Search

This network meta-analysis aims to compare various benzodiazepines and their route of administration using the data published exclusively in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two thousand two hundred sixty-three children presenting with an episode of seizure to ER or to a paramedic where they were administered a benzodiazepine as the first-line treatment were included. All the outcomes were measured for their mean with 95% CI and rank probability. The primary outcome was the number of successful seizure cessation. Secondary outcomes were the time interval between drug administration and seizure cessation, the time interval between patient arrival and seizure cessation and the number of episodes of seizure recurrence after drug administration. For the number of successful cessations, intramuscular midazolam showed the highest mean and best rank probability with a value of .881 (.065) and 57.9%, respectively. For the time of cessation, both intravenous lorazepam (IVL) and intravenous diazepam showed a mean of 3.30 (1.30) with IVL having the highest rank probability of 32%. For total time for cessation, intranasal midazolam showed the best mean and rank probability with a value of 4.3 (1.1) and 55%, respectively. Buccal midazolam showed the lowest mean with a value of .106 (.084) for rate of recurrence. Although there was no significant difference between the treatments, but based on the rank probability, IVL shows more promising results for patients who already have an established intravenous line, and for patients presenting in the ER without an intravenous line, the first line of treatment should be INM as it shows the highest rank probability in total time with second-highest successful cessation rate.

The excessive prescription of benzodiazepines is putting more people at risk of dependence on these drugs and is exacerbating the fatal overdose toll of opioids. A rapid and sensitive SERS method has been developed for trace detection of select benzodiazepines in low-dosage suspect counterfeit tablets, capsules, and injectable solutions using two different portable handheld Raman spectrometers equipped with either a 785-nm laser or a 1064-nm laser. A total of 169 samples and blanks were examined using five handheld Raman spectrometers, which provided data set of 729 examinations. The extraction/SERS procedures yielded true positive rates above 90% for alprazolam, diazepam, and midazolam using the 1064-nm device and yielded true positive rates above 95% for alprazolam, clonazepam, diazepam, estazolam, midazolam, and temazepam using the 785-nm device; however, the extraction/SERS procedures yielded true positive rates below 60% for lorazepam and triazolam. The minimum concentration (Cmin ) of the benzodiazepine standards that reproducibly yielded a positive match ranged from 1 to 10 μg/ml using the 1064-nm laser device and from 0.5 to 50 μg/ml using the 785-nm laser device. For the analysis of authentic and suspect counterfeit tablets containing these benzodiazepines, the measured Cmin ranged between 10 and 15 µg per tablet or capsule for 1064-nm laser device and 1-100 µg per tablet or capsule for 785-nm laser device. The developed methods are simple, rapid, and ideal for screening suspect benzodiazepine-containing pharmaceutical products at satellite laboratories located within or near international mail facilities and express courier hubs.

Polypharmacy is common among patients taking prescription opioids long-term, and the codispensing of interacting medications may further increase opioid overdose risk. To identify nonopioid medications that may increase opioid overdose risk in this population, we conducted a case-crossover-based screening of electronic claims data from IBM MarketScan and Optum Clinformatics Data Mart spanning 2003 through 2019. Eligible patients were 18 years of age or older and had at least 180 days of continuous enrollment and 90 days of prescription opioid use immediately before an opioid overdose resulting in an emergency room visit or hospitalization. The main analysis quantified the odds ratio (OR) between opioid overdose and each nonopioid medication dispensed in the 90 days immediately before the opioid overdose date after adjustment for prescription opioid dosage and benzodiazepine codispensing. Additional analyses restricted to patients without cancer diagnoses and individuals who used only oxycodone for 90 days immediately before the opioid overdose date. The false discovery rate (FDR) was used to account for multiple testing. We identified 24,866 individuals who experienced opioid overdose. Baclofen (OR 1.56; FDR < 0.01; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.29 to 1.89), lorazepam (OR 1.53; FDR < 0.01; 95% CI, 1.25 to 1.88), and gabapentin (OR 1.16; FDR = 0.09; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.28), among other nonopioid medications, were associated with opioid overdose. Similar patterns were observed in noncancer patients and individuals who used only oxycodone. Interventions may focus on prescribing safer alternatives when a potential for interaction exists.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES Psychotropic and opioid medications are routinely prescribed for symptom management in hospice, but national estimates of prescribing are lacking. Changes in Medicare hospice payment in 2014 provide the first opportunity to examine psychotropic and opioid prescribing among hospice beneficiaries, and the factors associated with use of specific medication classes. DESIGN Cross-sectional analysis of a 20% sample of traditional and managed Medicare with Part D enrolled in hospice, 2014-2016. SETTING Beneficiaries enrolled in the Medicare hospice benefit. PARTICIPANTS Medicare beneficiaries ≥65 newly enrolled in hospice between July 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016 (N = 554,022). MAIN OUTCOME Prevalence of psychotropic and opioid medication prescribing by class and factors associated with prescribing. RESULTS 70.3% of hospice beneficiaries were prescribed a psychotropic and 63.3% were prescribed an opioid. The most common psychotropic classes prescribed were: benzodiazepines (60.6%), antipsychotics (38.3%), antidepressants (18.4%), and antiepileptics (10.2%). Lorazepam (56.4%), morphine (52.8%), and haloperidol (28.6%) were received by the most beneficiaries. Prevalence of any psychotropic and opioid prescription was highest among beneficiaries who were female (76.7%), non-Hispanic white (76.6%), and those with cancer (78.9%). Compared to white beneficiaries, non-Hispanic black beneficiaries were less likely to receive nearly every class of medication, with significantly lower odds of receiving opioids (64.1% vs 57.9%; AOR 0.75, 95% CI 0.72-0.77) and benzodiazepines (61.6% vs 52.2%; AOR 0.66, 95% CI 0.64-0.68). Differences were seen across hospice diagnosis; those with cancer were more likely to receive opioids, benzodiazepines, and antipsychotics but less likely to receive antidepressants and antiepileptics. CONCLUSIONS Psychotropic and opioid medications are frequently prescribed in hospice. Observed variations in prescribing across race and ethnicity may reflect disparities in prescribing as well as patient preferences for care. Further work is important to understand factors driving prescribing given limited studies surrounding medication prescribing in hospice.

Although seizures are common in prehospital settings, standardized emergency medical services (EMS) treatment algorithms do not exist nationally. We examined nationwide variability in status epilepticus treatment by analyzing 33 publicly available statewide EMS protocols. All adult protocols recommend intravenous benzodiazepines (midazolam, n = 33; lorazepam, n = 23; diazepam, n = 24), 30 recommend intramuscular benzodiazepines (midazolam, n = 30; lorazepam, n = 8; diazepam, n = 3), and 27 recommend intranasal benzodiazepines (midazolam, n = 27; lorazepam, n = 3); pediatric protocols also frequently recommend rectal diazepam (n = 14). Recommended dosages vary widely, and first- and second-line agents are designated in only 18 and 2 states, respectively. Given this degree of variability, standardized national EMS guidelines are needed. ANN NEUROL 2021;89:604-609.

BACKGROUND The optimal agent to treat acute agitation in the emergency department (ED) has not been determined. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of intramuscular droperidol, ziprasidone, and lorazepam for acute agitation in the ED. METHODS This was a randomized, double-blind trial of ED patients with acute agitation requiring parenteral sedation. The study was conducted under exception from informed consent (21 CFR 50.24) from July 2004 to March 2005. Patients were randomized to receive 5 mg of droperidol, 10 mg of ziprasidone, 20 mg of ziprasidone, or 2 mg of lorazepam intramuscularly. We recorded Altered Mental Status Scale (AMSS) scores, nasal end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2 ), and pulse oximetry (SpO2 ) at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 minutes as well as QTc durations and dysrhythmias. Respiratory depression was defined as a change in ETCO2 consistent with respiratory depression or SpO2

Objective Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) are immune-mediated diseases characterized by an extensive loss of the epidermal skin layer, often resulting in death. SJS and TEN are often triggered by certain drugs, including antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Epilepsy is very difficult to treat and often involves the combination of two or more AEDs. In this study, we quantified not only the risk of SJS or TEN associated with single-AED therapy but also the risk related to concomitant AED treatment using reporting-derived signals. Methods An analysis of the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report (JADER) database was performed from the first quarter of 2004 to the fourth quarter of 2018. The single-AED signals were evaluated using the proportional reporting ratio (PRR), and the combination therapy signals were evaluated using Ω shrinkage measure and combination risk ratio (CRR). Results SJS signals were associated with 11 AEDs, and TEN signals were related to 12 AEDs. Moreover, the following AED combinations were associated with SJS signals: carbamazepine-lorazepam (Ω025 : 0.33, CRR: 2.18) and fosphenytoin-lorazepam (Ω025 : 0.99, CRR: 39.20). The TEN signals were related to the following combinations: clobazam-gabapentin (Ω025 : 0.35, CRR: 3.14), phenytoin-gabapentin (Ω025 : 0.03, CRR: 2.18), valproic acid-gabapentin (Ω025 : 0.15, CRR: 2.25), clobazam-clonazepam (Ω025 : 0.03, CRR: 2.93), clobazam-valproic acid (Ω025 : 0.29, CRR: 1.55), fosphenytoin-lamotrigine (Ω025 : 0.05, CRR: 7.37), and lacosamide-levetiracetam (Ω025 : 0.74, CRR: 1.85). Significance This study identified two AED combinations that increased the SJS signals and seven combinations that increased the TEN signals. Although AED monotherapies require attention for SJS and TEN, some AED combinations require extra caution.

