Improved pharmacokinetics of sumatriptan with Breath Powered™ nasal delivery of sumatriptan powder

Comparative study of nasal cavity drug delivery efficiency with different nozzles in a 3D printed model

Background

Nasal sprays are widely used in treating nasal and sinus diseases; however, there are very few studies on the drug delivery efficiency of nasal sprays. In this study, the drug delivery efficiency of three different nasal spray devices was evaluated in vitro using a 3D printed cast model of nasal cavity.

Methods

Three nasal spray devices with different nozzles and angles of administration were used in the 3D model of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses. The spraying area (SA), maximal spraying distance (MSD), and spraying distribution scores on the nasal septum and lateral nasal wall were recorded.

Results

Different nasal spray devices have their own characteristics, including volume of each spray, SA, and plume angle. The SA of the three nozzles on the nasal septum increased with an increasing angle of administration. When the angle of administration was 50°, each nozzle reached the maximal SA. There was no statistically significant difference in MSD among the three nozzles at the three angles. The total scores for each nozzle using the three different spraying angles were as follows: nozzle A, 40° > 30° > 50°; nozzle B, 30° > 40° > 50°; and nozzle C, 30° > 40° > 50°. The total scores for different nozzles using the same angle were statistically significantly different and the scores for nozzle C were the highest. Nozzle C had the minimum plume angle. None of the three nozzles could effectively delivered drugs into the middle meatus at any angle in this model.

Conclusions

The design of the nozzle affects drug delivery efficiency of nasal spray devices. The ideal angle of administration is 50°. The nozzle with smaller plume angle has higher drug delivery efficiency. Current nasal spray devices can easily deliver drugs to most areas of the nasal cavity, such as the turbinate, nasal septum, olfactory fissure, and nasopharynx, but not the middle meatus. These findings are meaningful for nozzle selection and device improvements.

The Gut-brain Connection and Episodic Migraine: an Update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Historical evidence suggests a shared underlying etiology for migraine and gastrointestinal (GI) disorders that involves the gut-brain axis. Here we provide narrative review of recent literature on the gut-brain connection and migraine to emphasize the importance of tailoring treatment plans for patients with episodic migraine who experience GI comorbidities and symptoms.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent population-based studies report the prevalence of migraine and GI disorders as comorbidities as well as overlapping symptomology. American Headache Society (AHS) guidelines have integrated GI symptoms as part of migraine diagnostic criteria and recommend nonoral therapies for patients with GI symptoms or conditions. Nasal delivery is a recommended nonoral alternative; however, it is important to understand potential adverse events that may cause or worsen GI symptoms in some patients due to the site of drug deposition within the nasal cavity with some nasal therapies. Lastly, clinical perspectives emphasize the importance of identifying GI symptoms and comorbidities in patients with episodic migraine to best individualize migraine management. Support for an association between the gut-brain axis and migraine continues to prevail in recent literature; however, the relationship remains complex and not well elucidated. The presence of GI comorbidities and symptoms must be carefully considered when making treatment decisions for patients with episodic migraine.

The Pharmacokinetics of Drugs Delivered to the Upper Nasal Space

Pharmacokinetics (PK) includes how a drug is absorbed, distributed, metabolized and eliminated. The compartment providing this information is usually the plasma. This is as close to the tissue of interest that we can get, although biopsies may be obtained to give "tissue levels" of drugs. Ultimately, the goal of PK is to understand how long the drug is actually engaged with the target in the tissue of interest after a dose has been administered. Most drugs at some point in their development will have been administered intravenously (IV), which acts as the standard for 100% bioavailability. By comparing various routes of administration to IV, the percentage of drug delivered to the plasma, on a dose-normalized basis, can be calculated and is referred to as the "absolute bioavailability". As pharmacology has advanced and more drugs have become available, many older products have been reformulated to be given by routes other than those originally intended (often oral). As the drawbacks of oral (or IV) administration have become better appreciated, non-oral, non-IV formulations and methods of administration have become more popular. Nasal administration is one route that has historically been overlooked as an alternative to oral administration-particularly for products needing rapid and non-invasive access to the target tissue-mostly via the blood stream. But attention is now focused on nasal administration for direct access to the brain, as that has the potential to bypass the blood-brain-barrier (BBB), which not even IV administration can always achieve. Assessing PK for these drugs targeting the brain may require serial sampling of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), making PK assessments of CNS drugs more invasive and complex, but still possible in future product development. However, we are now seeing more drugs reformulated for nasal delivery to gain faster systemic levels than oral administration (especially in patients with known or suspected gastrointestinal dysmotility), while avoiding the use of needles. For example, in recent years several different formulations and delivery methods for an old drug, dihydroergotamine (DHE), have been developed and these show very different characteristics, suggesting that delivery to different parts of the nose may have very different PK profiles. This review summarizes the systemic PK of different nasal DHE options that have been, or are being, developed and suggests that delivery of drugs to the upper nasal space (UNS) may represent an optimal target. Further research is required to ascertain if this route could also be utilized for direct administration to the CNS (as an attractive alternative to intrathecal delivery) via the olfactory or trigeminal nerves-but already preclinical data (and some human data) suggest this is entirely possible.

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.

Levodopa-loaded nanoparticles for the treatment of Parkinson's disease

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by degeneration of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra pars compacta (SNpc) resulting in dopamine (DA) deficiency, which manifests itself in motor symptoms including tremors, rigidity and bradykinesia. Current PD treatments aim at symptom reduction through oral delivery of levodopa (L-DOPA), a precursor of DA. However, L-DOPA delivery to the brain is inefficient and increased dosages are required as the disease progresses, resulting in serious side effects like dyskinesias. To improve PD treatment efficacy and to reduce side effects, recent research focuses on the encapsulation of L-DOPA into polymeric- and lipid-based nanoparticles (NPs). These formulations can protect L-DOPA from systemic decarboxylation into DA and improve L-DOPA delivery to the central nervous system. Additionally, NPs can be modified with proteins, peptides and antibodies specifically targeting the blood-brain barrier (BBB), thereby reducing required dosages and free systemic DA. Alternative delivery approaches for NP-encapsulated L-DOPA include intravenous (IV) administration, transdermal delivery using adhesive patches and direct intranasal administration, facilitating increased therapeutic DA concentrations in the brain. This review provides an overview of the recent advances for NP-mediated L-DOPA delivery to the brain, and debates challenges and future perspectives on the field.

Safety, Pharmacokinetics/Pharmacodynamics, and Absolute Bioavailability of Dexmedetomidine Hydrochloride Nasal Spray in Healthy Subjects: A Randomized, Parallel, Escalating Dose Study

Background: The present study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD), and absolute bioavailability (Fabs) of Dex nasal spray in healthy adult subjects, which serves as a bridge for the subsequent study in children.

Methods: Part 1: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, single ascending dose study was performed on 48 subjects. For 20-/40-μg groups, every 6/2 subjects received either Dex/placebo nasal spray or Dex/placebo injection in two periods. In total, 12/4 subjects each received 100 μg Dex/placebo nasal spray. Part 2: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study; 12/4 subjects received 150 μg Dex/placebo nasal spray. Part 3: a randomized, open, self-crossover study; 12 subjects received 20 μg and 100 μg Dex nasal spray in two periods alternately. The method of administration was optimized in Part 2 and Part 3.

Results: In part 1, Dex nasal spray was well tolerated up to the maximum dose of 100 μg, whereas the Fabs was tolerated to only 28.9%–32.3%. In Part 2 and Part 3, the optimized nasal spray method was adopted to promote the Fabs of Dex nasal spray to 74.1%–89.0%. A severe adverse event was found in Part 2. In Part 3 (100 μg), the Ramsay score increased the most and lasted the longest, whereas the BIS score decreased most significantly.

Conclusion: Using the optimized nasal spray method, a single dose of 20/100 μg of the test drug was safe and tolerable, and 100 μg may have approached or reached the plateau of sedation. In addition, it is found that the optimized method can greatly improve the bioavailability of the test drug, leading to its higher reference value.

Applicability of RPMI 2650 and Calu-3 Cell Models for Evaluation of Nasal Formulations

The RPMI 2650 and Calu-3 cell lines have been previously evaluated as models of the nasal and airway epithelial barrier, and they have demonstrated the potential to be used in drug permeation studies. However, limited data exist on the utilization of these two cell models for the assessment of nasal formulations. In our study, we tested these cell lines for the evaluation of in vitro permeation of intranasally administered drugs having a local and systemic effect from different solution- and suspension-based formulations to observe how the effects of formulations reflect on the measured in vitro drug permeability. Both models were shown to be sufficiently discriminative and able to reveal the effect of formulation compositions on drug permeability, as they demonstrated differences in the in vitro drug permeation comparable to the in vivo bioavailability. Good correlation with the available bioavailability data was also established for a limited number of drugs formulated as intranasal solutions. The investigated cell lines can be applied to the evaluation of in vitro permeation of intranasally administered drugs with a local and systemic effect from solution- and suspension-based formulations.

Harnessing Intranasal Delivery Systems of Sumatriptan for the Treatment of Migraine

Sumatriptan (ST) is a commonly prescribed drug for treating migraine. The efficiency of several routes of ST administration has been investigated. Recently, the intranasal route with different delivery systems has gained interest owing to its fast-acting and effectiveness. The present study is aimed at reviewing the available studies on novel delivery systems for intranasal ST administration. The oral route of ST administration is common but complicated with some problems. Gastroparesis in patients with migraine may reduce the absorption and effectiveness of ST upon oral use. Furthermore, the gastrointestinal (GI) system and hepatic metabolism can alter the pharmacokinetics and clinical effects of ST. The bioavailability of conventional nasal liquids is low due to the deposition of a large fraction of the delivered dose of a drug in the nasal cavity. Several delivery systems have been utilized in a wide range of preclinical and clinical studies to enhance the bioavailability of ST. The beneficial effects of the dry nasal powder of ST (AVP-825) have been proven in clinical studies. Moreover, other delivery systems based on microemulsions, microspheres, and nanoparticles have been introduced, and their higher bioavailability and efficacy were demonstrated in preclinical studies. Based on the extant findings, harnessing novel delivery systems can improve the bioavailability of ST and enhance its effectiveness against migraine attacks. However, further clinical studies are needed to approve the safety and efficacy of employing such systems in humans.

Intranasal Administration for Pain: Oxytocin and Other Polypeptides

Pain, particularly chronic pain, remains one of the most debilitating and difficult-to-treat conditions in medicine. Chronic pain is difficult to treat, in part because it is associated with plastic changes in the peripheral and central nervous systems. Polypeptides are linear organic polymers that are highly selective molecules for neurotransmitter and other nervous system receptors sites, including those associated with pain and analgesia, and so have tremendous potential in pain therapeutics. However, delivery of polypeptides to the nervous system is largely limited due to rapid degradation within the peripheral circulation as well as the blood–brain barrier. One strategy that has been shown to be successful in nervous system deposition of polypeptides is intranasal (IN) delivery. In this narrative review, we discuss the delivery of polypeptides to the peripheral and central nervous systems following IN administration. We briefly discuss the mechanism of delivery via the nasal–cerebral pathway. We review recent studies that demonstrate that polypeptides such as oxytocin, delivered IN, not only reach key pain-modulating regions in the nervous system but, in doing so, evoke significant analgesic effects. IN administration of polypeptides has tremendous potential to provide a non-invasive, rapid and effective method of delivery to the nervous system for chronic pain treatment and management.

Nasal Delivery of Acute Medications for Migraine: The Upper Versus Lower Nasal Space

The acute treatment of migraine requires effective drugs that are well tolerated and provide rapid and consistent pain relief. Oral tablets are the most commonly used acute treatment for migraine; however, their effectiveness is limited by the rate of gastrointestinal (GI) tract absorption and first-pass hepatic metabolism, and they may not be ideal for patients experiencing GI motility issues. Nasal delivery is an attractive alternative route as it may circumvent GI tract absorption, avoid first-pass metabolism in the liver, and potentially reduce the frequency of GI adverse events. The large surface area and high vascularity within the nose may permit rapid absorption of therapeutics into the systemic circulation, allowing for rapid onset of action. However, the site of drug deposition (upper versus lower nasal cavity) may influence drug pharmacokinetics. Most approved nasal migraine therapies target the lower nasal space where the epithelium is less permeable, and they may be quickly cleared away due to increased ciliary function or dripping from the nose or swallowing, resulting in variable absorption and limited bioavailability. Together with its abundant vascularization, relative mucosal thickness stability, and low clearance rates, the upper nasal space harnesses the benefits of nasal delivery to potentially maximize drug efficacy.

Management of cluster headache and other trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias in pregnancy and breastfeeding

Many clinicians lack experience in managing trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (TACs) in pregnancy and lactation. In addition to cluster headache, TACs include hemicrania continua, paroxysmal hemicrania, and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache with conjunctival injection and tearing/autonomic symptoms (SUNCT/SUNA). Treating these rare, severe headache conditions often requires off-label drugs that have uncertain teratogenic potential. In the last few years, several new treatment options and safety documentation have emerged, but clinical guidelines are lacking. This narrative review aimed to provide an updated clinical guide and good clinical practice recommendations for the management of these debilitating headache disorders in pregnancy and lactation.

Role of nasal casts for in vitro evaluation of nasal drug delivery and quantitative evaluation of various nasal casts

Background: Nasal casts may characterize intranasal drug deposition. Methodology: The Koken cast, described as 'anatomically correct', and the Optinose cast, derived from MRI of a healthy male during velum closure, were dimensionally compared and assessed for deposition assessment suitability. Results: Smallest vertical cross-sectional areas (valve region) for Koken and Optinose right/left: 2.55/2.75 and 1.18/1.18 cm², respectively, versus a 'normative' mean (range) of 0.85 cm² (0.2-1.6 cm²). Intranasal volumes differed (computed tomography/water fill): Koken, 35.8/38.6 cm³ and Optinose, 24.1/25.0 cm³, versus a 'normative' mean (range) of 26.4 cm³ (20.9-31.1 cm³). Conclusion: Koken cast dimensions are larger than the normal range and the Optinose cast. The validity of casts for regulatory drug deposition studies is suspect.

A Randomized Comparison of the Pharmacokinetics and Bioavailability of Fluticasone Propionate Delivered via Xhance Exhalation Delivery System Versus Flonase Nasal Spray and Flovent HFA Inhalational Aerosol

PURPOSE

The exhalation delivery system with fluticasone propionate (Xhance®) has been shown to deliver drug substantially more broadly in the nasal cavity (particularly into superior/posterior regions), with less off-target loss of drug to drip-out and swallowing, than conventional nasal sprays. This open-label study evaluated the systemic bioavailability of Xhance® by comparing the pharmacokinetic (PK) properties of a single dose of fluticasone from 3 products administering the drug using 3 different devices: Xhance®, Flonase® (fluticasone propionate inhalational nasal spray), and Flovent® HFA (fluticasone propionate inhalational aerosol).

METHODS

This open-label study was conducted in 2 parts. Study part 1 compared systemic exposure with a single dose of Xhance® 186 or 372 μg versus Flonase® 400 μg (3-way, 3-treatment, 3-sequence, randomized crossover in healthy subjects; n = 90). A separate study, part 2, under the same umbrella protocol, compared systemic exposure with Xhance® 372 μg versus Flovent® HFA 440 μg (2-way, 2-treatment, 2-sequence, randomized crossover in patients with mild to moderate asthma; n = 30).

FINDINGS

With Xhance® 186 μg, the geometric least squares mean (LSM) C_max was higher than with Flonase® 400 μg (16.02 vs 11.66 pg/mL, respectively; geometric mean ratio [GMR], 137.42%) and the geometric LSM AUC_0-∞ values were similar (97.30 vs 99.61 pg · h/mL; GMR, 97.78%). With Xhance® 372 μg, the geometric LSM C_max and AUC_0-∞ were higher than with Flonase® 400 μg (C_max, 23.50 vs 11.66 pg/mL [GMR, 201.53%]; AUC_0-∞, 146.61 vs 99.61 pg · h/mL [GMR, 147.19%]). In part 2, the geometric LSM C_max and AUC_0-∞ values were lower with Xhance® 372 μg than with Flovent® HFA 440 μg (C_max, 25.28 vs 40.02 pg/mL [GMR, 63.18%]; AUC_0-∞, 205.78 vs 415.16 pg · h/mL [GMR, 49.57%]).

IMPLICATIONS

Similar intranasal doses of Xhance® (372 μg) and Flonase® (400 μg) are clearly not bioequivalent. Systemic exposure is very low with all products. Systemic exposure is higher with Xhance® than with Flonase® and substantially lower than with Flovent® HFA 440 μg and, based on dose normalization, Flovent® HFA 220 μg. ClincalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02266927.

Strategies to facilitate or block nose-to-brain drug delivery

Nose-to-brain delivery has gained significant interest over the past several decades. This has resulted in numerous strategies described to improve the delivery of drugs to the brain directly through the olfactory epithelium of the nasal cavity. In some cases, intranasal administration may be more effective than other routes of administration in treating central nervous system and related disorders. Here, we briefly review the strategies that have been used to facilitate nose-to-brain delivery as well as approaches to block the delivery of drugs from the nose to the brain. Even though numerous strategies have already been used to increase nose-to-brain delivery, the research for strategies inhibitory of nose-to-brain delivery seems to be scarce.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of new acute treatments for migraine

INTRODUCTION

Recommended medications for the acute treatment of migraine encompass triptans, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and analgesics. While it is true that triptans have been the first successful mechanism-driven treatment in the field, recently, new targets involved in migraine pathogenesis have emerged and new drug classes have been studied for migraine attack therapy. Areas covered: Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of the new acute treatments of migraine (i.e. ditans, gepants, and glutamate receptor antagonists), considering also marketed drugs in new formulations and administration routes. Expert opinion: Research on the administration routes of marketed drugs was performed in order to improve, in accordance with basic pharmacokinetics parameters, the speed of action of these medications. Similar to the triptans, the new acute treatments are migraine-specific medications, acting on the trigeminovascular system, albeit with different mechanisms. Although available data do not conclusively indicate the superiority of a class over the others, the pharmacodynamics explains the peculiar tolerability and safety profile of different drug classes emerging from clinical trials. Further studies are needed to investigate the possibility of combining different drug classes to optimize the clinical response and the potential role of the novel drugs in medication-overuse headache.

[Optimization of Nasal Drug Absorption from Powder Formulations: The Feasibility of Controlling Drug Absorption by the Use of Pharmaceutical Excipients]

Nasal application of powder formulations has garnered attention because of its significant potential for systemic drug delivery. Because a powder drug must first diffuse from the formulation and dissolve in the nasal cavity fluid before transepithelial permeation, dissolution and diffusion are distinct but important factors for nasal drug absorption. Since the formulation is directly administered onto the nasal mucosal surface, the effect of excipients on drug absorption may be significant. Therefore, the influence of excipients on nasal drug absorption was evaluated. Three types of hydroxypropyl cellulose (HPC) [HPC (SL), HPC (M), and HPC (H)], lactose, and sodium chloride (NaCl) were used as excipients. Warfarin (WF), piroxicam (PXC), sumatriptan (STP), and norfloxacin (NFX) were selected as model drugs. HPC (M) enhanced the absorption of PXC, while both HPC (M) and HPC (H) enhanced the absorption of STP. All three HPCs failed to enhance the absorption of WF. An increase in the polymerization degree of HPCs decreased the diffusion of drugs in HPC solutions, but prolonged their nasal retention. Lactose and NaCl increased the fluid volume on the nasal mucosal surface by increasing the osmotic pressure, thereby enhancing the nasal absorption of PXC and NFX; however, lactose and NaCl accelerated the nasal clearance of these. These results indicate that nasal drug absorption from powder formulations can be controlled by excipients.

