Intranasal sumatriptan for acute migraine attacks: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Efficacy and safety of intranasal agents for the acute treatment of migraine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal agents may be ideal for the treatment of migraine patients. Many new acute intranasal-specific therapies have been developed, but few of them have been directly compared. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and safety of various intranasal agents for the treatment of acute migraine in adult patients.

METHODS

The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and PubMed were searched from inception to 15 August 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using intranasal agents (no restrictions on dose, formulation, dosing regimen or timing of the first dose) to treat adult patients with acute migraine were included. The primary efficacy endpoint was pain freedom at 2 h, and the primary safety endpoint was adverse events (AEs). The analysis process followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies (21 RCTs, 9738 participants) were included. Compared to the placebo, 5 mg of zolmitriptan using a conventional liquid nasal spray device was the most effective for pain freedom at 2 h [odds ratio (OR): 4.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.43 to 6.43] and 24 h (OR: 5.49, 95% CI: 3.58 to 8.42) among all the interventions. Butorphanol nasal spray 1 mg was the most effective (OR: 8.62, 95% CI: 1.11 to 66.92) for pain freedom at 1 h, but with low-quality evidence. DFN-02 presented the highest freedom from nausea (OR: 4.95, 95% CI: 1.29 to 19.01) and phonophobia (OR: 5.36, 95% CI: 1.67 to 17.22) at 2 h, albeit with lower odds of achieving complete pain freedom. ROX-828 showed the highest improvement in freedom from photophobia at 2 h (OR: 4.03, 95% CI: 1.66 to 9.81). Dihydroergotamine nasal spray was significantly associated with the highest risk of AEs (OR: 9.65, 95% CI: 4.39 to 21.22) and was not recommended for routine use. Zavegepant nasal spray demonstrated the lowest risk of AEs (OR: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.37 to 3.03). The results of sensitivity analyses for the primary endpoints (pain freedom at 2 h and AEs) were generally consistent with those of the base case model.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with other new intranasal-specific therapies in treating migraine attacks, zolmitriptan nasal spray 5 mg was the most effective agent for pain freedom at 2 h. Zavegepant nasal spray 10 mg had the fewest adverse side effects.

Access to the CNS: Strategies to overcome the BBB

The blood-brain barrier (BBB) limits the access of substances to the central nervous system (CNS) which hinders the treatment of pathologies affecting the brain and the spinal cord. Nowadays, research is focus on new strategies to overcome the BBB and can treat the pathologies affecting the CNS are needed. In this review, the different strategies that allow and increase the access of substances to the CNS are analysed and extended commented, not only invasive strategies but also non-invasive ones. The invasive techniques include the direct injection into the brain parenchyma or the CSF and the therapeutic opening of the BBB, while the non-invasive techniques include the use of alternative routes of administration (nose-to-brain route), the inhibition of efflux transporters (as it is important to prevent the drug efflux from the brain and enhance the therapeutic efficiency), the chemical modification of the molecules (prodrugs and chemical drug delivery systems (CDDS)) and the use of nanocarriers. In the future, knowledge about nanocarriers to treat CNS diseases will continue to increase, but the use of other strategies such as drug repurposing or drug reprofiling, which are cheaper and less time consuming, may limit its transfer to society. The main conclusion is that the combination of different strategies may be the most interesting approach to increase the access of substances to the CNS.

Recent advances in drug delivery to the central nervous system by inhalation

INTRODUCTION

Drugs need to enter the systemic circulation efficiently before they can cross the blood-brain barrier and reach the central nervous system. Although the respiratory tract is not a common route of administration for delivering drugs to the central nervous system, it has attracted increasing interest in recent years for this purpose.

AREAS COVERED

In this article, we compare pulmonary delivery to three other common routes (parenteral, oral, and intranasal) for delivering drugs to the central nervous system, followed by summarising the devices used to aerosolise neurological drugs. Recent studies delivering drugs for different neurological disorders via inhalation are then discussed to illustrate the strengths of pulmonary delivery.

EXPERT OPINION

Recent studies provide strong evidence and rationale to support inhaling neurological drugs. Since inhalation can achieve improved pharmacokinetics and rapid onset of action for multiple drugs, it is a non-invasive and efficient method to deliver drugs to the central nervous system. Future research should focus on delivering other small and macro-molecules via the lungs for different neurological conditions.

Patients and general practitioners assessment of the main outcomes employed in the acute and preventive treatment of migraine: a cross sectional study

Background

We aim to describe and compare patients and general practitioners’ opinions about the different variables related to acute and preventive treatment for migraine.

Patients and methods

An observational descriptive study was performed. Patients with episodic migraine and general practitioners, from our healthcare area, were invited to answer a survey about the different variables related to migraine treatment. They were asked for their opinions on the different variables, and to consider the desired efficacy in percentage terms and the desired action times of treatment.

Results

Fifty-five patients and fifty-five general practitioners were selected. Effectiveness was considered the most important variable for symptomatic and preventive treatment. Cost was considered the least important variable. Patients desired percentage of efficacy was 84.0% (±16.7%) for symptomatic treatment and 79.9% (±17.1%) for preventive treatment. General practitioners desired percentage of efficacy was 75.0% (±14.0) for symptomatic treatment and 70.4% (±14.3) for preventive treatment. For symptomatic treatment the desired action time for pain cessation was selected as 27.5 min (±13.8) for patients and 24.0 min (±18.3) for GPs. For preventive treatment the desired action time for effect was 7.1 days (±4.5) for patients and 13.9 days (±8.9) for general practitioners.

Conclusion

The most important endpoints were, for acute: effectiveness, a short action time and a persistent effect. For prophylactic: effectiveness, sustained effect and tolerability. Both patients and general practitioners agreed on the most and least preferred endpoints. Desired percentage of efficacy was above 75% for both symptomatic and preventive treatment; and the desired action time was below 30 min for acute treatment and 2 weeks for preventive treatment.