Background Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) and traumatic brain injury (TBI) present with similar signs and symptoms, yet their treatment strategies differ greatly. AWS treatment includes the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment (CIWA) protocol, which grades withdrawal signs and symptoms. A major purpose of CIWA is to guide the addition and titration of central nervous system (CNS) depressants, most commonly benzodiazepines. Conversely, best practice is to avoid these same CNS depressants in the setting of TBI. Thus, patients with TBI presenting with AWS risk may receive undesirable interventions that could worsen outcome. Objective To describe the relationship of TBI diagnosis with CIWA protocol scores and intervention implementation. Design Retrospective cohort observational study. Setting Single university-based, level one trauma center. Patients Three hundred seventy-five patients with head trauma or AWS classification, identified through the trauma center's trauma registry. Interventions CIWA protocol and related medication use. Main outcome measures Frequency of elevated CIWA score, length of CIWA administration, and medication administration incidence were abstracted from patients' medical records. Results The percentage of elevated CIWA scores increased significantly with TBI severity, from 4.5%(0-60) in the No TBI group, up to 12.5% (0-36) in the Mild TBI group, 27.1% (0-57) in the Moderate TBI group, and 50.0% (14-77) in the Severe TBI group. Nominally, lorazepam use showed a similar pattern of escalation with TBI severity, but it did not reach statistical significance. Haloperidol use did significantly escalate with higher TBI severity. No group differences were observed for total lorazepam equivalents or length on the CIWA protocol. Conclusions TBI diagnosis and higher TBI severity level correlate with higher CIWA scores, but neither increased nor decreased benzodiazepine usage was observed. Antipsychotic use did escalate with TBI diagnosis and severity. The risks versus benefits of minimizing benzodiazepines in patients with TBI who are at risk for AWS warrant future study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE Gabapentin has been proved to be beneficial in promoting abstinence, decreasing alcohol cravings, and improving mood and sleep quality when given at higher doses; however, data are limited regarding the efficacy and safety of using high-dose gabapentin as part of the treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of high-dose gabapentin on benzodiazepine requirements, alcohol withdrawal symptoms, and hospital length of stay in patients hospitalized with AWS. DESIGN Retrospective cohort study. SETTING Large academic medical center. PATIENTS All adults presenting to the emergency department between January 2015 and April 2018 with a diagnosis of severe AWS (Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol Scale, Revised [CIWA-Ar] score ≥ 15) and prescribed the institution's alcohol withdrawal agitated delirium protocol were eligible for inclusion in the study. Of these, 50 patients who received high-dose gabapentin (≥ 1800 mg/day) in the first 48 hours of hospital admission (treatment group) were propensity score-matched to 50 patients who did not receive gabapentin (control group). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Patients who received high-dose gabapentin required a significantly lower overall amount of benzodiazepines (mean ± SD 109.5 ± 53.4 mg vs 88.5 ± 35.6 mg [lorazepam equivalents], p=0.023) and had a significantly lower mean CIWA-Ar score (10.1 ± 4.7 vs 7.7 ± 3.9, p=0.010) and maximum CIWA-Ar score (16.0 ± 7.0 vs 12.6 ± 6.1, p=0.016) on day 3 of hospitalization. The high-dose gabapentin regimen was well tolerated, without an increased risk of oversedation, compared with the control group (Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score

Benzodiazepines, including diazepam (DZP), lorazepam (LZP), and midazolam (MDZ), are considered the initial drugs of choice for status epilepticus (SE) treatment. A number of trials have demonstrated their safety and efficacy; however, the failure rate ranges from 10‐55%.1,2 This may be attributable, in part, to sub‐optimal benzodiazepine dosing and timing of administration.\ud \ud The Neurocritical Care Society (NCS) and American Epilepsy Society (AES) have published evidence‐based guidelines for benzodiazepine use in SE that specify drugs, doses, and routes of administration.

Background Benzodiazepine medications can be used to treat anxiety, a condition affecting 15% of women of childbearing age in the United States. Studies have shown conflicting results for the association between benzodiazepine use during pregnancy and birth defects. Methods We analyzed 1997-2011 data from the National Birth Defects Prevention Study, a multisite, population-based case-control study. We assessed the prevalence of and factors associated with benzodiazepine use in pregnancy among mothers of live-born infants without a birth defect (control mothers). We used logistic regression to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between specific birth defects and benzodiazepine use; we estimated crude odds ratios (cORs) for defect categories with 3-4 exposed cases. Results Exposure to benzodiazepines during pregnancy was rare (N = 93/11,614; 0.8%). Benzodiazepine use was more common among control mothers who were ≥30 years, non-Hispanic white, had more education, smoked, and took antidepressant medication. We observed significantly elevated ORs for any benzodiazepine and Dandy-Walker malformation (cOR: 3.1; 95% CI: 1.1, 8.6); for alprazolam and anophthalmia or microphthalmia (cOR: 4.0; 95% CI: 1.2, 13.1) and esophageal atresia or stenosis (aOR: 2.7; 95% CI: 1.2, 5.9); and lorazepam and pulmonary valve stenosis (cOR: 4.1; 95% CI: 1.2, 14.2), but sample sizes were limited and therefore CIs were wide. Conclusions Our findings suggest that benzodiazepines use is rare and may be associated with risk for certain birth defects. However, these results need replication and should be interpreted with caution.