New strategies for the treatment and prevention of primary headache disorders

The primary headache disorders, which include migraine, cluster headache and tension-type headache, are among the most common diseases and leading causes of disability worldwide. The available treatment options for primary headache disorders have unsatisfactory rates of efficacy, tolerability and patient adherence. In this Review, we discuss promising new approaches for the prevention of primary headache disorders, such as monoclonal antibodies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor, and small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists. Neuromodulation approaches employing noninvasive or implantable devices also show promise for treating primary headache disorders. Noninvasive treatments, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation, are delivered by devices that patients can self-administer. Implantable devices targeting the occipital nerves, sphenopalatine ganglion or high cervical spinal cord are placed using percutaneous and/or surgical procedures, and are powered either wirelessly or by surgically implanted batteries. These new and emerging treatments have the potential to address unmet patient needs and reduce headache-associated disability.

Phase 1, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the effects of erenumab (AMG 334) and concomitant sumatriptan on blood pressure in healthy volunteers

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the effects of concomitant administration of erenumab and sumatriptan on resting blood pressure, pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability in healthy subjects.

METHODS

In this phase 1, parallel-group, one-way crossover, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, healthy adult subjects were randomized (1:2) to receive either intravenous placebo and subcutaneous sumatriptan 12 mg (i.e. two 6-mg injections separated by 1 hour) or intravenous erenumab 140 mg and subcutaneous sumatriptan 12 mg. Blood pressure was measured pre-dose and at prespecified times post-dose. The primary endpoint was individual time-weighted averages of mean arterial pressure, measured from 0 hours to 2.5 hours after the first dose of sumatriptan. Pharmacokinetic parameters for sumatriptan were evaluated by calculating geometric mean ratios (erenumab and sumatriptan/placebo and sumatriptan). Adverse events and anti-erenumab antibodies were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 34 subjects were randomized and included in the analysis. Least squares mean (standard error) time-weighted averages of mean arterial pressure were 87.4 (1.0) mmHg for the placebo and sumatriptan group and 87.4 (1.2) mmHg for the erenumab and sumatriptan group. Mean difference in mean arterial pressure between groups was -0.04 mmHg (90% confidence interval: -2.2, 2.1). Geometric mean ratio estimates for maximum plasma concentration of sumatriptan was 0.95 (90% confidence interval: 0.82, 1.09), area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) from time 0 to 6 hours was 0.98 (90% confidence interval: 0.93, 1.03), and AUC from time 0 to infinity was 1.00 (90% confidence interval: 0.96, 1.05). No clinically relevant safety findings for co-administration of sumatriptan and erenumab were identified.

CONCLUSION

Co-administration of erenumab and sumatriptan had no additional effect on resting blood pressure or on pharmacokinetics of sumatriptan. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02741310.

Breath-powered sumatriptan dry nasal powder: an intranasal medication delivery system for acute treatment of migraine

There is a need for fast-acting, non-oral medication options for migraine because some attacks develop rapidly and some are accompanied by nausea, vomiting, and gastroparesis, which can hinder oral medication uptake and absorption. The most commonly prescribed migraine medications are oral triptans, with sumatriptan as the most common. However, oral triptans are associated with adverse events (AEs) of atypical sensations that may be problematic for patients. Subcutaneous (SC) injectable sumatriptan and conventional liquid triptan nasal spray formulations are also available, but the frequency of atypical sensations is the highest with SC sumatriptan, and the intense bitter taste of conventional liquid triptan nasal spray discourages use. AVP-825 (ONZETRA^® Xsail^®) is an intranasal medication delivery system containing 22 mg sumatriptan nasal powder that is now available in the USA for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura in adults. The objective of this review is to summarize the development of AVP-825, which utilizes unique features of nasal anatomy to achieve efficient absorption and reduced systemic exposure. Literature searches for “sumatriptan nasal powder”, “AVP-825”, and “sumatriptan intranasal” were conducted. Review articles and pharmacokinetic, Phase II and Phase III studies were evaluated. AVP-825 demonstrates an earlier onset of efficacy and lower rate of atypical sensations than the oral standard of care, which can be attributed to its fast absorption and low systemic exposure. AEs of abnormal taste are predominantly mild. These results confirm the initial design concept for AVP-825, which aligned pharmacokinetics, anatomy, and drug presentation in a novel device to achieve optimal outcomes for the acute treatment of migraine.

A review of clinical safety data for sumatriptan nasal powder administered by a breath powered exhalation delivery system in the acute treatment of migraine

INTRODUCTION

AVP-825 (sumatriptan nasal powder) is an FDA-approved intranasal medication delivery system containing low-dose sumatriptan powder for acute treatment of migraine with or without aura in adults. AVP-825 utilizes unique nasal anatomy features to avoid limitations of other intranasal delivery methods. Areas covered: Literature search terms: 'AVP-825', 'sumatriptan nasal powder', 'intranasal sumatriptan', 'sumatriptan safety', 'sumatriptan acute migraine'. Pharmacokinetic, Phase 2/3 studies, reviews (AVP-825) and metanalyses/reviews (sumatriptan) were evaluated. Expert opinion: AVP-825 provides a more efficient sumatriptan delivery method versus other formulations. Pharmacokinetics showed that a single dose of AVP-825 (22 mg) delivers 15-16 mg sumatriptan and produces significantly lower exposure than oral or injectable formulations, which may translate into a better safety/tolerability profile. AVP-825 was well tolerated in controlled trials, with the most common adverse events localized at the administration-site (abnormal taste, nasal discomfort); these were mostly mild, leading to only one discontinuation. Compared to 100 mg oral sumatriptan, AVP-825 had a significantly lower rate of atypical sensations across multiple attacks. AVP-825 has the advantage of early efficacy onset associated with faster absorption at a lower delivered dose than liquid nasal spray or oral formulations. AVP-825 provided earlier efficacy (within 30 min) vs. 100 mg oral sumatriptan and similar sustained efficacy. AVP-825 offers the benefits of a non-oral, low-dose, tolerable acute migraine medication.

