Underdosing of Benzodiazepines in Patients With Status Epilepticus Enrolled in Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sathe AG
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8366410 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Underdosing of Benzodiazepines in Patients With Status Epilepticus Enrolled in Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial.
Sathe Abhishek G AG Tillman Holly H Coles Lisa D LD Elm Jordan J JJ Silbergleit Robert R Chamberlain James J Kapur Jaideep J Cock Hannah R HR Fountain Nathan B NB Shinnar Shlomo S Lowenstein Daniel H DH Conwit Robin A RA Bleck Thomas P TP Cloyd James C JC
Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine 20190718 8
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveThis study was undertaken to describe patterns of benzodiazepine use as first-line treatment of status epilepticus (SE) and test the association of benzodiazepine doses with response to second-line agents in patients enrolled in the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial (ESETT).MethodsPatients refractory to an adequate dose of benzodiazepines for the treatment of SE were enrolled in ESETT. Choice of benzodiazepine, doses given prior to administration of second-line agent, route of administration, setting, and patient weight were characterized. These were compared with guideline-recommended dosing. Logistic regression was used to determine the association of the first dose of benzodiazepine and the cumulative benzodiazepine dose with the response to second-line agent.ResultsFour hundred sixty patients were administered 1170 doses of benzodiazepines (669 lorazepam, 398 midazolam, 103 diazepam). Lorazepam was most frequently administered intravenously in the emergency department, midazolam intramuscularly or intravenously by the emergency medical services personnel, and diazepam rectally prior to ambulance arrival. The first dose of the first benzodiazepine (N = 460) was lower than guideline recommendations in 76% of midazolam administrations and 81% of lorazepam administrations. Among all administrations, >85% of midazolam and >76% of lorazepam administrations were lower than recommended. Higher first or cumulative benzodiazepine doses were not associated with better outcomes or clinical seizure cessation in response to second-line medications in these benzodiazepine-refractory seizures.SignificanceBenzodiazepines as first-line treatment of SE, particularly midazolam and lorazepam, are frequently underdosed throughout the United States. This broad and generalizable cohort confirms prior single site reports that underdosing is both pervasive and difficult to remediate. (ESETT ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01960075.).
| S-EPMC8075113 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8655269 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStatus epilepticus (SE) is a common neurological emergency condition that especially affects the elderly and old population. Older people with SE frequently have non-convulsive SE (NCSE) and are also at special risk of suffering a poor outcome. The application of benzodiazepines fails to control SE in about one third of the cases. For benzodiazepine refractory SE (BRSE) in elderly, there is little evidence that would justify the choice of one of the commonly used antiepileptic drugs. The present study aims to generate evidence for the treatment of BRSE in this age group.MethodsWe will conduct a prospective, randomized, double-blind comparative effectiveness study in more than twenty hospitals in Germany over a four-year period. Four hundred and seventy-seven elderly patients (≥ 65 years old) diagnosed with BRSE will be allocated by 1:1 randomization to receive either levetiracetam or valproate. All types of SE will be considered. For the diagnosis NCSE a verification by EEG is required. Levetiracetam or valproate will be administered in one single infusion. The primary endpoint is the stable cessation of ictal activity 15 min after the start of infusion persisting for the following 45 min of observation. EEG recording is maintained over the whole observation period, clinical examinations are conducted in predefined intervals. In case of treatment success patients and study staff remain blinded until 60 min after the start of the infusion. Adverse events will be recorded until the end of the study. EEG data will be reviewed by two external independent experts. To obtain data about the further treatment of SE, intrahospital complications and the functional outcome in the short term the study participants will be observed until the day of discharge or day 30 whichever is earliest.DiscussionToSEE is the first study which shall deliver evidence for the SE-therapy in the elderly and old population in a controlled prospective comparator study. By design it also shall collect information about therapy regimes and outcome aspects of this disease.Trial registrationThe trial has been registered at the German Clinical Trials Register on 3 July, 2020 ( DRKS00022308 , https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00022308 ).