Objective Benzodiazepines and anticholinergics are risk factors for delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU). We tested the impact of a deprescribing intervention on short-term delirium outcomes. Design Multisite randomized clinical trial. Setting ICUs of three large hospitals. Participants Two hundred adults aged 18 years or older and admitted to an ICU with delirium, according to the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU). Participants had a contraindication to haloperidol (seizure disorder or prolonged QT interval) or preference against haloperidol as a treatment for delirium, and were excluded for serious mental illness, stroke, pregnancy, or alcohol withdrawal. Participants were randomized to a deprescribing intervention or usual care. The intervention included electronic alerts combined with pharmacist support to deprescribe anticholinergics and benzodiazepines. Measurements Primary outcomes were delirium duration measured by the CAM-ICU and severity measured by the Delirium Rating Scale Revised-98 (DRS-R-98) and the CAM-ICU-7; secondary outcomes included adverse events and mortality. Results Participants had a mean age of 61.8 (SD = 14.3) years, 59% were female, and 52% were African American, with no significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups. No differences between groups were identified in the number exposed to anticholinergics (P = .219) or benzodiazepines (P = .566), the median total anticholinergic score (P = .282), or the median total benzodiazepine dose in lorazepam equivalents (P = .501). Neither median delirium/coma-free days (P = .361) nor median change in delirium severity scores (P = .582 for DRS-R-98; P = .333 for CAM-ICU-7) were different between groups. No differences in adverse events or mortality were identified. Conclusions When added to state-of-the-art clinical services, this deprescribing intervention had no impact on medication use in ICU participants. Given the age of the population, results of clinical outcomes may not be easily extrapolated to older adults. Nonetheless, improved approaches for deprescribing or preventing anticholinergics and benzodiazepines should be developed to determine the impact on delirium outcomes. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:695-702, 2019.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a syndrome characterised by an acute disturbance of attention and awareness which develops over a short time period and fluctuates in severity over the course of the day. It is commonly experienced during inpatient admission in the terminal phase of illness. It can cause symptoms such as agitation and hallucinations and is distressing for terminally ill people, their families and staff. Delirium may arise from any number of causes and treatment should aim to address these causes. When this is not possible, or treatment is unsuccessful, drug therapy to manage the symptoms may become necessary. This is the second update of the review first published in 2004.OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of drug therapies to manage delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults.SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO from inception to July 2019, reference lists of retrieved papers, and online trial registries.SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of drug therapies in any dose by any route, compared to another drug therapy, a non-pharmacological approach, placebo, standard care or wait-list control, for the management of delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults (18 years or older).DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently screened citations, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were delirium symptoms; agitation score; adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: use of rescue medication; cognitive status; survival. We applied the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome and we include eight 'Summary of findings' tables.MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies (three new to this update), with 399 participants. Most participants had advanced cancer or advanced AIDS, and mild- to moderate-severity delirium. Meta-analysis was not possible because no two studies examined the same comparison. Each study was at high risk of bias for at least one criterion. Most evidence was low to very low quality, downgraded due to very serious study limitations, imprecision or because there were so few data. Most studies reported delirium symptoms; two reported agitation scores; three reported adverse events with data on extrapyramidal effects; and none reported serious adverse events. 1. Haloperidol versus placebo There may be little to no difference between placebo and haloperidol in delirium symptoms within 24 hours (mean difference (MD) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.07 to 0.75; 133 participants). Haloperidol may slightly worsen delirium symptoms compared with placebo at 48 hours (MD 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.88; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Haloperidol may reduce agitation slightly compared with placebo between 24 and 48 hours (MD -0.14, 95% -0.28 to -0.00; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Haloperidol probably increases extrapyramidal adverse effects compared with placebo (MD 0.79, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.41; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). 2. Haloperidol versus risperidone There may be little to no difference in delirium symptoms with haloperidol compared with risperidone within 24 hours (MD -0.42, 95% CI -0.90 to 0.06; 126 participants) or 48 hours (MD -0.36, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.20; 106 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Agitation scores and adverse events were not reported for this comparison. 3. Haloperidol versus olanzapine We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with olanzapine within 24 hours (MD 2.36, 95% CI -0.75 to 5.47; 28 participants) or 48 hours (MD 1.90, 95% CI -1.50 to 5.30, 24 participants). Agitation scores and adverse events were not reported for this comparison. 4. Risperidone versus placebo Risperidone may slightly worsen delirium symptoms compared with placebo within 24 hours (MD 0.76, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.22; 129 participants); and at 48 hours (MD 0.85, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.38; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). There may be little to no difference in agitation with risperidone compared with placebo between 24 and 48 hours (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.09; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Risperidone may increase extrapyramidal adverse effects compared with placebo (MD 0.73 95% CI 0.09 to 1.37; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). 5. Lorazepam plus haloperidol versus placebo plus haloperidol We are uncertain whether lorazepam plus haloperidol compared with placebo plus haloperidol improves delirium symptoms within 24 hours (MD 2.10, 95% CI -1.00 to 5.20; 50 participants with moderate to severe delirium), reduces agitation within 24 hours (MD 1.90, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.80; 52 participants), or increases adverse events (RR 0.70, 95% CI -0.19 to 2.63; 31 participants with moderate to severe delirium). 6. Haloperidol versus chlorpromazine We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with chlorpromazine at 48 hours (MD 0.37, 95% CI -4.58 to 5.32; 24 participants). Agitation scores were not reported. We are uncertain whether haloperidol increases adverse events compared with chlorpromazine (MD 0.46, 95% CI -4.22 to 5.14; 24 participants). 7. Haloperidol versus lorazepam We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with lorazepam at 48 hours (MD -4.88, 95% CI -9.70 to 0.06; 17 participants). Agitation scores were not reported. We are uncertain whether haloperidol increases adverse events compared with lorazepam (MD -6.66, 95% CI -14.85 to 1.53; 17 participants). 8. Lorazepam versus chlorpromazine We are uncertain whether lorazepam reduces delirium symptoms compared with chlorpromazine at 48 hours (MD 5.25, 95% CI 0.38 to 10.12; 19 participants), or increases adverse events (MD 7.12, 95% CI 1.08 to 15.32; 18 participants). Agitation scores were not reported.SECONDARY OUTCOMES: use of rescue medication, cognitive impairment, survival There were insufficient data to draw conclusions or assess GRADE.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of drug therapy for delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults. We found low-quality evidence that risperidone or haloperidol may slightly worsen delirium symptoms of mild to moderate severity for terminally ill people compared with placebo. We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that haloperidol and risperidone may slightly increase extrapyramidal adverse events for people with mild- to moderate-severity delirium. Given the small number of studies and participants on which current evidence is based, further research is essential.

To elucidate which benzodiazepine–diazepam or lorazepam–should be used as the first‐line treatment for adult status epilepticus, we undertook a systemic review and meta‐analysis based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Our study showed very low evidence to support the i.v. use of lorazepam over diazepam as first‐line treatment for the cessation of adult status epilepticus., Status epilepticus (SE) is a life‐threatening medical and neurological emergency. Prompt recognition and treatment are essential to stop the seizure and improve patient outcomes. To elucidate which benzodiazepine should be used as the first‐line treatment, a systemic search of the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases was carried out to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing i.v. administration of lorazepam and diazepam used for adult SE. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Only two RCTs were finally analyzed among 2182 papers extracted. The SE definitions, inclusion criteria, and doses of the drugs differed in the two studies. Of 204 patients included, 103 and 101 patients were allocated to the lorazepam and diazepam groups, respectively. The pooled risk ratio (RR) and confidence interval (CI) for lorazepam treatment on seizure cessation (two RCTs, n = 204) showed a significantly superior effect of lorazepam over diazepam (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03–1.49). No statistically significant relationship was found for mortality (two RCTs, n = 204) (RR 0.43; 95% CI, 0.43–6.90), poor neurological outcome (one RCT, n = 134) (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.59–2.04), hypotension (one RCT, n = 70) (RR, 2.68; 95% CI, 0.11–63.61), and respiratory depression (two RCTs, n = 204) (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.48–2.48). The certainty of the evidence was rated as very low. The results of this meta‐analysis of RCTs showed that i.v. lorazepam was better than i.v. diazepam for the cessation of adult SE.

The magnitude of the treatment gap (TG) for convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) in resource-poor countries is unknown. Hospital-based cohort studies from developing countries revealed that the management of CSE was usually suboptimal due to lack of advanced diagnostic and treatment facilities, significant delay in patient's presentation at hospital, and shortages of essential antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). However, there were no significant differences in the proportion of refractory status epilepticus, short-term mortalities, and morbidities of CSE between the developed and the developing countries. Therefore, the presence of significant TG for CSE in developing countries is still an assumption without evidence. We conducted an expert survey in Asia for potential sources of TG. Experts from 16 Asian countries responded to the questionnaire. An injectable form of diazepam was available in all 16 countries even at the primary care level, but intravenous lorazepam was available only in four countries. Second-line AEDs were widely available at tertiary care hospitals, but not at primary care hospitals. Lack of second-line AEDs at primary care hospitals, significant delay in patient transportation to the hospital, shortages of intensive care unit facilities, and absence of trained physicians were important contributing factors to TG in Asia.

A subgroup of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy have seizure clusters, which are a part of the continuum of seizure emergencies that includes prolonged episodes and status epilepticus. When the patient or caregiver can identify the beginning of a cluster, the condition is amenable to certain treatments, an approach known as rescue therapy. Intravenous drug administration offers the fastest onset of action, but this route is usually not an option because most seizure clusters occur outside of a medical facility. Alternate routes of administration have been used or are proposed including rectal, buccal, intrapulmonary, subcutaneous, intramuscular, and intranasal. The objective of this narrative review is to describe the (1) anatomical, physiologic, and drug physicochemical properties that need to be considered when developing therapies for seizure emergencies and (2) products currently in development. New therapies must consider parameters of Fick's law such as absorptive surface area, blood flow, membrane thickness, and lipid solubility, because these factors affect both rate and extend of absorption. For example, the lung has a 50 000-fold greater absorptive surface area than that associated with a subcutaneous injection. Lipid solubility is a physicochemical property that influences the absorption rate of small molecule drugs. Among drugs currently used or under development for rescue therapy, allopregnanolone has the greatest lipid solubility at physiologic pH, followed by propofol, midazolam, diazepam, lorazepam, alprazolam, and brivaracetam. However, greater lipid solubility correlates with lower water solubility, complicating formulation of rescue therapies. One approach to overcoming poor aqueous solubility involves the use of a water-soluble prodrug coadministered with a converting enzyme, which is being explored for the intranasal delivery of diazepam. With advances in seizure prediction technology and the development of drug delivery systems that provide rapid onset of effect, rescue therapies may prevent the occurrence of seizures, thus greatly improving the management of epilepsy.

