1 / 32

Neurological Emergencies Treatment Trials Network

Neurological Emergencies Treatment Trials Network. RAMPART Overview Robert Silbergleit. R apid A nticonvulsant M edication P rior to Ar rival T rial (RAMPART). Paramedic treatment of status epilepticus Standard treatment is IV benzodiazepine

vlora
Download Presentation

Neurological Emergencies Treatment Trials Network

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Neurological EmergenciesTreatment Trials Network RAMPARTOverview RobertSilbergleit

  2. Rapid Anticonvulsant MedicationPrior to Arrival Trial (RAMPART) • Paramedic treatment of status epilepticus • Standard treatment is IV benzodiazepine • IV starts difficult / dangerous in the convulsing patient • Best IV agent, lorazepam, impractical for EMS • IM treatment is faster and easier • Best IM agent, midazolam, is practical for EMS

  3. Rapid Anticonvulsant MedicationPrior to Arrival Trial (RAMPART) • IM midazolam autoinjector v. IV lorazepam • Double dummy blinded design • Exception to consent for emergency research • Outcome: termination of seizure prior to ED arrival • Sample 700 patients (350 per group) • Intention to treat, non-inferiority analysis

  4. 120,000 to 200,000 cases / yr Mortality 22% at 30 days 55,000 deaths in the US 1st Yr cost $40,000 /patient Bassin S, et al. Crit Care 2002;6(2):137-42 Claassen J, et al. Neurology 2002;58(1):139-42 DeLorenzo RJ, et al. Neurology 1996;46(4):1029-35 Penberthy LT, et al. Seizure 2005;14(1):46-51 Wu YW, et al. Neurology 2002;58(7):1070-6 Status Epilepticus

  5. Pre-hospital care issues • PHTSE trial proved EMS treatment effective • Ideal agent and route remain unknown • Convulsions can make IV placement challenging • Lorazepam has stocking / cost concerns • Mass casualty / battlefield are special concerns

  6. Intramuscular midazolam • Favorable pharmacology for treatment of SE • Effectiveness • Rapidity • Better stability – lower cost • Increasing acceptance by EMS • Optimal agent for organophosphate toxicity

  7. Midazolam levels near 80% of peak as early as 5 minutes after IM administration Alfonzo-Echeverri, Anesth Prog 1990;37:277-281

  8. IM midazolam stops seizures 4 times faster than IM diazepam (in mice) Raines, Epilepsia. 1990;31:313-7

  9. Brain midazolam concentration remains high even as serum concentration is dropping Megarbane, Toxicology Letters 2005;159:22–31

  10. Duration of seizure suppression with midazolam is hours, and similar to that of diazepam Towne, J Emerg Med 1999;17:323–328

  11. Meta-analysis of IM/IN midazolam shows the same efficacy as IV diazepam Review: IV diazepam versus IM/IN midazolam for treatment of seizures Comparison: 01 Effectiveness of IM/IN MDZ as compared to IV DZP Outcome: 01 Termination of seizure IVDiazepam IM/INMidazolam RR (fixed) Weight RR (fixed) Study n/N n/N 95% CI % 95% CI Chamberlain 8.99 0.92 [0.69, 1.21] 11/13 12/13 Lahat 17.23 1.04 [0.87, 1.25] 24/26 23/26 Rainbow 19.96 0.73 [0.47, 1.12] 23/62 23/45 Mahmoudian 15.73 1.33 [0.97, 1.83] 28/35 21/35 38.10 0.92 [0.80, 1.07] Shah 54/65 45/50 Total (95% CI) 201 169 100.00 0.97 [0.86, 1.09] 0.5 0.7 1 1.5 2 Favors IM/IN MDZ Favors IV DZP Total events: 140 (IV Diazepam), 124 (IM/IN Midazolam) Test for heterogeneity: Chi² = 6.87, df = 4 (P = 0.14), I² = 41.8% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.54 (P = 0.59)

  12. Meta-analysis of IM/IN midazolam shows more rapid termination of seizures compared to IV diazepam Review: IV diazepam versus IM/IN midazolam for treatment of seizures Comparison: 01 Effectiveness of IM/IN MDZ as compared to IV DZP Outcome: 02 Time to seizure control IV DZP IM/IN MDZ WMD (fixed) Weight WMD (fixed) Study N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) 95% CI % 95% CI 11 11.20(3.60) 13 7.80(4.10) 3.51 3.40 [0.32, 6.48] Chamberlain 26 8.00(4.10) 26 6.10(3.60) 7.58 1.90 [-0.20, 4.00] Lahat 65 4.20(2.30) 50 1.60(0.90) 88.91 2.60 [1.99, 3.21] Shah 102 89 100.00 2.58 [2.00, 3.15] Total (95% CI) -10 -5 0 5 10 Favors IM/IN MDZ Favors IV DZP Test for heterogeneity: Chi² = 0.68, df = 2 (P = 0.71), I² = 0% Test for overall effect: Z = 8.74 (P < 0.00001)