| S-EPMC7713039 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGeneralised convulsive status epilepticus (GCSE) is a medical emergency. Guidelines recommend a stepwise strategy of benzodiazepines followed by a second-line anti-seizure medicine (ASM). However, GCSE is uncontrolled in 20-40% patients and is associated with protracted hospitalisation, disability, and mortality. The objective was to determine whether valproic acid (VPA) as complementary treatment to the stepwise strategy improves the outcomes of patients with de novo established GCSE.MethodsThis was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial in 244 adults admitted to intensive care units for GCSE in 16 French hospitals between 2013 and 2018. Patients received standard care of benzodiazepine and a second-line ASM (except VPA). Intervention patients received a 30 mg/kg VPA loading dose, then a 1 mg/kg/h 12 h infusion, whilst the placebo group received an identical intravenous administration of 0.9% saline as a bolus and continuous infusion. Primary outcome was proportion of patients discharged from hospital by day 15. The secondary outcomes were seizure control, adverse events, and cognition at day 90.ResultsA total of 126 (52%) and 118 (48%) patients were included in the VPA and placebo groups. 224 (93%) and 227 (93%) received a first-line and a second-line ASM before VPA or placebo infusion. There was no between-group difference for patients hospital-discharged at day 15 [VPA, 77 (61%) versus placebo, 72 (61%), adjusted relative risk 1.04; 95% confidence interval (0.89-1.19); p = 0.58]. There were no between-group differences for secondary outcomes.ConclusionsVPA added to the recommended strategy for adult GCSE is well tolerated but did not increase the proportion of patients hospital-discharged by day 15.Trial registration noNCT01791868 (ClinicalTrials.gov registry), registered: 15 February 2012.
| S-EPMC9830759 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveStatus epilepticus (SE) is a common neurological emergency that is defined as a prolonged seizure or a series of seizures which often leads to irreversible damage. Levetiracetam (LEV) and valproate (VPA) are second-line anti-seizure drugs that are frequently used in patients with established SE (ESE). This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of LEV and VPA for the treatment of ESE.MethodMEDLINE, EMBASE, Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and clinicaltrials.gov were searched by two authors, which identified six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared LEV and VPA for ESE.ResultsThe six RCTs included 1213 patients (LEV group, n = 593; VPA group, n = 620). Integrated patient data information display LEV was not superior to VPA in terms of clinical seizure termination (63.55% vs. 64.08%, respectively; relative risk [RR] = 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.94-1.11, p = 0.55), with no significant differences between LEV and VPA in terms of good functional outcome at discharge (Glasgow Outcome Scale [GOS] = 4 or 5), intensive care unit (ICU) admission, adverse events, and mortality. There was no statistically significant difference between the two drugs in different age groups. Previous multicenter studies have demonstrated that VPA was slightly more effective than LEV, whereas single-center studies showed the opposite results. In addition, LEV and VPA had similar rates of clinical seizure termination, ICU admission, and adverse events between the age subgroups (ages <18 and >18 years).ConclusionsLevetiracetam (LEV) was not superior to valproate (VPA) in terms of efficacy or safety outcomes. In addition, children (<18 years) and adults (>18 years) might have similar responses to LEV and VPA. Additional RCTs are required to verify our results.
| S-EPMC9932733 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Early treatment of prolonged seizures with benzodiazepines given intravenously by paramedics in the prehospital setting had been shown to be associated with improved outcomes, but the comparative efficacy and safety of an intramuscular (IM) route, which is faster and consistently achievable, was previously unknown. RAMPART (the Rapid Anticonvulsant Medication Prior to Arrival Trial) was a double-blind randomized clinical trial to determine if the efficacy of intramuscular (IM) midazolam is noninferior by a margin of 10% to that of intravenous (IV) lorazepam in patients treated by paramedics for status epilepticus (SE). In children and adults with >5 min of convulsions and who are still seizing at paramedic arrival, midazolam administered by IM autoinjector was noninferior to IV lorazepam on the primary efficacy outcome with comparable safety. Patients treated with IM midazolam were more likely to have stopped seizing at emergency department (ED) arrival, without emergency medical services (EMS) rescue therapy, and were less likely to require any hospitalization or admission to an intensive care unit. Lessons from the RAMPART study's findings and potential implications on clinical practice, on the potential role of other routes of administration, on the effect of timing of interventions, and on future clinical trials are discussed.