Status epilepticus (SE) is defined as ongoing seizures lasting longer than five minutes or multiple seizures without recovery. Benzodiazepines (BZDs) are first-line agents for the management of SE. Our objective was to evaluate BZD dosing in SE patients and its effects on clinical/electrographic outcomes. A retrospective analysis was conducted from a prospective database of SE patients admitted to a university-based neurocritical care unit. The initial presentation and progression to refractory SE (RSE) and non-convulsive SE (NCSE) with coma was evaluated. Outcome measures included length of stay (LOS), rates of intubation, ventilator-dependent days, and Glasgow outcome scale (GOS). The lorazepam equivalent (LE) dosage of BZDs administered was calculated and we analysed variations in progression if 4 mg or more of LE (adequate BZDs) was administered. Among 100 patients, the median dose of LE was 3 mg (IQR: 2-5 mg). Only 31% of patients received adequate BZDs. Only 18.9% of patients with NCSE without coma received adequate BZDs (p=0.04). Among patients progressing to RSE, 75.4% had not received adequate BZDs (p=0.04) and among patients developing NCSE with coma, 80.6% did not receive adequate BZDs (p=0.07). Escalating doses of BZDs were associated with a decrease in cumulative incidences of RSE (correlation coefficient r=-0.6; p=0.04) and NCSE with coma (correlation coefficient r=-0.7; p=0.003). Outcome measures were not influenced by BZD dosing. The majority of our patients were not adequately dosed with BZDs. Inadequate BZD dosing progressed to RSE and had a tendency to lead to NCSE with coma. Our study demonstrates the need to develop a hospital-wide protocol to guide first responders in the management of SE.

Four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 4-period drug-drug interaction studies were conducted in healthy subjects to evaluate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (PD) interactions between mirogabalin and commonly used central nervous system depressants. Mirogabalin or placebo was administered alone or with single-dose lorazepam, zolpidem, tramadol, ethanol, or interacting drug placebo. Safety was assessed and serial samples for pharmacokinetic parameters were collected for up to 48 hours postdose. PD assessments included body sway (except tramadol), digit symbol substitution test, vertigo symptom scale short form, brief ataxia rating scale, and the Bond and Lader visual analog scale. Coadministration of mirogabalin with any of the 4 drugs did not cause any clinically relevant pharmacokinetic interactions. Peak mirogabalin concentration decreased by 28% (least squares mean ratio, 0.72; 90% confidence interval, [CI] 0.67, 0.76) following tramadol coadministration, and increased by 20% (least squares mean ratio, 1.20; 90%CI, 1.12, 1.28) following ethanol coadministration. Mirogabalin alone had little to no effect on PD parameters, but coadministration of mirogabalin with either lorazepam or ethanol increased the PD effects in body sway and digit symbol substitution test assays. Mirogabalin/lorazepam and mirogabalin/zolpidem increased occurrence of somnolence. Increased incidence of nausea and headache was noted with mirogabalin/tramadol and mirogabalin/ethanol, respectively.

Background The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) is commonly used to assess psychomotor activity; however, to the authors' knowledge, its minimal clinically important difference (MCID) has not been determined to date. The objective of the current study was to identify the MCID for RASS using 2 anchor-based approaches. Methods The current study was a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial to compare the effect of lorazepam versus placebo as an adjuvant to haloperidol for persistent agitation in patients with delirium. The primary outcome was change in RASS (10-point numeric rating scale ranging from -5 [unarousable] to +4 [combative]) from baseline to 8 hours after treatment administration. The sensitivity-specificity and within-patient change methods were used to identify the MCID, with the anchor being patient comfort after the study intervention as perceived by caregivers and nurses. Results A total of 90 patients were randomized and 58 (64%) received the study medication for restlessness/agitation (mean baseline RASS, 1.6). A total of 23 caregivers (61%) and 23 nurses (55%) perceived that the patient was more comfortable after treatment. Using the sensitivity-specificity method, the optimal RASS reduction was ≥4 points according to both caregivers (sensitivity of 61% and specificity of 80%; area under the curve, 0.71) and nurses (sensitivity of 73% and specificity of 84%; area under the curve, 0.78). The RASS cutoff value based on the within-patient change method was similar (-4.2 for caregivers and -4.0 for nurses). Conclusions For patients with persistent restlessness/agitation, a reduction of ≥4 points in RASS was considered to be the MCID for both nurses and caregivers. These preliminary findings may have implications for sample size calculation and the interpretation of treatment effect in future delirium trials. Cancer 2018;124:2246-52. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

The potential consequences of drug-drug interaction on the strategies adopted by anti-doping laboratories to report an adverse analytical finding for morphine were investigated. We evaluated in vitro the effects of 14 drugs on the principal metabolic pathways of morphine. The selected drugs are among those most commonly used by the athletes, none of them presently included in the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List. The non-prohibited drugs included 4 antifungals (fluconazole, itraconazole, ketoconazole, and miconazole), 6 benzodiazepines (alprazolam, bromazepam, clonazepam, lorazepam, lormetazepam, and triazolam), and 4 non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (diclofenac, ibuprofen, ketoprofen, and nimesulide). The in vitro assays were based on the use of either human liver microsomes or uridine 5'-diphospho-glucuronosyl-transferases. Morphine and its glucuronides were determined by developed liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry procedure after dilution with an aqueous solution containing their deuterated isotopologues as internal standards. Morphine is mainly excreted as phase II metabolites: about 70% of the parent compound is found to be biotransformed by UGT2B7 to morphine-3-glucuronide (6065%) and morphine-6-glucuronide (5-10%). A reduction of the enzymatic activity of the UGT2B7 was recorded in the presence of 9 of the 14 drugs under investigation (ketoconazole, miconazole, itraconazole, diclofenac, ibuprofen, clonazepam, lorazepam, lormetazepam, and triazolam), with a consequent significant reduction of the levels of the glucuronide metabolites. This phenomenon in vivo may affect the rate of the urinary excretion of morphine with the risk of reporting "false negative" results, especially in case of results close to the decision limit value set by WADA.

Event-related potentials (ERPs) are commonly used in Neuroscience research, particularly the P3 waveform because it is associated with cognitive brain functions and is easily elicited by auditory or sensory inputs. ERPs are affected by drugs such as lorazepam, which increase the latency and decrease the amplitude of the P3 wave. In this study, auditory-evoked ERPs were generated in 13 older healthy volunteers using an oddball tone paradigm, after administration of single 0.5 and 2 mg doses of lorazepam. Population pharmacokinetics (PK)/pharmacodynamics (PD) models were developed using nonlinear mixed-effects methods in order to assess the effect of lorazepam on the latency and amplitude of the P3 waveforms. The PK/PD models showed that doses of 0.3 mg of lorazepam achieved approximately half of the maximum effect on the latency of the P3 waveform. For P3 amplitude, half the maximum effect was achieved with a dose of 1.2 mg of lorazepam. The PK/PD models also predicted an efficacious dose range of lorazepam, which was close to the recommended therapeutic range. The use of longitudinal P3 latency data allowed better predictions of the lorazepam efficacious dose range than P3 amplitude or aggregate exposure-response data, suggesting that latency could be a more sensitive parameter for drugs with similar mechanisms of action as lorazepam and that time course rather than single time-point ERP data should be collected. Overall, the results suggest that P3 ERP waveforms could be used as potential non-specific biomarkers for functional target engagement for drugs with brain activity, and PK/PD models can aid trial design and choice of doses for development of new drugs with ERP activity.

Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) has become more prevalent with increasing cannabis use. CHS is often resistant to standard antiemetics. The objective of this study is to review the current evidence for pharmacologic treatment of CHS. Medline, PsycINFO, DARE, OpenGrey, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to February 2017. Articles were selected and reviewed independently. Evidence was graded using Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines. The search resulted in 1262 articles with 63 of them eligible for inclusion (205 human subjects). There were 4 prospective level-2, 3 retrospective level-3 studies, 12 level-4 case series, and 44 level-5 case reports. Among level-2 studies (64 subjects), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and lorazepam were discussed as effective long- and short-term treatments, respectively, in two studies. Ondansetron, promethazine, diphenhydramine, and opioids were also mentioned, but the authors did not comment on their efficacy. Among level-3 studies (43 subjects), one reported effective treatment with antiepileptics zonisamide and levetiracetam, but not TCAs. Another reported favorable response to morphine, ondansetron, and lorazepam but did not specify the actual number of patients receiving specific treatment. Among the level-4 case series (54 subjects), benzodiazepines, haloperidol, and capsaicin were reported as helpful. For level-5 case reports (44 subjects), benzodiazepines, metoclopramide, haloperidol, ondansetron, morphine, and capsaicin were reported as effective. Effective treatments mentioned only once included fentanyl, diazepam, promethazine, methadone, nabilone, levomepromazine, piritramide, and pantoprazole. Hot showers and baths were cited in all level-4 and -5 articles as universally effective. High-quality evidence for pharmacologic treatment of CHS is limited. Benzodiazepines, followed by haloperidol and capsaicin, were most frequently reported as effective for acute treatment, and TCAs for long-term treatment. As the prevalence of CHS increases, future prospective trials are greatly needed to evaluate and further define optimal pharmacologic treatment of patients with CHS.

