepam). For serious adverse effects, we found a large width and asymmetrical distribution of confidence intervals around the obtained OR of 2.81 (95% CI 0.39-20.12; comparator: rectal diazepam). No data were available for OR using intravenous diazepam as the comparator. CONCLUSIONS: Indirect comparisons suggest that intranasal and buccal midazolam share similar efficacy in the treatment of early SE in children. Intranasal midazolam should be used with caution and under clinical monitoring of vital functions. RCTs directly comparing intranasal midazolam with buccal midazolam are required to confirm these findings.
BACKGROUND: Intranasal and buccal midazolam have recently emerged as possible alternatives to intravenous or rectal diazepam or intravenous lorazepam in the treatment of early status epilepticus (SE). However, to date no randomized controlled trial (RCT) has directly compared intranasal midazolam with buccal midazolam. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to indirectly compare intranasal midazolam with buccal midazolam in the treatment of early SE using common reference-based indirect comparison meta-analyses. METHODS: RCTs comparing intranasal or buccal midazolam versus either intravenous or rectal diazepam for early SE were systematically searched. Random-effects Mantel-Haenszel meta-analyses were performed to obtain odds ratios (ORs) for the efficacy and safety of intranasal or buccal midazolam versus either intravenous or rectal diazepam. Adjusted indirect comparisons were then made between intranasal and buccal midazolam using the obtained results. RESULTS: Fifteen studies, with a total of 1662 seizures in 1331 patients (some studies included patients with more than one episode of SE) were included; 1303 patients were younger than 16 years. Indirect comparisons showed no difference between intranasal and buccal midazolam for seizure cessation (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.32-3.01, comparator: intravenous diazepam; OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.46-1.64, comparator: rectal diazepam). For serious adverse effects, we found a large width and asymmetrical distribution of confidence intervals around the obtained OR of 2.81 (95% CI 0.39-20.12; comparator: rectal diazepam). No data were available for OR using intravenous diazepam as the comparator. CONCLUSIONS: Indirect comparisons suggest that intranasal and buccal midazolam share similar efficacy in the treatment of early SE in children. Intranasal midazolam should be used with caution and under clinical monitoring of vital functions. RCTs directly comparing intranasal midazolam with buccal midazolam are required to confirm these findings.
Authors: John McIntyre; Sue Robertson; Elizabeth Norris; Richard Appleton; William P Whitehouse; Barbara Phillips; Tim Martland; Kathleen Berry; Jacqueline Collier; Stephanie Smith; Imti Choonara Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Jul 16-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Gerrit-Jan de Haan; Peter van der Geest; Gerard Doelman; Edward Bertram; Peter Edelbroek Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2009-10-08 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Jeannette Kadel; Sebastian Bauer; Anke M Hermsen; Ilka Immisch; Lara Kay; Karl Martin Klein; Susanne Knake; Katja Menzler; Philipp S Reif; Felix Rosenow; Adam Strzelczyk Journal: CNS Drugs Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 5.749
Authors: Alejandra Vasquez; Marina Gaínza-Lein; Nicholas S Abend; Marta Amengual-Gual; Anne Anderson; Ravindra Arya; J Nicholas Brenton; Jessica L Carpenter; Kevin Chapman; Justice Clark; Raquel Farias-Moeller; William D Gaillard; Tracy Glauser; Joshua L Goldstein; Howard P Goodkin; Rejean M Guerriero; Kush Kapur; Yi-Chen Lai; Tiffani L McDonough; Mohamad A Mikati; Lindsey A Morgan; Edward J Novotny; Adam P Ostendorf; Eric T Payne; Katrina Peariso; Juan Piantino; James J Riviello; Kumar Sannagowdara; Robert C Tasker; Dmitry Tchapyjnikov; Alexis Topjian; Mark S Wainwright; Angus Wilfong; Korwyn Williams; Tobias Loddenkemper Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-09-10 Impact factor: 9.910