Journal of ISSN: 2373-4426JPNC

Pediatrics & Neonatal Care
Research Article
Volume 5 Issue 7 - 2016
Buccal Clonazepam versus Intravenous (I/V) Midazolam for Management of Acute Breakthrough Seizure –A Randomized Controlled Trial
Surender Kumar1*, Anita Sikand Bakshi2, Raktima Chakrabarti3 and Veena Kalra4
1Department of Pediatrics, Apollo Hospital, India
2Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Apollo Hospital, India
3Department of Pediatrics and Neonatology, W hospital by Pratiksha, India
4Professor and Head of the Department, Department of Pediatric Neurology, Apollo Hospital, India
Received: June 14, 2016 | Published: December 01, 2016
*Corresponding author: Surender Kumar, Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, Tel: 9953570052; Email:
Citation: Kumar S, Bakshi AS, Chakrabarti R, Kalra V (2016) Buccal Clonazepam versus Intravenous (I/V) Midazolam for Management of Acute Breakthrough Seizure –A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Pediatr Neonatal Care 5(7): 00211. DOI: 10.15406/jpnc.2016.05.00211

Abstract

Objectives: To compare efficacy and safety of buccal Clonazepam with I/V Midazolam in acute seizure therapy.

Methods: A prospective, open label randomized controlled trial done on children with acute breakthrough seizure in known epileptics .200 breakthrough episodes were randomized to inject able midazolam (0.2mg/kg) or buccal clonazepam (0.01mg/kg) given on even days (IV Midazolam) and odd days (buccal Clonazepam).

Results: Ninety two (92.0%) seizures were controlled IV Midazolam and eighty six (86.0%) in buccal Clonazepam group. No statistical significant (p=0.175) was observed .Recurrence after initial control was 8.0% in IV Midazolam and 9.0% in buccal Clonazepam group with no statistical significant (p=0.800) .Vital monitoring parameters maintained in both groups .16.0% revealed adverse reactions 10 min post drug administration, 4.0% in the midazolam, and 12.0% in clonazepam group (p value=0.119). Adverse effects required no intervention.

Conclusions: Buccal clonazepam demonstrated equivalence in safety &efficacy to the I/V midazolam given in acute breakthrough seizure.

Keywords: Breakthrough seizure; Buccal clonazepam; Domiciliary treatment; Seizure; Midazolam; Epilepticus

Introduction

Seizures are one of the commonest neurological symptoms seen in children. Recurrent seizures could ensue from epilepsy, febrile seizures, provoked seizures, drug inefficacy or with, or due to unknown or systemic illnesses [1]. A breakthrough seizure is an epileptic seizure that occurs, despite the use of anticonvulsants that have otherwise successfully prevented seizures in the patient. Breakthrough seizures may be more dangerous than non-breakthrough seizures as they are less expected by the patient. Epileptics with a higher intensity of seizures are more likely to suffer from a breakthrough seizure. Rates of breakthrough seizures vary; studies have shown the rates of breakthrough seizures ranging from 11-37 % [2,3].

BZD are the first line anticonvulsants for treating status epilepticus and acute repetitive seizures. They offer the most rapid cessation of seizure activity regardless of the etiology. They are easy to administer, effective, have a quick onset of action and cross the blood brain barrier early [4]. Hence their role in the emergency management of acute seizures. Intermittent use of BZD is especially suitable for patients with clusters of repetitive seizures. BZDs are versatile drugs, have broad spectrum of activity and can be administered by several routes [5-7].

The present study compared buccal clonazepam v/s IV midazolam as standard care of treatment for acute seizure. If safe and efficacious the therapy can be extrapolated to domiciliary setting.

Methods

200 acute breakthrough seizure episodes were randomized to either inj midazolam (0.2mg/kg) or buccal clonazepam (0.01mg/kg) respectively. 100 episodes in each group were studied. Randomization was done on the basis of even days (IV Midazolam) and odd days (buccal Clonazepam). Severe cardiopulmonary compromised patients were excluded from the study .Study design is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Study flow diagram.

Efficacy

Defined as cessation of all clinical seizure activity within five minutes of drug administration.

Treatment failure

Seizures do not get aborted within five minutes after treatment.

Recurrent seizure

Seizures which were controlled with midazolam or clonazepam but recurred within 10 minutes of drug administration.

Monitoring

Patients were monitored for vital parameters including heart rate, respiratory rate, blood pressure, saturation for ten minutes. The side effects of each drug were compared in different age groups with different semiology and etiology of seizures. We used Clonazepam (0.25/0.50/1.00mg) mouth dissolving dispersible clonazepam tablets.