OBJECTIVES The objectives of this study were primarily to assess the efficacy and safety of SM-1 in a circadian challenge model of transient insomnia and secondarily, to assess the contribution of diphenhydramine to the combination. METHODS Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled three-way cross-over study with a 5-hr phase advance. Subjects were 39 healthy adults reporting a history of transient insomnia. All treatments (SM-1, SM-1 without diphenhydramine, or placebo) were administered to all subjects in a randomly assigned sequence, with at least 1 week between treatments. The primary endpoint was total sleep time (TST) determined by polysomnography. Secondary endpoints included wakefulness after sleep onset (WASO), latency to persistent sleep, number of awakenings (NAW), subjective TST (sTST) and sleep latency (sSL), TST, and NAW by quarters of the night and sleep quality. Safety endpoints included adverse events, Karolinska Sleepiness Scale digit symbol substitution test, and subject-reported alertness level. RESULTS SM-1 provided an increase of 126.7 min in TST over placebo (p < .001). WASO, sTST, sleep quality, and sSL also showed significant improvement. Diphenhydramine demonstrated a significant (p = .014) contribution of 43.7 min to TST. SM-1 was well-tolerated with type and frequency of adverse events comparable with placebo, and no residual sleepiness upon awakening after 8 hr. CONCLUSIONS SM-1 provided a robust and statistically significant increase in TST compared with placebo in a circadian model of transient insomnia, without evidence of next-day impairment. Diphenhydramine contributed to the effect.

AIMS: This study explores the impact of paediatric patient related factors and choice of formulation on the dissolution characteristics of nifedipine and lorazepam, 2 drug substances regularly applied in very young patients and in compounded formulations. METHODS: Dissolution experiments were designed to reflect clinical practice in a paediatric hospital, with respect to dosage forms, feeding regimens and methods of administration. Solubility studies addressed the influence of age and prandial state. Drug solubility and dissolution experiments were conducted in biorelevant media and adapted age-specific (neonate and infant) media. Dissolution studies were performed with the mini-paddle apparatus and the flow-through cell apparatus. RESULTS: Dissolution of nifedipine formulations was not affected by age-related changes of the fasted state simulated gastrointestinal fluids, and by disintegration of the formulation before administration. However, a significant difference in nifedipine's dissolution rate from commercial tablets and compounded capsules was observed. The dissolution of lorazepam tablets was affected by fasted- vs fed-state media, but it was deemed less likely to be clinically relevant. The significant effect of fed-state media on nifedipine's solubility was considered to have possible clinical relevance since very young patients are almost continuously in a fed state. CONCLUSION: The in vitro results obtained from these studies reveal the potential of biorelevant solubility and dissolution studies reflecting clinical practice to predict drug performance in paediatric patients. ispartof: BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY vol:85 issue:8 pages:1728-1739 ispartof: location:England status: published

BACKGROUND: Tonic‐clonic convulsions and convulsive status epilepticus (currently defined as a tonic‐clonic convulsion lasting at least 30 minutes) are medical emergencies and require urgent and appropriate anticonvulsant treatment. International consensus is that an anticonvulsant drug should be administered for any tonic‐clonic convulsion that has been continuing for at least five minutes. Benzodiazepines (diazepam, lorazepam, midazolam) are traditionally regarded as first‐line drugs and phenobarbital, phenytoin and paraldehyde as second‐line drugs. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and updated in 2008. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of anticonvulsant drugs used to treat any acute tonic‐clonic convulsion of any duration, including established convulsive (tonic‐clonic) status epilepticus in children who present to a hospital or emergency medical department. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (23 May 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 23 May 2017), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 23 May 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov (23 May 2017), and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 23 May 2017). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi‐randomised trials comparing any anticonvulsant drugs used for the treatment of an acute tonic‐clonic convulsion including convulsive status epilepticus in children. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: The review includes 18 randomised trials involving 2199 participants, and a range of drug treatment options, doses and routes of administration (rectal, buccal, nasal, intramuscular and intravenous). The studies vary by design, setting and population, both in terms of their ages and also in their clinical situation. We have made many comparisons of drugs and of routes of administration of drugs in this review; our key findings are as follows: (1) This review provides only low‐ to very low‐quality evidence comparing buccal midazolam with rectal diazepam for the treatment of acute tonic‐clonic convulsions (risk ratio (RR) for seizure cessation 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 1.38; 4 trials; 690 children). However, there is uncertainty about the effect and therefore insufficient evidence to support its use. There were no included studies which compare intranasal and buccal midazolam. (2) Buccal and intranasal anticonvulsants were shown to lead to similar rates of seizure cessation as intravenous anticonvulsants, e.g. intranasal lorazepam appears to be as effective as intravenous lorazepam (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.13; 1 trial; 141 children; high‐quality evidence) and intranasal midazolam was equivalent to intravenous diazepam (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.06; 2 trials; 122 children; moderate‐quality evidence). (3) Intramuscular midazolam also showed a similar rate of seizure cessation to intravenous diazepam (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.09; 2 trials; 105 children; low‐quality evidence). (4) For intravenous routes of administration, lorazepam appears to be as effective as diazepam in stopping acute tonic clonic convulsions: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.16; 3 trials; 414 children; low‐quality evidence. Furthermore, we found no statistically significant or clinically important differences between intravenous midazolam and diazepam (RR for seizure cessation 1.08, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.21; 1 trial; 80 children; moderate‐quality evidence) or intravenous midazolam and lorazepam (RR for seizure cessation 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.04; 1 trial; 80 children; moderate‐quality evidence). In general, intravenously‐administered anticonvulsants led to more rapid seizure cessation but this was usually compromised by the time taken to establish intravenous access. (5) There is limited evidence from a single trial to suggest that intranasal lorazepam may be more effective than intramuscular paraldehyde in stopping acute tonic‐clonic convulsions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.52; 160 children; moderate‐quality evidence). (6) Adverse side effects were observed and reported very infrequently in the included studies. Respiratory depression was the most common and most clinically relevant side effect and, where reported, the frequency of this adverse event was observed in 0% to up to 18% of children. None of the studies individually demonstrated any difference in the rates of respiratory depression between the different anticonvulsants or their different routes of administration; but when pooled, three studies (439 children) provided moderate‐quality evidence that lorazepam was significantly associated with fewer occurrences of respiratory depression than diazepam (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93). Much of the evidence provided in this review is of mostly moderate to high quality. However, the quality of the evidence provided for some important outcomes is low to very low, particularly for comparisons of non‐intravenous routes of drug administration. Low‐ to very low‐quality evidence was provided where limited data and imprecise results were available for analysis, methodological inadequacies were present in some studies which may have introduced bias into the results, study settings were not applicable to wider clinical practice, and where inconsistency was present in some pooled analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We have not identified any new high‐quality evidence on the efficacy or safety of an anticonvulsant in stopping an acute tonic‐clonic convulsion that would inform clinical practice. There appears to be a very low risk of adverse events, specifically respiratory depression. Intravenous lorazepam and diazepam appear to be associated with similar rates of seizure cessation and respiratory depression. Although intravenous lorazepam and intravenous diazepam lead to more rapid seizure cessation, the time taken to obtain intravenous access may undermine this effect. In the absence of intravenous access, buccal midazolam or rectal diazepam are therefore acceptable first‐line anticonvulsants for the treatment of an acute tonic‐clonic convulsion that has lasted at least five minutes. There is no evidence provided by this review to support the use of intranasal midazolam or lorazepam as alternatives to buccal midazolam or rectal diazepam.

We report a 78-year-old man without past psychiatric history who experienced his first manic episode successfully treated with quetiapine and lorazepam, but was ultimately found to have AIDS and Cryptococcus neoformans meningitis. Our presented case highlights the importance of comprehensive differential diagnoses to rule out secondary causes of psychiatric symptoms presenting for the first time in elderly patients.

