Intranasal vs Buccal vs Intramuscular Midazolam for the Home and Emergency Treatment of Acute Seizures in Pediatric Egyptian Patients
Intranasal vs Buccal vs Intramuscular Midazolam for the Home and Emergency Treatment of Acute Seizures in Pediatric Egyptian Patients
A randomized controlled clinical trial comparing patient/ ER physician satisfaction and ease of administration of 3 non IV routes of midazolam as a rescue medication for seizure control. Study population included children with known seizure disorder who were prescribed midazolam by pediatric neurologist at home and those presenting to ER with following inclusion and exclusion criteria
Recruited patients randomized using previously computer-generated randomization tables prepared by expert statistician. Study was approved by the faculty ethical committee prior to its start and oral informed consent was obtained from the parents. In order to simplify the administration process a reference guide was prepared for doses according to weight for each of the 3 routes.
Two major groups were included (home and ER group) and each were subdivided into 3 groups according to route of administration
Children was randomly assigned to receive treatment with intranasal, intramuscular or buccal midazolam with doses of 0.2 mg/kg (maximum, 10 mg) body weight of the standard IV formulation of midazolam (5mg/mL) .Intranasal form was administered via a metered dose sprayer at 0.1 mL/spray (i.e. 0.5mg/spray). If the volume to be administered exceeded 1 mL, then the dose was divided between both nostrils to avoid runoff and swallowing. Administration was via sprays in each nostril (for nasal) or dripping between the cheek and the gum per side using insulin syringe (for buccal) or using 3 mm syringe in the front aspect of thigh for intramuscular injection.
Caretakers who gave the study medication recorded their observations and answered a series of questions regarding time to drug administration, seizure cessation time, seizure recurrence, need for hospitalization or ER visits and any encountered difficulties or side effects. Ease of administration of was rated using a scale prepared by expert statistian from very easy to very difficult and overall satisfaction with the medication was rated using 10-point nominal scale (0, being not satisfied and 10, greatly satisfied). Seizures that did not cease for ten minutes after drug administration and the need to use additional medication was categorized as a treatment failure criteria.
Recruited caretakers who did not spontaneously report the use of the study medication were contacted by phone monthly to address any questions and to remind them of the study. Problems with different routes of delivery were discussed, for example excessive head movements, ryle or upper respiratory tract infections and where possible suggestions and advices to help with addressed issue was provided .If a caretaker reported use of study medication at the time of the phone call, information was obtained at that time. In this group, not all children received a benzodiazepine because of different reasons: unavailability of the drug at home or at school, spontaneous resolution of seizures, difficulty in administrating the drug, or panic.
ER doctor given a brief survey after the administration to evaluate sedation, discomfort and other adverse effects of the medication as well as any administration difficulties and data for other secondary outcomes (need for additional medical support, hospitalization, repeated seizures…etc).
Inclusion Criteria:
Children aged between 1 months and 17 years
children with known seizure disorder who were prescribed midazolam by pediatric neurologist at home
Patients with generalized tonic-clonic status epilepticus with seizures accompanied by loss of consciousness with any of the following characteristics persistent at the time of study drug administration:
Exclusion Criteria: