Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41051929›Full record

ArticleEpilepsia open2025

Rescue epilepsy medication and training: A comparison between midazolam use, guidelines, clinical practice, and possibilities in the UK and Norway.

Audrey McBride, Oliver Johannes Henning, Cecilie Johannessen Landmark, Lance Watkins, Samuel Tromans, Paul Basset, Paraskevi Triantafyllopoulou, Rohit Shankar

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Epilepsia open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Audrey McBrideExeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Truro, UK.
Oliver Johannes HenningNational Center for Epilepsy, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Cecilie Johannessen LandmarkNational Center for Epilepsy, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0877-8912
Lance WatkinsPeninsula School of Medicine, University of Plymouth, Truro, UK.
Samuel TromansUniversity of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Paul BassetStatsconsultancy Ltd, Amersham, UK.
Paraskevi TriantafyllopoulouTizard Centre, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
Rohit ShankarNational Center for Epilepsy, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesStatus epilepticus (SE) is a prolonged epileptic seizure carrying significant risk of long-term disability and death. Rescue therapies are prescribed for prehospital administration to terminate SE. This study compared prescribing practices of rescue therapies of midazolam in the UK and Norway.

methodsA cross-sectional, online, 21-item Likert-style survey was administered to epilepsy professionals in the UK circulated via ILAE/ESNA and in Norway via ILAE/Epilepsinet using a non-discriminatory exponential snowballing technique leading to non-probability sampling. Data were collected anonymously and analyzed using descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney, Chi-square, and Fisher's exact tests. Significance was accepted at p < 0.05.

resultsAll 86 UK and 53 Norway respondents identified buccal midazolam as the first-line rescue medication choice in the community for prolonged and/or generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Norwegian respondents had significantly more experience in epilepsy-related work (p = 0.002), were more likely to have a larger caseload on buccal midazolam (p < 0.001), prescribed higher midazolam doses (p < 0.001), and provided training yearly (p < 0.001). UK respondents were more likely to delegate rescue medication prescribing to primary care (p = 0.006) and reviewed emergency management plans more frequently (p = 0.006). There was an inter-country difference in the period of midazolam non-use that respondents required before withdrawing from treatment plans (p < 0.001). Concern about inappropriate use of buccal midazolam was similarly high in both countries. SIGNIFICANCE: This study compared epilepsy professionals in two neighboring high-income countries. Findings suggest an urgent need for international guidelines to recommend best practices on prescribing doses and withdrawal of buccal midazolam. The potential abuse of buccal midazolam by patients and carers warrants further investigation. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This study investigated doctors' and nurses' views on the use of epilepsy rescue therapies, particularly midazolam. These are medications that can stop dangerously long epileptic seizures from progressing to the point of serious injury or death. The study was carried out in both the UK and Norway to establish differences between the countries. The key findings were that Norwegian doctors prescribed rescue medications at a higher dose, that UK clinicians reviewed and deprescribed medications faster after patients stopped having prolonged seizures, and that clinicians in both countries were concerned about medications being misused or abused by patients and carers.

Indexed as

AnticonvulsantsEpilepsyMidazolamPractice Guidelines as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'Status EpilepticusAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleNorwaySurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomAnticonvulsantsMidazolambenzodiazepineepilepsy mortalityepilepsy riskprolonged seizuresrescue therapy

Identifiers

PMID41051929
PMCPMC12716287

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.