Current EEG criteria for the diagnosis of non-convulsive status epilepticus in critically ill patients with repetitive generalised or focal epileptiform discharges primarily rely on a widely accepted low cut-off frequency limit of 2.5-3 Hz for non-evolving patterns, or on discharge evolution of frequency, location or mophology. The secondary criterion is a significant clinical or EEG improvement following acute administration of a rapidly acting antiepileptic drug, such as lorazepam. We describe a comatose patient after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, in whom very slow (1-Hz), non-evolving generalised periodic epileptiform discharges against an almost completely depressed background would suggest substantial anoxic damage and poor neurological outcome. Yet, reloading with propofol for diagnostic purposes completely dispersed generalised periodic epileptiform discharges and revealed previously absent biological activity, raising the possibility of non-convulsive status epilepticus that was subsequently confirmed. Brain MRI showed no significant anoxic brain damage and EEG improved, but the patient died from severe cardiopulmonary complications. These observations suggest that in rare cases, slow, non-evolving generalised periodic epileptiform discharges may reflect non-convulsive status epilepticus rather than diffuse irreversible cerebral anoxia, while reloading with propofol can be used as an additional secondary diagnostic criterion.

Aims AZD7325 is a novel α2,3-subtype-selective partial GABA-A-receptor modulator. This study investigated the pharmacodynamics of single oral doses of AZD7325 2 mg and 10 mg on the central nervous system (CNS) compared with placebo and lorazepam 2 mg. Methods This double-blind, randomized, four way crossover study enrolled 16 healthy males and administered two validated CNS test batteries to measure drug effects on cognitive, neurophysiologic and psychomotor function and subjective feelings. The pharmacological selectivity of AZD7325 was compared with lorazepam by plotting saccadic peak velocity change from baseline (ΔSPV) against body sway (ΔSway) and visual analogue scale for alertness(ΔVASalertness). This analysis has previously been used to identify α2,3-subtype-selectivity. Results In contrast with the robust impairment caused by lorazepam (all P < 0.05 vs. placebo), neither dose of AZD7325 induced statistically significant effects on any pharmacodynamic measurements. Lorazepam-induced SPV-reduction was linearly related to changes in other neurophysiologic biomarkers. In contrast, the slopes of the regression lines were flatter for AZD7325, particularly for the Δlog(Sway) −ΔSPV relation (estimate slope, AZD7325 10 mg vs. lorazepam, difference [95% confidence interval], P value −0.00036 vs. −0.00206, 0.001704 [0.000639, 0.002768], P = 0.0018) and the ΔVASalertness−ΔSPV relationship (0.01855 vs. 0.08216, −0.06360 [−0.1046, −0.02257], P = 0.0024). AZD7325 10 mg and lorazepam induced different response patterns on VAS ‘feeling high’ and electro-encephalography. Conclusion The characteristic ΔSPV-relative effect profiles of AZD7325 vs. lorazepam suggest anxio-selectivity related to α2,3-selective GABAA agonism. However, exploration of higher doses may be warranted. The paucity of effects on most CNS−PD parameters also indicates a mitigated side effect pattern, with potentially lower cognitive and neurophysiological side effect burden than non-selective benzodiazepines.

Compounds with selectivity for GABAA receptor subtypes may differ significantly from nonselective benzodiazepines in their dopaminergic effects in vivo. To explore the exact role of the GABAA receptor subtypes in the regulation of prolactin secretion and the differential effects of selective and nonselective GABA receptor modulators, the effects of the nonselective benzodiazepine lorazepam, as well as two novel α2 /α3 subunit-selective GABAA receptor modulators AZD7325 and AZD6280, on prolactin levels were measured in healthy male volunteers. Following administration of lorazepam at 2 mg doses and AZD6280 at 10 mg and 40 mg doses, prolactin levels increased significantly compared with placebo (difference 42.0%, 19.8%, and 32.8%, respectively), suggesting that the α2 and/or α3 receptor subtypes are involved in GABAergic modulation of prolactin secretion, although possible roles of the α1 and α5 receptor subtypes are not excluded. The increases in prolactin levels after administration of AZD7325 at 2 mg and 10 mg doses (difference 7.6% and 10.5%, respectively) did not reach statistical significance, suggesting that doses of AZD7325 or intrinsic efficacy at the α2 and α3 receptor subtypes may have been too low.

BACKGROUND Sleep is known to be poor in the hospital. Patients frequently request pharmacological sleep aids, despite the risk of altered mental status (delirium) and falls. Little is known about the scope of pharmacological sleep aid use in hospitalized patients. METHODS We performed a single center, retrospective review of all patients admitted to the general adult (age >18 years) medical and surgical units of a tertiary care center during a recent 2-month period (January 2013–February 2013). Review of the electronic medication administration system was performed to assess for medications administered for sleep. RESULTS Of 642 unique admissions, 168 patients (26.2%) received a medication for sleep. Most (n = 115, 68.5%) had no known history of insomnia or regular prior sleep medication use. Patients most frequently were treated with trazodone (30.4%; median dose, 50 mg; range, 12.5–450 mg), lorazepam (24.4%; median, 0.5 mg; range, 0.25–2 mg), and zolpidem tartrate (17.9%; median, 10 mg; range, 2.5–10 mg). Of the medications given, 36.7% were given early (before 9 pm) or late (after midnight). Of patients not known to be previously taking a pharmacological sleep aid, 34.3% of them were discharged with a prescription for one. CONCLUSIONS Despite increasing evidence of risks such as delirium or falls, pharmacological sleep aid use in general wards remains common, even in elderly patients. Medication administration time is frequently suboptimal. Many previously sleep medication-naive patients leave the hospital with a sleep aid prescription. Further research is needed to understand the factors that contribute to the high rate of sleep medication use in hospitalized patients. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2014;9:652–657. © 2014 Society of Hospital Medicine

Here we report the cases of three patients with mood disorders showing catatonia and frontotemporal lobe atrophy. Catatonia is a syndrome linked to frontal dysfunction that most frequently occurs in patients with mood disorders. The diagnostic criteria of catatonia and frontotemporal dementia partly overlap. In the present patients, catatonia might be closely related to frontal dysfunction caused by frontotemporal lobe atrophy. With regard to therapeutics for catatonia, we found that administering a low dose of lorazepam alone or after electroconvulsive therapy may be useful for treating and preventing catatonia. We also found that administering glutaminate antagonists such as memantine may be useful for treating lorazepam-resistant catatonia.

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 with5 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.

Objective Catatonia, a disorder of movement and mood, was described and named in 1874. Other observers quickly made the same recognition. By the turn of the century, however, catatonia was incorporated as a type within a conjured syndrome of schizophrenia. There, catatonia has lain in the psychiatric classification for more than a century. Method We review the history of catatonia and its present status. In the 1970s, the tie was questioned when catatonia was recognized among those with mood disorders. The recognition of catatonia within the neuroleptic malignant syndrome offered effective treatments of high doses of benzodiazepines and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), again questioning the tie. A verifying test for catatonia (the lorazepam sedation test) was developed. Soon the syndromes of delirious mania, toxic serotonin syndrome, and the repetitive behaviors in adolescents with autism were recognized as treatable variations of catatonia. Results Ongoing studies now recognize catatonia among patients labeled as suffering from the Gilles de la Tourette's syndrome, anti-NMDAR encephalitis, obsessive–compulsive disease, and various mutisms. Conclusion Applying the treatments for catatonia to patients with these syndromes offers opportunities for clinical relief. Catatonia is a recognizable and effectively treatable neuropsychiatric syndrome. It has many faces. It warrants recognition outside schizophrenia in the psychiatric disease classification.

