Status epilepticus in dogs: intranasal midazolam vs rectal diazepam — POSSIBLE

In dogs with status epilepticus, does intranasal midazolam vs rectal diazepam stop the seizure faster and more often?

Shelf #294 · gate-verified and approved by the developer

POSSIBLE: In hospital, intranasal midazolam stopped status epilepticus in 70% of dogs (14/20) versus 20% (3/15) on rectal diazepam (P = .0059) in a multicenter randomized parallel-group clinical trial (Charalambous 2017) — an absolute difference of 50 percentage points on the trial's own success definition (the seizure ceased within 5 minutes and did not recur within 10 minutes after administration). The stamp is POSSIBLE, not higher: the trial was small (35 dogs in total), the record establishes randomisation but does not establish blinding, and there was no placebo arm — rectal diazepam is the active first-line comparator. All dogs in both groups showed sedation and ataxia. The record's suggestion of home use was not itself trialled at home: every dog in the trial manifested status epilepticus within a hospital environment. Drafted Nov 10, 2026 (VetMed build, topic #294); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.

Charalambous 2017: intranasal midazolam succeeded in 70% (14/20) vs 20% (3/15) on rectal diazepam (P = .0059)

Multicenter Randomized Parallel-Group Clinical Trial (record's own title wording)

Who: Dogs: client-owned dogs with idiopathic or structural epilepsy manifesting status epilepticus within a hospital environment, randomly allocated to intranasal midazolam (IN-MDZ) via a mucosal atomization device (n = 20) or rectal diazepam (R-DZP) (n = 15), as first-line management before intravenous access was available. Seizure cessation time and adverse effects were recorded; the record does not state that the recorders were blinded.

Result: For each dog, treatment was considered successful if the seizure ceased within 5 minutes and did not recur within 10 minutes after administration. IN-MDZ and R-DZP terminated status epilepticus in 70% (14/20) and 20% (3/15) of cases, respectively (P = .0059) — an absolute difference of 50 percentage points. All dogs showed sedation and ataxia. The record's conclusion is that IN-MDZ is a quick, safe and effective first-line medication for controlling status epilepticus in dogs and appears superior to R-DZP.

Watch out: Randomisation is established by the title, the abstract ('Randomly allocated'; 'Randomized parallel-group clinical trial') and the publication type Randomized Controlled Trial — but no blinding is stated anywhere in the record, so this card does not call the trial blinded, and outcome recording was by clinicians who could see which route was given. Only 35 dogs, and the at-home use mentioned in the conclusion was not tested in the trial itself (all treatment was in hospital). Distinct from Shelves #292/#293, which ask about epilepsy adjuncts, not status epilepticus.

Charalambous M, Bhatti SFM, Van Ham L, Platt S, Jeffery ND, Tipold A, Siedenburg J, Volk HA, Hasegawa D, Gallucci A, Gandini G, Musteata M, Ives E, Vanhaesebrouck AE. Intranasal Midazolam versus Rectal Diazepam for the Management of Canine Status Epilepticus: A Multicenter Randomized Parallel-Group Clinical Trial. J Vet Intern Med. 2017;31(4):1149-1158. PMID: 28543780. Registry ID: none in the record. MeSH: Administration, Intranasal · Administration, Rectal · Animals · Anticonvulsants · Diazepam · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Female · Male · Midazolam · Status Epilepticus

Synthesis: intranasal midazolam beat rectal diazepam head-to-head, in one small unblinded randomised trial

Synthesis

Who: Synthesis of the card above: Charalambous 2017 (multicenter randomized parallel-group trial; 20 intranasal midazolam vs 15 rectal diazepam client-owned dogs with status epilepticus in hospital).

Result: A 50-percentage-point absolute gap in successful termination (70% vs 20%, P = .0059) on a timed, pre-defined success criterion is a large head-to-head effect, and it favours the intranasal route when intravenous access is not yet available. What keeps the stamp at POSSIBLE is the trial's size and the absence of any blinding in the record — a larger or blinded-assessment replication would be needed to go higher.

Watch out: Sedation and ataxia occurred in all dogs in both groups in the record, so a successfully treated dog should be expected to be sedated and ataxic afterwards, whichever route is used.

Synthesis of Charalambous M et al. PMID: 28543780. Registry ID as on the individual card.

Back to the library index · VetMed home

VetMed is an educational resource, not veterinary advice.