Unveiling the comparative efficacy and tolerability of comprehensive treatments for migraine: A protocol of systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a chronic paroxysmal incapacitating neurological disorder, which endangers the health of human worldwide ranking as the third most prevalent medical condition. There are no comprehensive estimates of treatments for migraine. We will conduct this systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to synthesis quantitative and comparative evidence on the efficacy and tolerability of all the known pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for migraine.

METHOD

We will perform the systematic electronic search of the literature utilizing MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health (CINAHL), and PsycINFO. We will only include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of high quality which appraise the efficacy or safety of any potential pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions in the treatment of patients with migraine. The traditional pairwise meta-analyses will be performed to anticipate the heterogeneities and publication bias and the NMA will be conducted within a Bayesian hierarchical model framework to obtain estimates for all valuable treatments for migraine. The entire heterogeneity will be quantified by Q statistic and I2 index. Other analyses included sensitivity analyses, meta-regression, and subgroup analyses will also be conducted. The whole process will be conducted using in R-3.6.0 software.

RESULTS

This study will obtain the efficacy and tolerability of all potential treatments for migraine, aiming at providing consolidated evidence to help make the best choice of interventions. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

DISCUSSION

This Bayesian network meta-analysis may be the first attempt to quantitatively synthesize the efficacy and tolerability of all potential treatments for migraine. And this method can ensure us to fully utilize both the direct and indirect evidence as well as gain the comparative estimates displayed in the derived hierarchies. Besides, we have registered this protocol on the international prospective register of systematic review (PROSPERO) (CRD42020157278).

Efficacy of triptans for the treatment of acute migraines: a quantitative comparison based on the dose-effect and time-course characteristics

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to establish a pharmacodynamic model to quantitatively compare the efficacy characteristics of seven kinds of triptans and their different dosage forms in the treatment of acute migraines.

METHODS

Clinical studies of triptans in the treatment of acute migraines were comprehensively searched in the public databases. Pharmacodynamic models were established to describe the dose-effect and time-course of each kind of triptan for the proportion of patients who became pain free or had pain relief.

RESULTS

A total of 92 articles involving 47,376 subjects were included in the analysis. After eliminating the placebo effect, oral eletriptan (40 mg) had the highest efficacy among all oral drugs at the maximum approved dose, and the proportion of patients who became pain free and had pain relief were 30.9% and 37.9% at 2 h, respectively. However, oral naratriptan (2.5 mg) had the lowest efficacy, and the proportion of patients who became pain free and had pain relief was 10.3% and 21.6% at 2 h, respectively. The efficacy of subcutaneous administration was significantly higher than that of oral administration, and the efficacy of nasal spray administration was comparable to that of oral administration. Regarding the dose-effect, the efficacy of the sumatriptan nasal spray significantly increased within the FDA (Food and Drug Administration)-approved dose range. When the dose was increased from 5 to 20 mg of sumatriptan nasal spray, the proportion of patients who became pain free and had pain relief increased by 16.8% and 18.3% at 2 h, respectively. Regarding the time-course, the time of onset of subcutaneous sumatriptan (6 mg) was the fastest, and the fraction of patients who were pain free at 2 h accounted for 90.6% of that at 4 h.

CONCLUSIONS

This study evaluated the efficacy characteristics of seven kinds of triptans and their different dosage forms. The present findings provide necessary quantitative information for migraine medication guidelines.

Efficacy and safety of DFN-11 (sumatriptan injection, 3 mg) in adults with episodic migraine: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

In a previous randomized, double-blind, proof-of-concept study in rapidly escalating migraine, a 3 mg dose of subcutaneous sumatriptan (DFN-11) was associated with fewer and shorter triptan sensations than a 6 mg dose. The primary objective of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of acute treatment with DFN-11 compared with placebo in episodic migraine.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled efficacy and safety study of DFN-11 in the acute treatment of adults with episodic migraine (study RESTOR). The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects taking DFN-11 who were pain free at 2 h postdose in the double-blind period compared with placebo. Secondary endpoints included earlier postdose timepoints, assessments of pain relief and subjects' freedom from their most bothersome symptom (MBS) (among nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia). Safety and tolerability were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 392 subjects was screened, 268 (68.4%) were randomized, and 234 (87.3% of those randomized) completed the double-blind treatment period. The proportion of subjects who were pain free at 2 h postdose was significantly greater in the DFN-11 group than in the placebo group (51.0% vs 30.8%, P  =  0.0023). Compared with placebo, significantly higher proportions of subjects treated with DFN-11 were also pain free at 30, 60, and 90 min postdose (P  ≤  0.0195). DFN-11 was significantly superior to placebo for pain relief at 60 min, 90 min, and 2 h postdose (P ≤ 0.0179). At 2 h postdose, DFN-11 was also significantly superior to placebo for freedom from photophobia (P  =  0.0056) and phonophobia (P  =  0.0167). Overall, 33.3% (37/111) who received DFN-11 and 13.4% (16/119) who received placebo experienced at least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), the most common of which were injection site swelling (7.2% vs 0.8%) and pain (7.2% vs 5.9%). Chest discomfort was about half as common in the DFN-11 treatment group as it was in the placebo group (0.9% vs 1.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study met its primary endpoint, pain freedom at 2 h postdose, with DFN-11 significantly better than placebo, and the incidence of TEAEs and triptan sensations with DFN-11 was low. The 3 mg dose of sumatriptan in DFN-11 appears to be an effective alternative to a 6 mg SC dose of sumatriptan, with good safety and tolerability. ( clinicaltrials.gov : NCT02569853; registered 07 October 2015).