Background Health services often manage agitated or violent people, and such behaviour is particularly prevalent in emergency psychiatric services (10%). The drugs used in such situations should ensure that the person becomes calm swiftly and safely. Objectives To examine whether haloperidol plus promethazine is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression. Search methods On 6 May 2015 we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of Trials, which is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, BIOSIS, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings. Selection criteria All randomised clinical trials with useable data focusing on haloperidol plus promethazine for psychosis-induced aggression. Data collection and analysis We independently extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE. Main results We found two new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the 2015 update searching. The review now includes six studies, randomising 1367 participants and presenting data relevant to six comparisons. When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with haloperidol alone for psychosis-induced aggression for the outcome not tranquil or asleep at 30 minutes, the combination treatment was clearly more effective (n=316, 1 RCT, RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.87, high-quality evidence). There were 10 occurrences of acute dystonia in the haloperidol alone arm and none in the combination group. The trial was stopped early as haloperidol alone was considered to be too toxic. When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with olanzapine, high-quality data showed both approaches to be tranquillising. It was suggested that the combination of haloperidol plus promethazine was more effective, but the difference between the two approaches did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance (n=300, 1 RCT, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.61, high-quality evidence). Lower-quality data suggested that the risk of unwanted excessive sedation was less with the combination approach (n=116, 2 RCTs, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.84). When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with ziprasidone all data were of lesser quality. We identified no binary data for the outcome tranquil or asleep. The average sedation score (Ramsay Sedation Scale) was lower for the combination approach but not to conventional levels of statistical significance (n=60, 1 RCT, MD -0.1, 95% CI - 0.58 to 0.38). These data were of low quality and it is unclear what they mean in clinical terms. The haloperidol plus promethazine combination appeared to cause less excessive sedation but again the difference did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance (n=111, 2 RCTs, RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.43). We found few data for the comparison of haloperidol plus promethazine versus haloperidol plus midazolam. Average Ramsay Sedation Scale scores suggest the combination of haloperidol plus midazolam to be the most sedating (n=60, 1 RCT, MD - 0.6, 95% CI -1.13 to -0.07, low-quality evidence). The risk of excessive sedation was considerably less with haloperidol plus promethazine (n=117, 2 RCTs, RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.49, low-quality evidence). Haloperidol plus promethazine seemed to decrease the risk of needing restraints by around 12 hours (n=60, 1 RCT, RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.55, low-quality evidence). It may be that use of midazolam with haloperidol sedates swiftly, but this effect does not last long. When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with lorazepam, haloperidol plus promethazine seemed to more effectively cause sedation or tranquillisation by 30 minutes (n=200, 1 RCT, RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.68, high-quality evidence). The secondary outcome of needing restraints or seclusion by 12 hours was not clearly different between groups, with about 10% in each group needing this intrusive intervention (moderate-quality evidence). Sedation data were not reported, however, the combination group did have less 'any serious adverse event' in 24-hour follow-up, but there were not clear differences between the groups and we are unsure exactly what the adverse effect was. There were no deaths. When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with midazolam, there was clear evidence that midazolam is more swiftly tranquillising of an aggressive situation than haloperidol plus promethazine (n=301, 1 RCT, RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.75 to 4.8, high-quality evidence). On its own, midazolam seems to be swift and effective in tranquillising people who are aggressive due to psychosis. There was no difference in risk of serious adverse event overall (n=301, 1 RCT, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.95, high-quality evidence). However, 1 in 150 participants allocated haloperidol plus promethazine had a swiftly reversed seizure, and 1 in 151 given midazolam had swiftly reversed respiratory arrest. Authors' conclusions Haloperidol plus promethazine is effective and safe, and its use is based on good evidence. Benzodiazepines work, with midazolam being particularly swift, but both midazolam and lorazepam cause respiratory depression. Olanzapine intramuscular and ziprasidone intramuscular do seem to be viable options and their action is swift, but resumption of aggression with subsequent need to re-inject was more likely than with haloperidol plus promethazine. Haloperidol used on its own without something to offset its frequent and serious adverse effects does seem difficult to justify.

Symptoms of anxiety induced by 7.5% CO₂ inhalation can be attenuated by acute administration of GABA(A) receptor anxiolytics such as lorazepam and alprazolam. This study investigated if these effects are dose-related, by comparing a 0.5 mg dose (considered non-clinically effective) and a 2 mg dose of lorazepam (clinically effective) on 7.5% CO₂ inhalation. Eighteen healthy males (mean age 20.6 years, SD 1.29), judged physically and mentally fit, attended three visits, each one week apart, to take each treatment in a randomised double-blind crossover design. Drugs were given 60 min prior to 20 min air inhalation, followed by 20 min 7.5% CO₂ inhalation. The order of gas presentation was single blind. Subjective ratings using visual analogue scales (VAS) and questionnaires were recorded before and after each inhalation. Blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), respiration rate (RR) and expired CO₂ were recorded during each inhalation. Inhalation of 7.5% CO₂ significantly raised BP, HR, RR and expired CO₂. Ratings of feeling like leaving the room were significantly lower on 2 mg compared with 0.5 mg and placebo, and dose-dependent trends were seen in scores for VAS fearful, anxious, stressed, tense, and worried. Results may be indicative of dose-dependent effects of lorazepam in a CO₂ model of anxiety.

This study examined the antecedents to administration of pro re nata (PRN) psychotropic medication on acute psychiatric wards, with a particular focus on its use in response to patient aggression and other conflict behaviours. A sample of 522 adult in-patients was recruited from 84 acute psychiatric wards in England. Data were collected from nursing and medical records for the first 2 weeks of admission. Two-thirds of patients received PRN medication during this period, but only 30% of administrations were preceded by patient conflict (usually aggression). Instead, it was typically administered to prevent escalation of patient behaviour and to help patients sleep. Overall, no conflict behaviours or further staff intervention occurred after 61% of PRN administrations. However, a successful outcome was less likely when medication was administered in response to patient aggression. The study concludes that improved monitoring, review procedures, training for nursing staff, and guidelines for the administration of PRN medications are needed.

Objective The objective of this study was to assess the acute effect of intranasally administered oxytocin (OT) on subjective states, cardiovascular, and endocrine parameters in healthy volunteers who inhaled 7.5% CO2. Methods Forty-five subjects were allocated into three matched groups of subjects who received 24 international units (IU) of OT, 2 mg of lorazepam (LZP), or placebo (PL). The challenge consisted of medical air inhalation for 20 min, 10 min of rest, and CO2 7.5% inhalation for 20 min. Subjective effects were evaluated by self-assessment scales; heart rate, blood pressure, skin conductance, and salivary cortisol were also measured. Assessments were performed at four time points: (i) baseline (−15 min); (ii) post-air inhalation (90 min); (iii) post-CO2 inhalation (120 min), and (iv) post-test (160 min). Results CO2 inhalation significantly increased the anxiety score in the PL group compared with the post-air measurement but not in the OT or LZP groups. The LZP reduced anxiety after medical air inhalation. Other parameters evaluated were not affected by OT. Conclusion OT, as well as LZP, prevented CO2-induced anxiety, suggesting that this hormone has anxiolytic properties. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is one of the most common sleep disorders in elderly and represents a special problem for elderly patients. Elderly patients use a large number of drugs that might have an influence on the upper airway structure, anxiolytics or benzodiazepines being the most common. The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of mild or moderate OSA treatment with mandibular advance oral appliance in older lorazepam users compared with the age-matched lorazepam-free patients. A total of 40 functionally independent patients with the age of 65-74 were enrolled in the study. All included patients were found to suffer from at least two of the existing OSA symptoms (snoring, sleep fragmentation, daytime sleepiness) and were diagnosed with mild or moderate OSA after nocturnal polysomnography. Patients were divided into two groups. The experimental group consisted of 20 patients who used lorazepam in their daily therapy, and a control group consisted of 20 patients who did not take lorazepam. A mandibular advance appliance was made individually for each patient. Patients involved in the study were not overweight and were suggested to practise sleeping on the side and reduce alcohol consumption during the study. The study has shown that mandibular advance oral appliances were responsible for complete control of the OSA in over 37% of cases (15 patients). Patients have also reported substantial improvement in the symptoms; 80% of them reported that they had snored less, slept better (94%) and have not experienced daytime sleepiness (100%).

Aims: To assess the management of epileptic seizures and status epilepticus in adult patients at Auckland City Hospital emergency department. This information will form the basis of future seizure management protocols and further research on the management of status epilepticus. Methods: The prehospital and acute hospital management of all adult seizure patients seen between 1 July 2009 and 31 December 2009 was reviewed with respect to seizure type, presence of first seizure, pre-existing epilepsy diagnosis and disposition from the emergency department. Results: Two hundred and fifty-five seizure events were identified in 227 patients. Nineteen patients presented twice during the study period and three patients presented three or more times. Generalised seizures were much more common than focal seizures. There were 75 presentations with first seizure (29.4%). Thirty-seven patients (49.3%) with a first seizure received treatment with an anti-epileptic drug. Status epilepticus occurred on 12 occasions (4.7%) with only three patients receiving lorazepam as treatment. The majority of seizure patients were managed by emergency department staff (58.4%) while general medicine (17.6%) and neurology (11.8%) teams managed fewer patients. Phenytoin was used in 56 patients (22%) with the majority (n= 43) receiving intravenous phenytoin. Many of the patients who received intravenous phenytoin were not subsequently discharged on that medication (46%). Conclusions: More patients than would be expected received treatment after their first seizure. Phenytoin was a widely used anti-epileptic drug. There was a wide variability in the management of status epilepticus, and intravenous lorazepam was underutilised.