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

We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the tolerability and efficacy of intranasal sumatriptan, a selective serotonin agonist, compared to placebo or other migraine therapeutics for the treatment of acute migraine attacks. We searched PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data were extracted from eligible studies and pooled as risk ratios (RR), using RevMan software. We performed subgroup and meta-regression analyses for different doses and treatment endpoints. Sixteen RCTs (n = 5925 patients) matched our inclusion criteria. The overall effect-estimate showed that intranasal sumatriptan was superior to placebo in terms of pain relief (RR = 1.70, 95% CI [1.31, 2.21], p < 0.0001) and headache relief (RR = 1.58, 95% CI [1.35, 1.84], p < 0.00001) at 2 h. Although sumatriptan was superior to placebo in terms of headache relief at 30 min (RR = 1.31, 95% CI [1.08, 1.59], p = 0.005), no significant difference was found between both groups in terms of the frequency of pain-free participants at 30 min (RR = 1.18, 95% CI [0.49, 2.88], p = 0.71). Subgroup analysis and meta-regression models showed that increasing the dose of sumatriptan reduced the time needed for headache relief; however, this clinical improvement with higher doses was associated with more frequent adverse events in comparison to smaller doses. In conclusion, intranasal sumatriptan is effective for the treatment of acute migraine attacks. However, it was associated with a six-fold increase in the risk of taste disturbance, compared to the placebo. Future RCTs are recommended to provide head-to-head comparison of different administration routes and drug formulations of sumatriptan.

Opportunity and challenges of nasal powders: Drug formulation and delivery

In the field of nasal drug delivery, among the preparations defined by the European Pharmacopoeia, nasal powders facilitate the formulation of poorly water-soluble active compounds. They often display a simple composition in excipients (if any), allow for the administration of larger drug doses and enhance drug diffusion and absorption across the mucosa, improving bioavailability compared to nasal liquids. Despite the positive features, however, nasal products in this form still struggle to enter the market: the few available on the market are Onzetra Xsail® (sumatriptan) for migraine relief and, for the treatment of rhinitis, Rhinocort® Turbuhaler® (budesonide), Teijin Rhinocort® (beclomethasone dipropionate) and Erizas® (dexamethasone cipecilate). Hence, this review tries to understand why nasal powder formulations are still less common than liquid ones by analyzing whether this depends on the lack of (i) real evidence of superior therapeutic benefit of powders, (ii) therapeutic and/or commercial interest, (iii) efficient manufacturing methods or (iv) availability of suitable and affordable delivery devices. To this purpose, the reader's attention will be guided through nasal powder formulation strategies and manufacturing techniques, eventually giving up-to-date evidences of therapeutic efficacy in vivo. Advancements in the technology of insufflation devices will also be provided as nasal drug products are typical drug-device combinations.

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

INTRODUCTION

There are multiple choices of agents for the acute management of migraine available. Patient-specific factors such as associated symptoms including nausea, vomiting, and gastroparesis are important considerations. Oral administration may often be the patient-preferred route of delivery because of comfort or convenience but when it is important to bypass gut absorption then either parenteral or intranasal administration may be appropriate delivery approaches. A new formulation of a low-dose sumatriptan intranasal powder administered via a novel breath-powered delivery device may be a viable option Areas covered: Our search of the available literature pertaining to the topic of intranasal sumatriptan powder yielded pharmacokinetic studies and randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (including The TARGET Study, The COMPASS study) published between 2010 and 2015. Expert commentary: A new formulation of a low-dose sumatriptan intranasal powder administered via a novel breath-powered delivery device appears to be a safe and efficacious option for the acute management of a migraine ideally suited for this situation. It appears to have superior efficacy to sumatriptan 100 mg oral tablets with superior pain freedom by 15 minutes and pain relief over the initial 30 minutes post-dose.

Early Onset of Efficacy and Consistency of Response Across Multiple Migraine Attacks From the Randomized COMPASS Study: AVP-825 Breath Powered® Exhalation Delivery System (Sumatriptan Nasal Powder) vs Oral Sumatriptan

OBJECTIVE

To further characterize the clinical utility of AVP-825 based on additional prespecified outcomes and post hoc analyses of COMPASS, a Phase 3 comparative efficacy trial of AVP-825 vs 100 mg oral sumatriptan (NCT01667679). AVP-825 was approved in January 2016 by the US Food and Drug Administration under the name ONZETRA^® Xsail^® (sumatriptan nasal powder) for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura in adults.

BACKGROUND

AVP-825 is a delivery system that uses a patient's own breath to deliver low-dose sumatriptan powder to the upper posterior regions of the nasal cavity beyond the narrow nasal valve, areas lined with vascular mucosa conducive to rapid drug absorption into the systemic circulation. The recommended dose of AVP-825 is 22 mg sumatriptan powder administered as one 11 mg nosepiece in each nostril, which delivers approximately 15-16 mg of sumatriptan intranasally. The COMPASS trial compared AVP-825 22-100 mg oral sumatriptan across multiple migraine attacks for efficacy, safety, and tolerability endpoints.

DESIGN/METHODS

COMPASS was a randomized, multicenter, double-dummy, crossover, multiattack, comparative efficacy study with two 12-week double-blind periods. Patients with 2-8 migraine attacks/month were randomized 1:1 to AVP-825 (22 mg) plus oral placebo or an identical placebo delivery system plus 100 mg oral sumatriptan for the first period, and then patients switched treatments for the second period. Patients treated up to 5 qualifying migraines per period within 1 h of onset, even if the intensity of the attack was mild. Results from the primary endpoint (SPID-30, defined as the sum of pain intensity differences from dosing to 30 minutes), key secondary efficacy endpoints and safety assessments have been reported in the primary publication (Tepper et al., 2015). This article reports additional prespecified outcomes, including the SPID-30 for attacks treated when baseline severity was mild vs moderate/severe, measures of sustained response and consistency of effect in patients who experienced multiple migraine attacks, and the results of post hoc analyses performed to assess total migraine freedom (defined as no pain and no migraine-associated symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, photophobia, and phonophobia), time to pain freedom, time to meaningful pain relief, and local (occurring at the site of administration in the nose) vs systemic treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