Statistical Analysis

Data was recorded on a predesigned proforma and it was managed on a Microsoft Excel spread sheet. Statistical analysis was performed using software between the 2 groups: IV Midazolam and Buccal clonazepam. Categorical variables were summarized by frequency .Proportions were compared by chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test (where expected frequency <5). Continuous variables having a normal distribution were summarized by mean and standard deviation; for others median was used .for continuous variables, student’s ‘t’ test , Mann Whitney U test or Wilcoxon signed rank sum test were applied as appropriate .P value of <0.05 was taken as significant .

Results

The baseline characteristics of two drug groups with respect to age, sex, etiology of seizures, types of seizure, duration of seizure,EEG,neuroimaging were statistically comparable (<p value 0.05) as shown in Table 1, Figure 2 &3.

 

Midazolam

Clonazepam

P value

Total Seizure Episodes

100

100

-

Total Children

38

36

-

Age,(years)
Mean ±SD

 

5.23±4.85

 

4.35±3.65

 

0.708

Sex
Male (%)
Female (%)

 

23(60.5%)
15(39.5%)

 

24(66.7%)
12(33.3%)

 

0.583

Family history

2(2.0%)

3(3.0%)

0.670

Abnormal neurological examination

15(39.5%)

11(30.6%)

0.422

Developmental delay

9(23.7%)

10(27.8%)

0.687

Abnormal Neuroimaging

21(55.2%)

18(50.0%)

0.629

EEG

21(55.2%)

24(66.6%)

0.925

Duration of acute seizure (Minutes)prior to randomization
Mean
SD

 

3.39
1.925

 

3.56
1.796

 

0.559

Table 1: Comparison of baseline characteristics in IV midazolam and buccal clonazepam acute break through seizure.

Figure 2: Seizure semiology in study groups (n=100).
GTCS=Generalized tonic clonic; Myo=Myoclonus; Sp=Simple partial seizure; CP=Complex partial seizure.
Figure 3: Comparison of etiology in both study groups (n=74).
AFS: Atypical Febrile Seizure; ME: Meningoencephalitis; WS: West’s Syndrome; IEM: Inborn Error of Metabolism; ICSOL: Intracranial Space Occupying Lesion; CBM: Congenital Brain Malformation; TLE: Temporal Lobe Epilepsy; HIE: Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy; HC: Hypocalcemic Seizure; IS: Idiopathic Seizure

Ninety two (92.0%) seizure episodes were controlled in IV Midazolam group Vs eighty six (86.0%) in buccal Clonazepam group. The difference was not statistically significant (p=0.175). Recurrence after initial control was eight (8.0%) in IV Midazolam group and nine (9.0%) in buccal Clonazepam group, the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.800). Vital monitoring did not reveals any significant difference in both groups. Total of sixteen (16.0%) adverse reactions were observed after 10 min of drug administration in both groups, four (4.0%) in the IV midazolam group, and twelve (12.0%) in the buccal clonazepam group (p value=0.119). All adverse effects were transient, and No intervention was required.

Discussion

Among the various routes of drug delivery, the oral route is the most preferred by the patient and the clinician .Oral administration of drugs have disadvantages such as hepatic first pass metabolism, enzymatic degradation within the GI tracts, that prohibits oral administration of drugs especially peptides and proteins. Consequently, other absorptive mucosae are considered sites for drug administration [8]. Transmucosal routes of drug delivery (i.e., the mucosal linings of the nose, rectum, and vagina, ocular and oral cavity) offer potential systemic drug delivery. The advantages include possible bypass of first pass effect, avoidance of presystemic elimination within the GI tract, and, a better enzymatic flora for drug absorption [9].

At prehospitalization and domiciliary care level when IV/IM drug administration is difficult, non conventional routes need to be harnessed. An ideal AED should be safe, effective, easy to administer, rapid acting and cost effective. Rectal diazepam emerged as the primary treatment option for breakthrough seizures in the past. However rectal diazepam has slower onset of action than the intravenously delivered drug and is not as effective at controlling seizures (10).Other disadvantages include low social acceptability and high cost of the commercial preparation [10-12].

 Intranasal (I/N) midazolam was safe and effective in numerous clinical trials [13-19]. On I/N route drug is directly absorbed into the blood and CSF via nasal mucosa. The drug should however be highly concentrated and delivered directly to the mucosa. If the drug is not given in proper position it can go directly into the pharynx rendering it ineffective. The volume limit is about 0.5 ml per nostril hence the practice of using both nostrils. Upper respiratory tract infections may interfere with absorption [20,21] Intramuscular (I/M) midazolam was effective in various trial in controlling acute seizure when I/V access not available but injection is painful to the child so not acceptable socially [23].

The oral mucosa allows rapid drug absorption of directly into systemic circulation. However during a convulsion risk for aspiration is serious .The sublingual route is difficult in a tightly clenched jaw during the tonic phase of the seizure [24].