  13. Hypotheses Primary • IM midazolam is as effective as IV lorazepam at stopping convulsions prior to ED arrival Secondary • Convulsions stop more rapidly with treatment with IM midazolam versus IV lorazepam • There is no difference in safety between the two treatments

  14. Inclusion criteria • Continuous or repeated convulsive seizure activity for > 5 minutes • Patient is still seizing • Estimated weight > 13 kg

  15. Exclusion criteria • Major trauma precipitating seizure • Hypoglycemia • Known allergy to midazolam or lorazepam • Sensitivity to benzodiazepines • Cardiac arrest or heart rate <40 beats/minute • Known pregnancy • Prisoner

  16. Intervention - Dose • Two packages in each box, Child dose and Adult dose • Each package has one IM injector, one IV dose, one of which is active, the other is dummy • Child (13- 39 kg) – Lorazepam 2 mg or Midazolam 5 mg • Adult (40 kg and up)– Lorazepam 4 mg or Midazolam 10 mg • Midazolam is in an autoinjector • Lorazepam is given IV

  17. Providing data loggers, stepper controllers, data acquisition and custom engineering services to customers worldwide RAMPART Datalogger

  18. Intervention • Medic arrives on scene and evaluates patient • Ask bystanders duration of seizure and trauma • Look for medic alert jewelry • Check glucose and vital signs • For children, check estimated weight • If criteria are met, study box is opened to enroll • Medic states that entry criteria are met • Select child dose or adult dose based on weight • Give IM medication and verbalize

  19. Intervention (continued) • Start IV, give IV med, and verbalize • Monitor vital sings and transport • Verbalize if convulsions stop • At 10 minute after treatment, provide “rescue” meds per local protocol if still seizing en route, verbalize tha med was given • At ED arrival, verbailze whether patient is still seizing or not

  20. ED and inpatient treatment Attempt standardized post-intervention care For further seizures in the ED or secondary treatment of prior status… • Lorazepam 0.5-0.1 mg/kg plus • Phenytoin or Fosphenytoin 18-20 mg/kg

  21. ED and inpatient treatment If seizures continue then… • Intubate and ventilate, keep ≤ 37°C • Consider vecuronium 0.1 mg/kg • Then add: • Midazolam 0.2 mg/kg then 1.2 ug/kg/min or • Propofol 1 mg/kg then 1-5 mg/kg/hr or • Pentobarbital 5-15 mg/kg over 1 hr, then 0.5-5 mg/kg/hr • Admit to ICU, early EEG monitoring

  22. Study Activity and Data Collection • Study team activated on ED arrival of subject • Investigator or coordinator in ED • Collect the data logger • Complete as many CRF items as possible • Approach subject or family for consent to continue to collect and use data • Restock ambulance with new study kit • Follow patient in hospital for AE’s • Collect remaining data at discharge

  23. Primary outcome • Proportion of subjects with termination of clinically evident seizure determined at arrival in the Emergency Department (ED) after a single dose of study medication. • Non-inferiority analysis designed to detect greater than 10% absolute difference in proportion with termination at ED arrival.

  24. Secondary outcomes • Rapidity of seizure termination • Frequency of subsequent tracheal intubation • Frequency and duration of ICU and hospital stay

  25. Sample Size • Non-inferiority margin of 10% • Power of 0.85 • Significance at 0.05 • Inflation for data loss and recidivists at 15% • N = 700 (350 per group)

  26. Enrollment • 700 subjects over 36 months • 21 subjects per hub per year • If each hub recruits using 14 ambulances the rate is 0.13 subjects/ambulance*month • By comparison the PHTSE trial enrolled just over 0.20 subjects/ambulance*month and did not enroll children

  27. Human subjects protection Benefits • Both arms are accepted therapy • Potential for direct benefit to subjects Challenges • Exception to Informed Consent • IRB approval at all receiving hospitals

  28. Exception to Informed Consent • Community Consultation • Public Notification • Local Context • Centralized Support • Local Outreach – attend community meetings • Patient Focus Groups – survivors and clinics

  29. Emergency Exception • These regulations can improve the quality of research done in this network • NETT can help the FDA, NIH, and OHRP ensure the quality of the regulations • Build on experience, consensus, and innovation

  30. Timeline • 2007 • IND submission • IRB applications • Community consultations • Public notification • Acquire and test data loggers • EMS approvals

  31. Timeline • 2008-2010 • Enrollment • Initial and on-going EMS training • On-going AE reporting • One interim analysis at 350 subjects enrolled • 2011 • Last patient in – database lock • Analysis • Public notification again

  32. nett.umich.edu

More Related