RESULTS

A total of 185 patients completed both treatment periods, yielding 1,531 migraine attacks which were treated and assessed (765 AVP-825, 766 oral sumatriptan). Treatment with AVP-825 provided greater reduction in migraine pain intensity which was statistically significant vs oral sumatriptan in the first 30 minutes postdose regardless of whether attacks were treated when pain was mild (least squares mean SPID-30 = 3.90 vs 0.24, P = .0013) or moderate/severe (least squares mean SPID-30 = 13.83 vs 10.07, P = .0002). At every time point from 15 to 90 minutes postdose, the proportion of attacks achieving total migraine freedom was greater and statistically significant after treatment with AVP-825 vs 100 mg oral sumatriptan. AVP-825 treatment resulted in greater odds of achieving pain freedom (odds ratio, OR = 1.29, P < .01) and meaningful pain relief (OR = 1.32, P < .0001), which were also statistically significant compared with oral sumatriptan. In addition, a greater proportion of attacks treated with AVP-825 vs oral sumatriptan was associated with sustained pain freedom, achieving statistical significance when assessed from 1 h postdose through 24 hours postdose (33.3% vs 27.9%; P < .05) and through 48 hours postdose (32.7% vs 27.4%; P < .05). For patients who treated multiple migraine attacks in both treatment periods, a greater proportion had consistent pain relief and pain freedom following treatment with AVP-825 compared to oral sumatriptan across multiple attacks, a difference that achieved statistical significance at 30 minutes postdose. Local TEAEs of abnormal taste and nasal discomfort were more common following AVP-825 treatment. Of the patients experiencing either of these TEAEs, about 90% described the intensity as mild, and only one discontinued treatment because of either of these two TEAEs.

CONCLUSIONS

These results from the COMPASS study further demonstrate that treatment with AVP-825 provides earlier onset and more consistent across-episode improvement of pain and migraine-associated symptoms compared with oral sumatriptan, highlighting the clinical advantages of this newly approved intranasal delivery system for low-dose sumatriptan powder.

Nasal Drug Absorption from Powder Formulations: Effect of Fluid Volume Changes on the Mucosal Surface

The effect of changes in the mucosal fluid volume on the nasal drug absorption of powder formulations was evaluated using warfarin (WF), piroxicam (PXC), and norfloxacin (NFX) as model drugs. Lactose and sodium chloride (NaCl), which are water soluble and small-sized chemicals that increase osmotic pressure after dissolution, were used as excipients to change the mucosal fluid volume. The in vitro study using a Madin-Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cell monolayer indicated that lactose and NaCl, sprayed over the surface of air interface monolayers, increased the fluid volume on the monolayer surface and enhanced the transepithelial transport of the model drugs. The in vivo animal study indicated that the nasal absorption of PXC is enhanced by lactose and NaCl after nasal administration of the powder formulations. This is likely due to the enhanced dissolution of PXC on fluid-rich nasal mucosa and an increase in the effective surface area for drug permeation, which lead to better nasal absorption. However, both excipients failed to increase the nasal absorption of WF and NFX. To clarify the mechanism of the drug-dependent effect of lactose and NaCl, the nasal residence of the formulation was examined using FD70 as a non-absorbable marker. The nasal clearance of FD70 was enhanced by lactose and NaCl, leading to a decrease in the nasal drug absorption. Lactose and NaCl caused no damage to the nasal tissue. These results indicate that the addition of water-soluble excipients such as lactose to powder formulations can enhance the nasal absorption of highly permeable but poorly soluble drugs.

Low dose intranasal oxytocin delivered with Breath Powered device dampens amygdala response to emotional stimuli: A peripheral effect-controlled within-subjects randomized dose-response fMRI trial

It is unclear if and how exogenous oxytocin (OT) reaches the brain to improve social behavior and cognition and what is the optimal dose for OT response. To better understand the delivery routes of intranasal OT administration to the brain and the dose-response, we compared amygdala response to facial stimuli by means of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in four treatment conditions, including two different doses of intranasal OT using a novel Breath Powered device, intravenous (IV) OT, which provided similar concentrations of blood plasma OT, and placebo. We adopted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, crossover design, with 16 healthy male adults administering a single-dose of these four treatments. We observed a treatment effect on right amygdala activation during the processing of angry and happy face stimuli, with pairwise comparisons revealing reduced activation after the 8IU low dose intranasal treatment compared to placebo. These data suggest the dampening of amygdala activity in response to emotional stimuli occurs via direct intranasal delivery pathways rather than across the blood-brain barrier via systemically circulating OT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered at the U.S. National Institutes of Health clinical trial registry (www.clinicaltrials.gov; NCT01983514) and as EudraCT no. 2013-001608-12.

The pharmacokinetics and clinical efficacy of AVP-825: a potential advancement for acute treatment of migraine

INTRODUCTION

Oral triptans have dominated the prescription market for acute treatment of migraine for nearly 25 years. Today, patients often express dissatisfaction with prescribed acute treatment in part because they do not have confidence that the therapy will provide consistent efficacy over time. Major limitations to sustained successful use of oral triptans are their relatively slow onset of meaningful clinical benefit and variable absorption/efficacy due to impaired gastrointestinal function during migraine. AVP-825, a new intranasal delivery system for sumatriptan , may be an effective alternative to oral triptans.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews AVP-825, which deposits low-dose sumatriptan powder deep into the vascular mucosa of the posterior nose, allowing rapid absorption of drug into the systemic circulation. Studies suggest that AVP-825 is a highly effective, well-tolerated acute treatment for episodic migraine.

EXPERT OPINION

Oral triptans are limited in providing effective patient-centered outcomes to migraine patients. Failed or suboptimal abortive treatment of migraine is a major driver of migraine chronification and increases in healthcare costs. AVP-825 is an easy to use, novel, breath-powered intranasal delivery system that provides early onset of efficacy with low systemic drug exposure and few triptan-associated adverse events. AVP-825 will be a welcomed therapeutic tool for the acute treatment of migraine.

