ArticleCNS drugs2023
Clonazepam Loading Dose in Status Epilepticus: Is More Always Better?
Article in CNS drugs, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesBenzodiazepines are the first treatment line in status epilepticus (SE). Despite their well-established benefit, benzodiazepines are frequently underdosed with potential detrimental consequences. In some European countries, clonazepam (CLZ) is commonly used as the first line treatment. The aim of this study was to explore the correlation between CLZ loading doses and SE outcome.
methodsThis study included a retrospective analysis of a prospective registry in Lausanne, Switzerland (CHUV Lausanne University Hospital), including all SE episodes treated between February 2016 and February 2021. Only adults (> 16 years old) were included with CLZ used as the first treatment line. Post-anoxic SE were excluded because of significant differences in physiopathology and prognosis. Patient characteristics, SE features, the validated SE severity score (STESS), and treatment characteristics were prospectively recorded. We considered loading doses of 0.015 mg/kg or higher (following commonly recommended loading doses) as high doses. We analyzed outcome in terms of number of treatment lines after the CLZ, proportion of refractory episodes, intubation for airways protection, intubation for SE treatment, and mortality. We performed univariable analyses to investigate the association between loading doses and clinical response. A multivariable stepwise backward binary logistic regression was applied for adjusting for potential confounders. Multivariable linear regression was similarly used to analyze CLZ dose as a continuous variable.
resultsWe collected 251 SE episodes in 225 adult patients. Median CLZ loading dose was 0.010 mg/kg. CLZ high doses were used in 21.9% of SE episodes (in 43.8% for > 80% of the high dose). Thirteen percent of patients with SE were intubated for airways control, while intubation was needed in 12.7% for SE treatment. High CLZ loading doses were independently associated with younger age (median 62 versus 68 years old, p = 0.002), lesser weight (65 kg versus 75 kg, p = 0.001) and more frequent intubation for airways protection (23% vs 11%, p = 0.013), but differing CLZ dose was not associated with any outcome parameter.
conclusionCLZ high doses were more frequently used for SE treatment in younger patients with healthy weight and were more often associated with intubation for airways protection, probably as an adverse event. Varying CLZ dose did not alter outcome in SE, raising the possibility that commonly recommended doses are above what is needed, at least in some patients. Our results suggest that CLZ doses in SE may be individualized depending on the clinical setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.