| S-EPMC3767187 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Refractory and super-refractory status epilepticus (SE) are serious illnesses with a high risk of morbidity and even fatality. In the setting of refractory generalized convulsive SE (GCSE), there is ample justification to use continuous infusions of highly sedating medications-usually midazolam, pentobarbital, or propofol. Each of these medications has advantages and disadvantages, and the particulars of their use remain controversial. Continuous EEG monitoring is crucial in guiding the management of these critically ill patients: in diagnosis, in detecting relapse, and in adjusting medications. Forms of SE other than GCSE (and its continuation in a "subtle" or nonconvulsive form) should usually be treated far less aggressively, often with nonsedating anti-seizure drugs (ASDs). Management of "non-classic" NCSE in ICUs is very complicated and controversial, and some cases may require aggressive treatment. One of the largest problems in refractory SE (RSE) treatment is withdrawing coma-inducing drugs, as the prolonged ICU courses they prompt often lead to additional complications. In drug withdrawal after control of convulsive SE, nonsedating ASDs can assist; medical management is crucial; and some brief seizures may have to be tolerated. For the most refractory of cases, immunotherapy, ketamine, ketogenic diet, and focal surgery are among several newer or less standard treatments that can be considered. The morbidity and mortality of RSE is substantial, but many patients survive and even return to normal function, so RSE should be treated promptly and as aggressively as the individual patient and type of SE indicate.
| S-EPMC6095773 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBenzodiazepine-refractory, or established, status epilepticus is thought to be of similar pathophysiology in children and adults, but differences in underlying aetiology and pharmacodynamics might differentially affect response to therapy. In the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial (ESETT) we compared the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate in established status epilepticus, and here we describe our results after extending enrolment in children to compare outcomes in three age groups.MethodsIn this multicentre, double-blind, response-adaptive, randomised controlled trial, we recruited patients from 58 hospital emergency departments across the USA. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 2 years or older, had been treated for a generalised convulsive seizure of longer than 5 min duration with adequate doses of benzodiazepines, and continued to have persistent or recurrent convulsions in the emergency department for at least 5 min and no more than 30 min after the last dose of benzodiazepine. Patients were randomly assigned in a response-adaptive manner, using Bayesian methods and stratified by age group (<18 years, 18-65 years, and >65 years), to levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, or valproate. All patients, investigators, study staff, and pharmacists were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was absence of clinically apparent seizures with improved consciousness and without additional antiseizure medication at 1 h from start of drug infusion. The primary safety outcome was life-threatening hypotension or cardiac arrhythmia. The efficacy and safety outcomes were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01960075.FindingsBetween Nov 3, 2015, and Dec 29, 2018, we enrolled 478 patients and 462 unique patients were included: 225 children (aged <18 years), 186 adults (18-65 years), and 51 older adults (>65 years). 175 (38%) patients were randomly assigned to levetiracetam, 142 (31%) to fosphenyltoin, and 145 (31%) were to valproate. Baseline characteristics were balanced across treatments within age groups. The primary efficacy outcome was met in those treated with levetiracetam for 52% (95% credible interval 41-62) of children, 44% (33-55) of adults, and 37% (19-59) of older adults; with fosphenytoin in 49% (38-61) of children, 46% (34-59) of adults, and 35% (17-59) of older adults; and with valproate in 52% (41-63) of children, 46% (34-58) of adults, and 47% (25-70) of older adults. No differences were detected in efficacy or primary safety outcome by drug within each age group. With the exception of endotracheal intubation in children, secondary safety outcomes did not significantly differ by drug within each age group.InterpretationChildren, adults, and older adults with established status epilepticus respond similarly to levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate, with treatment success in approximately half of patients. Any of the three drugs can be considered as a potential first-choice, second-line drug for benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus.FundingNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health.