Episodic and chronic migraine headache: breaking down barriers to optimal treatment and prevention

Migraine is a common disabling primary headache disorder that affects an estimated 36 million Americans. Migraine headaches often occur over many years or over an individual's lifetime. By definition, episodic migraine is characterized by headaches that occur on fewer than 15 days per month. According to the recent International Classification of Headache Disorders (third revision) beta diagnostic criteria, chronic migraine is defined as "headaches on at least 15 days per month for at least 3 months, with the features of migraine on at least 8 days per month." However, diagnostic criteria distinguishing episodic from chronic migraine continue to evolve. Persons with episodic migraine can remit, not change, or progress to high-frequency episodic or chronic migraine over time. Chronic migraine is associated with a substantially greater personal and societal burden, more frequent comorbidities, and possibly with persistent and progressive brain abnormalities. Many patients are poorly responsive to, or noncompliant with, conventional preventive therapies. The primary goals of migraine treatment include relieving pain, restoring function, and reducing headache frequency; an additional goal may be preventing progression to chronic migraine. Although all migraineurs require abortive treatment, and all patients with chronic migraine require preventive treatment, there are no definitive guidelines delineating which persons with episodic migraine would benefit from preventive therapy. Five US Food and Drug Association strategies are approved for preventing episodic migraine, but only injections with onabotulinumtoxinA are approved for preventing chronic migraine. Identifying persons who require migraine prophylaxis and selecting and initiating the most appropriate treatment strategy may prevent progression from episodic to chronic migraine and alleviate the pain and suffering associated with frequent migraine.

A novel intranasal breath-powered delivery system for sumatriptan: a review of technology and clinical application of the investigational product AVP-825 in the treatment of migraine

INTRODUCTION

AVP-825, formerly 'OptiNose Sumatriptan,' is an investigational Breath-Powered(TM) Bi-Directional(TM) intranasal delivery system containing low-dose sumatriptan (22 mg intranasal powder) that avoids limitations of other types of intranasal administration by taking advantage of unique features of nasal anatomy and physiology.

AREAS COVERED

This review summarizes intranasal drug delivery for migraine, how the breath-powered technology works, and AVP-825 pharmacokinetic, efficacy and safety/tolerability findings. To identify AVP-825 clinical studies, a PubMed/MEDLINE database search was conducted with the terms AVP-825, OptiNose, OptiNose Sumatriptan, Breath-Powered Nasal Delivery or sumatriptan powder. Of 20 articles, 5 clinical studies were identified, including the head-to-head comparative COMPASS trial (AVP-825 vs oral sumatriptan) and two placebo-controlled studies.

EXPERT OPINION

AVP-825 has faster sumatriptan absorption versus oral tablets or traditional liquid nasal spray. In Phase II/III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, AVP-825 produced early and sustained efficacy with minimal triptan-related adverse effects. In COMPASS, AVP-825 produced earlier reduction of migraine pain intensity and migraine-associated symptoms than 100 mg oral sumatriptan, and higher early rates of pain relief and pain freedom, similar sustained efficacy, and fewer atypical sensations. AVP-825 has the potential to provide migraine patients with improved intranasal administration of sumatriptan that may enhance efficacy and tolerability.

AVP-825 breath-powered intranasal delivery system containing 22 mg sumatriptan powder vs 100 mg oral sumatriptan in the acute treatment of migraines (The COMPASS study): a comparative randomized clinical trial across multiple attacks

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of AVP-825, an investigational bi-directional breath-powered intranasal delivery system containing low-dose (22 mg) sumatriptan powder, vs 100 mg oral sumatriptan for acute treatment of migraine in a double-dummy, randomized comparative efficacy clinical trial allowing treatment across multiple migraine attacks.

BACKGROUND

In phases 2 and 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trials, AVP-825 provided early and sustained relief of moderate or severe migraine headache in adults, with a low incidence of triptan-related adverse effects.

METHODS

This was a randomized, active-comparator, double-dummy, cross-over, multi-attack study (COMPASS; NCT01667679) with two ≤12-week double-blind periods. Subjects experiencing 2-8 migraines/month in the past year were randomized 1:1 using computer-generated sequences to AVP-825 plus oral placebo tablet or an identical placebo delivery system plus 100 mg oral sumatriptan tablet for the first period; patients switched treatment for the second period in this controlled comparative design. Subjects treated ≤5 qualifying migraines per period within 1 hour of onset, even if pain was mild. The primary end-point was the mean value of the summed pain intensity differences through 30 minutes post-dose (SPID-30) using Headache Severity scores. Secondary outcomes included pain relief, pain freedom, pain reduction, consistency of response across multiple migraines, migraine-associated symptoms, and atypical sensations. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 275 adults were randomized, 174 (63.3%) completed the study (ie, completed the second treatment period), and 185 (67.3%) treated at least one migraine in both periods (1531 migraines assessed). There was significantly greater reduction in migraine pain intensity with AVP-825 vs oral sumatriptan in the first 30 minutes post-dose (least squares mean SPID-30 = 10.80 vs 7.41, adjusted mean difference 3.39 [95% confidence interval 1.76, 5.01]; P < .001). At each time point measured between 15 and 90 minutes, significantly greater rates of pain relief and pain freedom occurred with AVP-825 treatment compared with oral sumatriptan. At 2 hours, rates of pain relief and pain freedom became comparable; rates of sustained pain relief and sustained pain freedom from 2 to 48 hours remained comparable. Nasal discomfort and abnormal taste were more common with AVP-825 vs oral sumatriptan (16% vs 1% and 26% vs 4%, respectively), but ∼90% were mild, leading to only one discontinuation. Atypical sensation rates were significantly lower with AVP-825 than with conventional higher dose 100 mg oral sumatriptan.

CONCLUSIONS

AVP-825 (containing 22 mg sumatriptan nasal powder) provided statistically significantly greater reduction of migraine pain intensity over the first 30 minutes following treatment, and greater rates of pain relief and pain freedom within 15 minutes, compared with 100 mg oral sumatriptan. Sustained pain relief and pain freedom through 24 and 48 hours was achieved in a similar percentage of attacks for both treatments, despite substantially lower total systemic drug exposure with AVP-825. Treatment was well tolerated, with statistically significantly fewer atypical sensations with AVP-825.