Delirium is defined by a fluctuating level of attentiveness and has been associated with increased ICU mortality and poor cognitive outcomes in both general ICU and neurocritical care populations. Sedation use in the ICU can contribute to delirium. Limiting ICU sedation allows for the diagnosis of underlying acute neurological insults associated with delirium and leads to shorter mechanical ventilation time, shorter length of stay, and improved 1 year mortality rates. Identifying the underlying etiology of delirium is critical to developing treatment paradigms.

Kwentus J, Riesenberg RA, Marandi M, Manning RA, Allen MH, Fishman RS, Spyker DA, Kehne JH, Cassella JV. Rapid acute treatment of agitation in patients with bipolar I disorder: a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial with inhaled loxapine. Bipolar Disord 2012: 14: 31–40. © 2012 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Objective: The present study evaluated inhaled loxapine for the acute treatment of agitation in patients with bipolar I disorder. Methods: A Phase 3, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group inpatient study was performed at 17 psychiatric research facilities. Agitated patients (N = 314) with bipolar I disorder (manic or mixed episodes) were randomized (1:1:1) to inhaled loxapine 5 mg or 10 mg, or inhaled placebo using the Staccato® system. Following baseline assessments, patients received Dose 1 and were evaluated for 24 hours. If required, up to two additional doses of study drug and/or lorazepam rescue medication were given. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component (PANSS-EC) score two hours after Dose 1. The key secondary endpoint was the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement score at two hours after Dose 1. Additional endpoints included the changes from baseline in the PANSS-EC from 10 min through 24 hours after Dose 1. Safety was assessed by adverse events, vital signs, physical examinations, and laboratory tests. Results: For the primary and key secondary endpoints, both doses of inhaled loxapine significantly reduced agitation compared with placebo. Reduced agitation, as reflected in PANSS-EC score, was evident 10 min after Dose 1 with both doses. Inhaled loxapine was well tolerated, and the most common adverse events were known effects of loxapine or minor oral effects common with inhaled medications (dysgeusia was reported in 17% of patients receiving active drug versus 6% receiving placebo). Conclusions: Inhaled loxapine provided a rapid, non-injection, well-tolerated acute treatment for agitation in patients with bipolar I disorder.

AIM To see if adult age correlates with ex vivo protein binding of lorazepam, oxazepam and temazepam in healthy subjects.

Convulsive HSE affects an estimated 152,000 persons and causes 42,000 deaths each year in the USA (DeLorenzo, 2006). Treatment of human status epilepticus (HSE) is based on studies performed more than two decades ago using drugs developed 10 to 50 years or more before the studies. Successful treatment rates were only 67% with lorazepam and 44% with phenytoin (Treiman DM et al., 1998). These drugs now form the basis of the international HSE treatment guidelines (Kalviainen, 2007). A major barrier to the development of new drugs for HSE is providing enough pre-clinical evidence of safety and efficacy to justify the of conduct human studies. Results from studies performed in small animals with experimental SE may not be sufficient to convince trial sponsors to proceed with development of drugs in humans. Further, the available drugs for HSE were initially developed for chronic treatment of epilepsy, and only used for HSE after intravenous preparations became available. The mechanisms driving HSE may differ from the triggers of isolated seizures, and the best drugs for chronic epilepsy may not be the best choices to abort HSE. During the 2007 London Colloquium on SE, it became clear that many agents tested in small animal SE models had the potentially significant advantages over current agents. One of many of these is NS 1209, which is very effective in a model of status epilepticus but is not being developed for human use (Pitkanen A et al., 2007). However, many of these are not candidates for chronic epilepsy therapy, thus they will not proceed to clinical development. This led us to consider using CSE as a translational platform. The small animal (rodent) SE models have two shortcomings, which make it difficult to apply results to treating HSE. First, none of the models have counterparts in the human condition; they are usually induced by chemicals or electrical kindling (Sloviter RS et al., 2007). Secondly, scaling doses from rodents to humans involves a body size difference of more than 4000 fold and scaling is not linear (Leppik IE, 1998). This enormous difference may lead to substantial errors in selecting doses for humans. Clearly a test species having naturally occurring SE similar to humans and closer in terms of pharmacokinetic characteristics would be very useful.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether zolpidem is a safer alternative to benzodiazepines. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Community based. PARTICIPANTS: Health maintenance organization members with an initial prescription for zolpidem (n = 43,343), alprazolam (n = 103,790), lorazepam (n = 150,858), or diazepam (n = 93,618). MEASUREMENTS: Zolpidem and benzodiazepine prescriptions were identified from pharmacy databases. Rates of nonvertebral fractures and hip fractures requiring hospitalization were compared before and after an initial prescription for each treatment, adjusting for confounders using doubly robust estimation. RESULTS: In patients aged 65 and older, the rates of nonvertebral fractures and dislocations were similar in the pretreatment intervals. The rate ratios (RRs) for the 90-day posttreatment interval relative to the pretreatment interval were 2.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.78–3.65; P < .001) for zolpidem, 1.14 (95% CI = 0.80–1.64; P = .42) for alprazolam, 1.53 (95% CI = 1.23–1.91; P < .001) for lorazepam, and 1.97 (95% CI = 1.22–3.18; P = .01) for diazepam. The ratio of RRs (RRR)—the RR in the posttreatment period adjusted for the corresponding RR in the pretreatment period—were 2.23 (95% CI = 1.36– 3.66; P = .006) for zolpidem relative to alprazolam, 1.68 (95% CI = 1.12–2.53; P = .02) for zolpidem relative to lorazepam, and 1.29 (95% CI = 0.72–2.30; P = .32) for zolpidem relative to diazepam. The RRs decreased with time from the initial prescription (trend P < .001), as would be expected if the association is causal. CONCLUSION: In older adults, the risk of injury with zolpidem exceeded that with alprazolam and lorazepam and was similar to that with diazepam. If the associations are causal, then the high incidence of these fractures implies that these treatment induce a substantial number of fractures and consequential costs. Further study of the association is imperative. J Am Geriatr Soc 2011.

Background To address the hypothesis that GABAA receptor modulation during adolescence may alter the abuse liability of ethanol during adulthood, the effects of adolescent administration of both a positive and negative GABAA receptor modulator on adult alcohol intake and preference were assessed.

The advent of liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), with the sensitivity it confers, permits the analysis of both phase I and II drug metabolites that in the past would have been difficult to target using other techniques. These metabolites may have relevance to current analytical toxicology employing LC-MS/MS, and lorazepam was chosen as a model drug for investigation, as only the parent compound has been targeted for screening purposes. Following lorazepam administration (2 mg, p.o.) to 6 volunteers, metabolites were identified in urine by electrospray ionization LC-MS/MS, aided by the use of deuterated analogues generated by microsomal incubation for use as internal chromatographic and mass spectrometric markers. Metabolites present were lorazepam glucuronide, a quinazolinone, a quinazoline carboxylic acid, and two hydroxylorazepam isomers, one of which is novel, having the hydroxyl group located on the fused chlorobenzene ring. The quinazolinone, and particularly the quinazoline carboxylic acid metabolite, provided longer detection windows than lorazepam in urine extracts not subjected to enzymatic hydrolysis, a finding that is highly relevant to toxicology laboratories that omit hydrolysis in order to rapidly reduce the time spent on gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis. With hydrolysis, the longest windows of detection were achieved by monitoring lorazepam, supporting the targeting of the aglycone with free drug for those incorporating hydrolysis in their analytical toxicology procedures.

Summary Purpose: Intravenous lorazepam is considered the drug of first choice for control of acute convulsive seizures. However, resource or personnel constraints necessitate the study of alternative routes and medications. This study compared the efficacy and adverse effects of intranasal versus intravenous lorazepam in children aged 6–14 years who presented with acute seizures. Methods: This was a randomized open-label study conducted at an Indian hospital from August 2008 to April 2009. One hundred forty-one consecutive children aged 6–14 years who presented convulsing to the emergency room were included. After stabilization, the children were randomized to receive either intravenous or intranasal lorazepam (0.1 mg/kg, maximum 4 mg). The primary outcome measure was clinical seizure remission within 10 min of drug administration. The study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00735527). Key Findings: Seventy patients were randomized to receive intravenous and 71 to receive intranasal lorazepam. The patients in the two groups were comparable at baseline. Clinical seizure remission within 10 min of drug administration was found in 80% of the intravenous group as compared to 83.1% of intranasal group. The lower limit of 95% confidence interval for effect size was approximately −9.7%, with an a priori cutoff for noninferiority of −10%. Significance: Intranasal administration of lorazepam is not found to be inferior to intravenous administration for termination of acute convulsive seizures in children.