| S-EPMC7241415 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo quantify the association between early neurologic recovery, practice pattern variation, and endotracheal intubation during established status epilepticus, we performed a secondary analysis within the cohort of patients enrolled in the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial (ESETT).MethodsWe evaluated factors associated with the endpoint of endotracheal intubation occurring within 120 minutes of ESETT study drug initiation. We defined a blocked, stepwise multivariate regression, examining 4 phases during status epilepticus management: (1) baseline characteristics, (2) acute treatment, (3) 20-minute neurologic recovery, and (4) 60-minute recovery, including seizure cessation and improving responsiveness.ResultsOf 478 patients, 117 (24.5%) were intubated within 120 minutes. Among high-enrolling sites, intubation rates ranged from 4% to 32% at pediatric sites and 19% to 39% at adult sites. Baseline characteristics, including seizure precipitant, benzodiazepine dosing, and admission vital signs, provided limited discrimination for predicting intubation (area under the curve [AUC] 0.63). However, treatment at sites with an intubation rate in the highest (vs lowest) quartile strongly predicted endotracheal intubation independently of other treatment variables (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 8.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.08-21.4, model AUC 0.70). Site-specific variation was the factor most strongly associated with endotracheal intubation after adjustment for 20-minute (aOR 23.4, 95% CI 6.99-78.3, model AUC 0.88) and 60-minute (aOR 14.7, 95% CI 3.20-67.5, model AUC 0.98) neurologic recovery.ConclusionsEndotracheal intubation after established status epilepticus is strongly associated with site-specific practice pattern variation, independently of baseline characteristics, and early neurologic recovery and should not alone serve as a clinical trial endpoint in established status epilepticus.Trial registration informationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01960075.
| S-EPMC8166444 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe choice of drugs for patients with status epilepticus that is refractory to treatment with benzodiazepines has not been thoroughly studied.MethodsIn a randomized, blinded, adaptive trial, we compared the efficacy and safety of three intravenous anticonvulsive agents - levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate - in children and adults with convulsive status epilepticus that was unresponsive to treatment with benzodiazepines. The primary outcome was absence of clinically evident seizures and improvement in the level of consciousness by 60 minutes after the start of drug infusion, without additional anticonvulsant medication. The posterior probabilities that each drug was the most or least effective were calculated. Safety outcomes included life-threatening hypotension or cardiac arrhythmia, endotracheal intubation, seizure recurrence, and death.ResultsA total of 384 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive levetiracetam (145 patients), fosphenytoin (118), or valproate (121). Reenrollment of patients with a second episode of status epilepticus accounted for 16 additional instances of randomization. In accordance with a prespecified stopping rule for futility of finding one drug to be superior or inferior, a planned interim analysis led to the trial being stopped. Of the enrolled patients, 10% were determined to have had psychogenic seizures. The primary outcome of cessation of status epilepticus and improvement in the level of consciousness at 60 minutes occurred in 68 patients assigned to levetiracetam (47%; 95% credible interval, 39 to 55), 53 patients assigned to fosphenytoin (45%; 95% credible interval, 36 to 54), and 56 patients assigned to valproate (46%; 95% credible interval, 38 to 55). The posterior probability that each drug was the most effective was 0.41, 0.24, and 0.35, respectively. Numerically more episodes of hypotension and intubation occurred in the fosphenytoin group and more deaths occurred in the levetiracetam group than in the other groups, but these differences were not significant.ConclusionsIn the context of benzodiazepine-refractory convulsive status epilepticus, the anticonvulsant drugs levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate each led to seizure cessation and improved alertness by 60 minutes in approximately half the patients, and the three drugs were associated with similar incidences of adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; ESETT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01960075.).
| S-EPMC7098487 | biostudies-literature