Clinical Effectiveness and Safety of Midazolam Compared With Lorazepam for Control of Seizures in Adults

What Is the Issue? The emergency treatment of prolonged seizures or status epilepticus is required to be rapid and efficient to prevent permanent brain damage or death. Benzodiazepines, such as midazolam, lorazepam, diazepam, and clonazepam, are established as first-line treatment medications for acute treatments of seizures. Various administration routes of delivery for these drugs have become available, but the comparative clinical effectiveness and safety among administration routes are still unclear. Decision-makers are interested in whether the current use of intramuscular (IM) midazolam for treatment of seizures by paramedics in a prehospital environment can be switched to IV lorazepam as normally used by nurses and physicians in clinic settings. What Did We Do? We identified and summarized the literature on the evidence of the clinical effectiveness and safety of midazolam compared to lorazepam in adults to control seizures. We searched key resources, including journal citation databases, and conducted a focused internet search for relevant evidence published since 2019. One reviewer screened citations for inclusion based on predefined criteria, critically appraised the included studies, and narratively summarized the findings. What Did We Find? We identified 1 systematic review (SR) that included 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), only 1 was relevant to this review. This double-blind RCT determined the efficacy of IM midazolam as noninferior to IV lorazepam for treatment of seizures by paramedics in a mixed population of adults (89%) and children (11%). The authors of the SR conducted a subanalysis of a dataset of participant-level data and showed that IM midazolam was as effective and safe as IV lorazepam in adult patients for prehospital seizure cessation. The findings of the adult population were similar to those of the whole randomized population of both adults and children. What Does This Mean? With the shorter time required to administration of midazolam by the IM route compared to administration of lorazepam by the IV route, and the comparable efficacy and safety between the 2 active treatments, the use of IM midazolam may be a better option in the prehospital environment when IV access in patients with seizures is not readily established. Switching of IM midazolam to IV lorazepam for treatment of seizures by paramedics may not be practical.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Canadian Journal of Health Technologies
Published
2024-11-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.51731/cjht.2024.1019
Primary Topic
Epilepsy research and treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Clinical Effectiveness and Safety of Midazolam Compared With Lorazepam for Control of Seizures in Adults

CDA-AMC
Canadian Journal of Health Technologies
Epilepsy research and treatment
article

Clinical Effectiveness and Safety of Midazolam Compared With Lorazepam for Control of Seizures in Adults

CDA-AMC
article en

Abstract

What Is the Issue? The emergency treatment of prolonged seizures or status epilepticus is required to be rapid and efficient to prevent permanent brain damage or death. Benzodiazepines, such as midazolam, lorazepam, diazepam, and clonazepam, are established as first-line treatment medications for acute treatments of seizures. Various administration routes of delivery for these drugs have become available, but the comparative clinical effectiveness and safety among administration routes are still unclear. Decision-makers are interested in whether the current use of intramuscular (IM) midazolam for treatment of seizures by paramedics in a prehospital environment can be switched to IV lorazepam as normally used by nurses and physicians in clinic settings. What Did We Do? We identified and summarized the literature on the evidence of the clinical effectiveness and safety of midazolam compared to lorazepam in adults to control seizures. We searched key resources, including journal citation databases, and conducted a focused internet search for relevant evidence published since 2019. One reviewer screened citations for inclusion based on predefined criteria, critically appraised the included studies, and narratively summarized the findings. What Did We Find? We identified 1 systematic review (SR) that included 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), only 1 was relevant to this review. This double-blind RCT determined the efficacy of IM midazolam as noninferior to IV lorazepam for treatment of seizures by paramedics in a mixed population of adults (89%) and children (11%). The authors of the SR conducted a subanalysis of a dataset of participant-level data and showed that IM midazolam was as effective and safe as IV lorazepam in adult patients for prehospital seizure cessation. The findings of the adult population were similar to those of the whole randomized population of both adults and children. What Does This Mean? With the shorter time required to administration of midazolam by the IM route compared to administration of lorazepam by the IV route, and the comparable efficacy and safety between the 2 active treatments, the use of IM midazolam may be a better option in the prehospital environment when IV access in patients with seizures is not readily established. Switching of IM midazolam to IV lorazepam for treatment of seizures by paramedics may not be practical.

Canadian Journal of Health TechnologiesVol. 4(11)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 73%
Epilepsy research and treatment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.