The buccal route of BZD (between cheek and gums) studied with midazolam and lorazepam was found effective in controlling acute seizures and does not require the teeth to be parted .Buccal route is more accessible than the rectal route [25-27].

An acute breakthrough seizure adds unwanted cost of hospitalisation, burden of investigations & injections besides psychologic stress. Domiciliary Buccal clonazepam possibly reduce hospitalisation, and status episodes.

 Subjects were randomized to Buccal clonazepam v/s I/V midazolam comparable for age, sex, seizure type, etiology, abnormal neurological examination, neuroimaging, EEG, duration of acute breakthrough seizure, prior drug intake and other base line characteristics.

Efficacy

The efficacy of IV midazolam and buccal clonazepam in controlling acute breakthrough seizure episode in our study was 92.0% and 86.0% respectively. There was no statistical difference (p=0.175). There is no reported study on buccal clonazepam till date, though the drug has been used by many investigators in treating acute seizure with reported benefit [28-30].This study compared safety, efficacy of buccal clonazepam with a standard of care drug IV midazolam in acute seizures. In our study buccal clonazepam demonstrated efficacy equivalence to IV Midazolam. The easily availability, low cost, easy to use by caregiver make it a practical alternative (shown in Table 2). Larger studied are recommended.

BZDs(Various Routes)

Efficacy

Cost Effectiveness

Rectal diazepam

27-100%

2.5 mg= Rs 30 + cost of drug administration

Intramuscular midazolam

93-100%

10 ml inj= Rs 83+cost of drug administration

Intranasal midazolam

85-97%

Nasal spray =Rs 297 (50 doses)

Buccal midazolam

75-87%

10 ml inj= Rs 83+cost of drug administration

Sublingual lorazepam

79.5%

NA in India

Buccal clonazepam (present study)

86%

0.25 mg = Rs 0.91 (lowest cost)

Table 2:Comparison of cost and efficacy of various routes of BZD use.

NA –Not available

Safety

 Vital monitoring did not reveal any significant difference in both groups. Total of sixteen (16.0%) adverse reactions were observed after 10 min of drug administration in both groups, four (4.0%) in the IV midazolam group, and twelve (12.0%) in the buccal clonazepam group (p value=0.119). All adverse effects were transient, and no intervention was required.

Recurrence after primary control

 Seizure recurrence within 10 min of use is an important aspect not addressed by any study so far with other BZD. In our study recurrence after initial control was Eight (8.0%) in IV Midazolam group and nine (9.0%) in buccal Clonazepam group, the difference was not statistical significance (p=0.800).

Conclusion

Buccal clonazepam demonstrated equivalence to I/V midazolam in controlling acute breakthrough seizure .When extrapolated to domiciliary setting it is likely to be a safe option with capability of decreasing status episodes, hospitalisation and thus reducing economic burden and psychological stress to the family .

Acknowledgments

This RCT was done at Indraprastha Apollo hospital New Delhi and has been presented at Indian academy of pediatrics (IAP) Delhi branch for Dr Sarla Vaishnavi award in Jan 2012 .Had not been sent to any journal earlier. Authors also acknowledge the help and support. Provided by the Department of emergency Indraprastha Apollo hospital, New Delhi

Author Contribution

ASB, RC, and VK contributed to the study concept and design. SK acquired the data and drafted the manuscript. ASB, RC performed critical reviews of the manuscript. VK acted as supervisor and approved the final manuscript.

Ethical Approval

Study was approved by medical ethical committee of Indraprastha Apollo hospital New Delhi.

