Healthcare Utilization Characteristics for Intranasal Midazolam Versus Rectal Diazepam

To investigate connections between patient demographics, health care utilization, prescription use, and refills for patients using intranasal midazolam, per rectum diazepam, or both. A retrospective cohort contained patients with epilepsy prescribed intranasal midazolam, per rectum diazepam, or both...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of child neurology 2018-02, Vol.33 (2), p.158-163
Main Authors: Nunley, Sunjay, Glynn, Peter, Rust, Steve, Vidaurre, Jorge, Albert, Dara V. F., Patel, Anup D.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Administration, Intranasal
Administration, Rectal
Adolescent
Adult
Ambulatory Care
Anticonvulsants - administration & dosage
Anticonvulsants - economics
Child
Child, Preschool
Diazepam - administration & dosage
Diazepam - economics
Epilepsy - drug therapy
Epilepsy - economics
Female
Hospitalization
Humans
Infant
Insurance, Health
Male
Midazolam - administration & dosage
Midazolam - economics
Middle Aged
Patient Acceptance of Health Care
Retrospective Studies
Young Adult
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:To investigate connections between patient demographics, health care utilization, prescription use, and refills for patients using intranasal midazolam, per rectum diazepam, or both. A retrospective cohort contained patients with epilepsy prescribed intranasal midazolam, per rectum diazepam, or both. We analyzed number of emergency department visits, ambulance services, urgent care visits, and unplanned hospitalizations. A total of 5458 patients were identified. Patients on intranasal midazolam had on average 1.53 fewer emergency department visits (95% confidence interval 1.16-1.89, P < .0001), 0.29 fewer uses of ambulance services (95% confidence interval 0.17-0.41, P < .0001), and 0.60 fewer urgent care visits (95% confidence interval 0.36-0.83, P < .0001) compared to patients in the per rectum diazepam group. Patients with commercial insurance were more likely to have intranasal midazolam prescription (odds ratio = 1.73, 95% confidence interval 1.42-2.11, P < .0001). The results substantiate the cost-effective benefits of prescribing intranasal midazolam compared to per rectum diazepam because several aspects of health care utilization were decreased in those using intranasal midazolam.
ISSN:0883-0738
1708-8283
DOI:10.1177/0883073817744696