The efficacy and safety of sumatriptan intranasal powder in adults with acute migraine

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.

Nanotechnologies for intranasal drug delivery: an update of literature

Scientific research has focused its attention on finding an alternative route to systemic oral and parenteral administration, to overcome their usual drawbacks, such as hepatic first-pass which decreases drug bioavailability after oral administration, off-target effects, low patient compliance and low speed of onset of the pharmacological action in first-aid cases. Innovative drug delivery systems (DDS), mainly based on polymer and lipid biocompatible materials, have given a great prompt in this direction in the last years. The intranasal (IN) route of administration is a valid non-invasive alternative. It is highly suitable for self-administration, the drug quickly reaches the bloodstream, largely avoiding the first pass effect, and can also reach directly the brain bypassing BBB. Association of IN route with DDS can thus become a winning strategy for the controlled delivery of drugs, especially when a very quick effect is desired or needed. This review aims at analyzing the scientific literature regarding IN-DDS and their different ways of administration (systemic, topical, pulmonary, nose-to-brain). In particular, attention was devoted to polymer- and lipid-based micro- and nanocarriers, being the topic of most published articles in the last decade, but the whole plethora of colloidal DDS investigated in recent years for IN administration was presented.

Transmucosal drug administration as an alternative route in palliative and end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a surge in need for alternative routes of administration of drugs for end of life and palliative care, particularly in community settings. Transmucosal routes include intranasal, buccal, sublingual and rectal. They are non-invasive routes for systemic drug delivery with the possibility of self-administration, or administration by family caregivers. In addition, their ability to offer rapid onset of action with reduced first-pass metabolism make them suitable for use in palliative and end-of-life care to provide fast relief of symptoms. This is particularly important in COVID-19, as patients can deteriorate rapidly. Despite the advantages, these routes of administration face challenges including a relatively small surface area for effective drug absorption, small volume of fluid for drug dissolution and the presence of a mucus barrier, thereby limiting the number of drugs that are suitable to be delivered through the transmucosal route. In this review, the merits, challenges and limitations of each of these transmucosal routes are discussed. The goals are to provide insights into using transmucosal drug delivery to bring about the best possible symptom management for patients at the end of life, and to inspire scientists to develop new delivery systems to provide effective symptom management for this group of patients.