References

  1. Behrman (2007) Nelson’s Text book of Pediatrics 18th edition. Seizures in childhood , pp. 593-595.
  2. Cereghino JJ (2007) Identification and treatment of acute repetitive seizures in children and adults. Curr Treat Options Neurol 9(4): 249-255.
  3. Adiga Radhika K , Ettinger Alan B (2008) Breakthrough Seizures-Approach to Prevention and Diagnosis. US Neurology 4(1): 40-43.
  4. Riss J, Cloyd J, Gates J, Collins S (2008) Benzodiazepines in epilepsy: pharmacology and pharmacokinetics. Acta Neurol Scand 118(2): 69-86.
  5. Ko DY, Rho JM, De Giorgio CM (1998) Benzodiazepines. In: Engel J Jr & Pedley TA (eds). Epilepsy: a comprehensive textbook. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, USA, pp. 1475-1489.
  6. Shader RI, Greenblatt DJ (1979) Benzodiazepines; some aspects of their clinical pharmacology. Ciba Found symp 74: 141-155.
  7. Cesare T Lombroso (1989) Intermittent home management of status and clusters of seizure. Epilepsia 30(Supp 2): 11-14.
  8. Zhang Hao, Zhang Jie, Streisand, James. Oral Mucosal Drug Delivery: Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Therapeutic Applications. Clin Pharmacokinet 41(9): 661-668.
  9. Amir H Shojaei (1998) Buccal mucosa as a route for systemic drug delivery: A Review. J Pharm Pharmaceut Sci 1(1) : 15 -30.
  10.  Diekmann RA (1994) Rectal diazepam for Prehospital pediatric status epilepticus. Ann Emerg Med 23(2): 216-365.
  11.  Fitzerald BJ, Okos AJ, Miller JW (2003) Treatment of out of hospital status epilepticus with rectal diazepam gel. Seizure 12(1): 52-55.
  12.  Cereghino JJ, Mitchell WG, Murphy J, Kriel RL, Rosenfeld WE, et al. (1998) Treating repetitive seizures with a rectal diazepam formulation: a randomized study. Neurology 51: 1274-1282.
  13.  Jeannet PY, Roulet E, Maeder-Ingvar M, Gehri M, Jutzi A, et al. (1999) Home and hospital treatment of acute seizures in children with nasal midazolam. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 3(2): 73-77.
  14.  Kutlu NO, Yakinci C, Dogrul M, Durmaz Y (2000) Intranasal midazolam for prolonged convulsive seizures. Brain Dev 22(6): 359-361.
  15.  FiÅŸgin T, Gurer Y, Teziç T, Senbil N, Zorlu P, et al. (2002) Effects of intranasal midazolam and rectal diazepam on acute convulsions in children: prospective randomized study. J Child Neurol 17(2): 123-126.
  16.  Bhattacharyya, Kalra, Gulati S (2006) Intranasal midazolam v/s rectal diazepam in acute childhood seizures. Paediatr Neurol 34(5): 355-359.
  17. Conroy S, Morton R, Dixon H, Porter A, Choonara I (2000) A prospective study of intranasal midazolam for children with acute seizures. Paediatric and Perinatal Drug Therapy 4(2): 52.
  18.  Mahmoudian T, Mohammadi ZM (2004) Comparison of intranasal midazolam with intravenous diazepam for treating acute seizures in children. Epilepsy behav 5(2): 253-255.
  19.  Ahmad S, Ellis JC, Kamwendo H, Molyneux E (2006) Efficacy and safety of intranasal lorazepam versus intramuscular paraldehyde for protracted convulsions in children: an open randomised trial. Lancet 367(9522): 1591-1597.
  20.  O'Regan ME, Brown JK, Clarke M (1996) Nasal rather than rectal benzodiazepines in the management of acute childhood seizures? Dev Med Child Neurol 38(11): 1037-1045.
  21.  Lahat E, Goldman M, Barr J, Bistritzer T, Berkovitch M (2000) Comparison of intranasal midazolam with intravenous diazepam for treating febrile seizures in children: prospective randomised study. BMJ 321(7253): 83-86.
  22.  Chamberlain JM, Altieri MA, Futterman C, Young GM, Ochsenschlager DW, et al. (1997) A Prospective Randomised Study Comparing Intramuscular Midazolam with Intravenous Diazepam for Treatment of Seizures in Children. Pediatr Emerg Care 13: 92-94.
  23. Shah I, Deshmukh CT (2005) Intramuscular midazolam to control acute seizures. Indian J Pediatr 72 (8): 667-670.
  24.  Yager JY, Seshia SS (1988) Sublingual lorazepam in childhood serial seizures. Am J Dis Child 142(9): 931-932.
  25.  Scott RC, Besag FM, Boyd SG, Berry D, Neville BG (1998) Buccal absorption of midazolam: pharmacokinetics and EEG pharmacodynamics. Epilepsia 39(3): 290-294.
  26.  Kutlu NO, Dogrul M, Yakinci C, Soylu H (2003) Buccal midazolam for treatment of prolonged seizures in children. Brain Dev 25(4):275-278.
  27.  McIntyre J, Robertson S, Norris E, Appleton R, Whitehouse WP, et al. (2005) Safety and efficacy of buccal midazolam versus rectal diazepam for emergency treatment of seizures in children: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 366(9481): 205-210.
  28. Schols-Hendriks MW, Lohman JJ, Janknegt R, Korten JJ, Merkus FW, et al. (1995) Absorption of clonazepam after intranasal and buccal administration. Br J clin Pharmac 39(4): 449-451.
  29. Sakata O, Onishi H, Machida Y (2008) Clonazepam Oral Droplets for the Treatment of Acute Epileptic Seizures. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 34(12): 1376-1380.
  30. Troester MM, Hastriter EV, Ng YT (2010) Dissolving Oral Clonazepam Wafers in the acute Treatment of Prolonged Seizure Child Neurol 25(12): 1468-1472.
© 2014-2016 MedCrave Group, All rights reserved. No part of this content may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means as per the standard guidelines of fair use.
Creative Commons License Open Access by MedCrave Group is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://medcraveonline.com
Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version | Opera |Privacy Policy