718 PHARMACOKINETICS OF INTRANASAL FENTANYL SPRAY (INFS) IN SUBJECTS WITH SEASONAL ALLERGIC RHINITIS WITH AND WITHOUT PRIOR ADMINISTRATION OF OXYMETAZOLINE

Pharmacokinetics of Nasal Esketamine in Patients with Allergic Rhinitis with and Without Nasal Decongestant Pretreatment and in Healthy Subjects with and Without Nasal Corticosteroid Pretreatment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Nasal esketamine is indicated for the treatment of adults with treatment-resistant depression and depressive symptoms in adults with major depressive disorder with acute suicidal ideation or behavior. Primary objectives of this study were to evaluate the effect of nasal decongestant pretreatment in patients with allergic rhinitis and the impact of daily nasal corticosteroid administration by healthy subjects on nasal esketamine pharmacokinetics.

METHODS

Patients with allergic rhinitis self-administered 56 mg of nasal esketamine after pretreatment with nasal oxymetazoline (0.05%) at 1 h before esketamine and without oxymetazoline pretreatment. They were exposed to grass pollen in an allergen challenge chamber to induce allergic rhinitis symptoms at approximately 2 h before each esketamine administration until 1 h after. Healthy subjects self-administered esketamine (56 mg) before and after administration for 16 consecutive days of mometasone (200 µg), with the second esketamine dose administered 1 h after the last mometasone dose. The plasma pharmacokinetics of esketamine and noresketamine were assessed after each esketamine administration. The tolerability of esketamine, including effects on dissociative and potential psychotomimetic symptoms and level of sedation and suicidal ideation and behavior, was evaluated.

RESULTS

The rate of esketamine absorption was slightly greater in patients exhibiting symptoms of allergic rhinitis (decrease in median tmax from 32 min to 22 min). Increases in esketamine Cmax and AUC were also small (mean, ≤ 21%). The pharmacokinetics of esketamine was not affected by oxymetazoline or mometasone pretreatment. Esketamine was well tolerated when it was administered with or without pretreatment of oxymetazoline or mometasone.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients exhibiting symptoms of rhinitis may receive nasal esketamine spray without dose adjustment. In addition, esketamine may be administered 1 h after using a nasal decongestant or corticosteroid.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered in the Clinical Trials (NCT02154334) and EudraCT (2014-000534-38) registries.

Intranasal fentanyl: from pharmacokinetics and bioavailability to current treatment applications

Fentanyl, a short-acting synthetic pure opiate, offers an excellent option for the treatment of cancer and chronic pain. While oral administration is not an option, its high potency and lipophilicity have made intranasal administration feasible. Intranasal fentanyl has a bioavailability of 89%, with a short onset of action ( approximately 7 min) and duration times ( approximately 1 h). It bypasses the oral/gastrointestinal route, delivers the analgesic dose in a volume of 150 microl that can be adequately absorbed and, with a pH of 6.4, avoids local irritation. Intranasal fentanyl has been investigated to assess its potential as a well-tolerated acute postoperative breakthrough pain relief medication. It has been shown to be superior to oral transmucosal fentanyl for the treatment of cancer breakthrough pain. Similar analgesic effects to fentanyl or morphine intravenously and orally, with a similar safety profile, have been reported for postoperative or acute pain treatment of children and adults in the prehospital and hospital settings.

A comparison of intranasal fentanyl spray with oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate for the treatment of breakthrough cancer pain: an open-label, randomised, crossover trial

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy of intranasal fentanyl spray (INFS) was compared with that of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) for the relief of cancer-related breakthrough pain (BTP) in an open-label, crossover trial.

METHODS

Adult cancer patients receiving stable background opioid treatment and experiencing BTP episodes were recruited from 44 study centres in seven European countries (Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom); of the 196 patients enrolled, 139 were randomised to receive INFS followed by OTFC, or vice versa. Patients were titrated to an effective dose of one agent (50, 100 or 200 microg INFS; 200, 400, 600, 800, 1200 or 1600 microg OTFC) to treat six BTP episodes, then titration and treatment were repeated with the other agent. The primary outcome was patient-recorded time to onset of 'meaningful' pain relief. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity difference (PID) at 10 and 30 minutes (PID(10), PID(30)), sum of PID at 15 and 60 minutes (SPID(0-15), SPID(0-60)), ease of administration, treatment preference and relationship between background opioid dose and effective INFS dose. Additional outcome measures included proportions of episodes with > or =33% and > or =50% pain intensity (PI) reduction, and PID at additional time points.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00496392.

RESULTS

Among the intention-to-treat population (n = 139), median time to onset of 'meaningful' pain relief was 11 minutes with INFS versus 16 minutes with OTFC; 65.7% of patients attained faster time to 'meaningful' pain-relief onset with INFS (p < 0.001). PID was statistically significantly greater for INFS than OTFC from 5 minutes post-dosing. Significantly more INFS-treated breakthrough pain episodes achieved clinically important pain relief (> or =33% and > or =50% PI reduction) up to 30 minutes post-dosing. The proportions of episodes treated with INFS and OTFC achieving a PI reduction of > or =33% at 5 minutes were 25.3% versus 6.8% (p < 0.001), and at 10 minutes were 51.0% versus 23.6% (p < 0.001), respectively; the proportions of episodes treated with INFS and OTFC achieving a > or =50% PI reduction at 5 minutes were 12.8% versus 2.1% (p < 0.001), and at 10 minutes were 36.9% versus 9.7% (p < 0.001), respectively. Higher SPID(0-15) and SPID(0-60) scores were achieved with INFS (p < 0.001). More patients preferred INFS than OTFC (p < 0.001) and more patients found it very easy/easy to use. Both treatments were well tolerated. In the safety population (n = 139), 56.8% (n = 79) of patients experienced > or =1 AE during the trial. The only AE that occurred in > or =5% of patients in either treatment group was nausea. Among those patients who experienced serious AEs (13.7%, n = 19), none were considered to be related to either study medication. There was a weak correlation between effective INFS doses and background opioid doses.

CONCLUSION

In this open-label, randomised, crossover trial, significantly more patients attained faster 'meaningful' pain relief with INFS than OTFC, and more patients preferred INFS to OTFC.