Acute Migraine Treatment in Adults

There are many options for acute migraine attack treatment, but none is ideal for all patients. This study aims to review current medical office-based acute migraine therapy in adults and provides readers with an organized approach to this important facet of migraine treatment. A general literature review includes a review of several recent published guidelines. Acetaminophen, 4 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (ibuprofen, acetylsalicylic acid [ASA], naproxen sodium, and diclofenac potassium), and 7 triptans (almotriptan, eletriptan, frovatriptan, naratriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan, and zolmitriptan) have good evidence for efficacy and form the core of acute migraine treatment. NSAID-triptan combinations, dihydroergotamine, non-opioid combination analgesics (acetaminophen, ASA, and caffeine), and several anti-emetics (metoclopramide, domperidone, and prochlorperazine) are additional evidence-based options. Opioid containing combination analgesics may be helpful in specific patients, but should not be used routinely. Clinical features to be considered when choosing an acute migraine medication include usual headache intensity, usual rapidity of pain intensity increase, nausea, vomiting, degree of disability, patient response to previously used medications, history of headache recurrence with previous attacks, and the presence of contraindications to specific acute medications. Available acute medications can be organized into 4 treatment strategies, including a strategy for attacks of mild to moderate severity (strategy one: acetaminophen and/or NSAIDs), a triptan strategy for patients with severe attacks and for attacks not responding to strategy one, a refractory attack strategy, and a strategy for patients with contraindications to vasoconstricting drugs. Acute treatment of migraine attacks during pregnancy, lactation, and for patients with chronic migraine is also discussed. In chronic migraine, it is particularly important that medication overuse is eliminated or avoided. Migraine treatment is complex, and treatment must be individualized and tailored to the patient's clinical features. Clinicians should make full use of available medications and formulations in an organized approach.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of breath powered nasal delivery of sumatriptan powder (AVP-825) in the treatment of acute migraine (The TARGET Study)

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of AVP-825, a drug–device combination of low-dose sumatriptan powder (22 mg loaded dose) delivered intranasally through a targeted Breath Powered device vs an identical device containing lactose powder (placebo device) in the treatment of migraine headache.

Background

Early treatment of migraine headaches is associated with improved outcome, but medication absorption after oral delivery may be delayed in migraineurs because of reduced gastric motility. Sumatriptan powder administered with an innovative, closed-palate, Bi-Directional, Breath Powered intranasal delivery mechanism is efficiently absorbed across the nasal mucosa and produces fast absorption into the circulation. Results from a previously conducted placebo-controlled study of AVP-825 showed a high degree of headache relief with an early onset of action (eg, 74% AVP-825 vs 38% placebo device at 1 hour, P < .01).

Methods

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in adults with a history of migraine with or without aura, participants were randomized via computer-generated lists to AVP-825 or placebo device to treat a single migraine headache of moderate or severe intensity. The primary endpoint was headache relief (defined as reduction of headache pain intensity from severe or moderate migraine headache to mild or none) at 2 hours post-dose.

Results

Two hundred and thirty patients (116 AVP-825 and 114 placebo device) were randomized, of whom 223 (112 and 111, respectively) experienced a qualifying migraine headache (their next migraine headache that reached moderate or severe intensity). A significantly greater proportion of AVP-825 patients reported headache relief at 2 hours post-dose compared with those using the placebo device (68% vs 45%, P = .002, odds ratio 2.53, 95% confidence interval [1.45, 4.42]). Between-group differences in headache relief were evident as early as 15 minutes, reached statistical significance at 30 minutes post-dose (42% vs 27%, P = .03), and were sustained at 24 hours (44% vs 24%, P = .002) and 48 hours (34% vs 20%, P = .01). Thirty-four percent of patients treated with AVP-825 were pain-free at 2 hours compared with 17% using the placebo device (P = .008). More AVP-825 patients reported meaningful pain relief (patient interpretation) of migraine within 2 hours of treatment vs placebo device (70% vs 45%, P < .001), and fewer required rescue medication (37% vs 52%, P = .02). Total migraine freedom (patients with no headache, nausea, phonophobia, photophobia, or vomiting) reached significance following treatment with AVP-825 at 1 hour (19% vs 9%; P = .04). There were no serious adverse events (AEs), and no systemic AEs occurred in more than one patient. Chest pain or pressure was not reported, and only one patient taking AVP-825 reported mild paresthesia. No other triptan sensations were reported.

Conclusions

Targeted delivery of a low-dose of sumatriptan powder via a novel, closed-palate, Breath Powered, intranasal device (AVP-825) provided fast relief of moderate or severe migraine headache in adults that reached statistical significance over placebo by 30 minutes. The treatment was well tolerated with a low incidence of systemic AEs.

The nasal approach to delivering treatment for brain diseases: an anatomic, physiologic, and delivery technology overview

The intricate pathophysiology of brain disorders, difficult access to the brain, and the complexity and high risks and costs of drug development represent major hurdles for improving therapies. Nose-to-brain drug transport offers an attractive alternative or addition to formulation-only strategies attempting to enhance drug penetration into the CNS. Although still a matter of controversy, many studies in animals claim direct nose-to-brain transport along the olfactory and trigeminal nerves, circumventing the traditional barriers to CNS entry. Some clinical trials in man also suggest nose-to-brain drug delivery, although definitive proof in man is lacking. This review focuses on new nasal delivery technologies designed to overcome inherent anatomical and physiological challenges and facilitate more efficient and targeted drug delivery for CNS disorders.

Breath powered nasal delivery: a new route to rapid headache relief

The nose offers an attractive noninvasive alternative for drug delivery. Nasal anatomy, with a large mucosal surface area and high vascularity, allows for rapid systemic absorption and other potential benefits. However, the complex nasal geometry, including the narrow anterior valve, poses a serious challenge to efficient drug delivery. This barrier, plus the inherent limitations of traditional nasal delivery mechanisms, has precluded achievement of the full potential of nasal delivery. Breath Powered bi-directional delivery, a simple but novel nasal delivery mechanism, overcomes these barriers. This innovative mechanism has now been applied to the delivery of sumatriptan. Multiple studies of drug deposition, including comparisons of traditional nasal sprays to Breath Powered delivery, demonstrate significantly improved deposition to superior and posterior intranasal target sites beyond the nasal valve. Pharmacokinetic studies in both healthy subjects and migraineurs suggest that improved deposition of sumatriptan translates into improved absorption and pharmacokinetics. Importantly, the absorption profile is shifted toward a more pronounced early peak, representing nasal absorption, with a reduced late peak, representing predominantly gastrointestinal (GI) absorption. The flattening and “spreading out” of the GI peak appears more pronounced in migraine sufferers than healthy volunteers, likely reflecting impaired GI absorption described in migraineurs. In replicated clinical trials, Breath Powered delivery of low-dose sumatriptan was well accepted and well tolerated by patients, and onset of pain relief was faster than generally reported in previous trials with noninjectable triptans. Interestingly, Breath Powered delivery also allows for the potential of headache-targeted medications to be better delivered to the trigeminal nerve and the sphenopalatine ganglion, potentially improving treatment of various types of headache. In brief, Breath Powered bi-directional intranasal delivery offers a new and more efficient mechanism for nasal drug delivery, providing an attractive option for improved treatment of headaches by enabling or enhancing the benefits of current and future headache therapies.

Types of nasal delivery drugs and medications in Iranian traditional medicine to treatment of headache

CONTEXT

Headache is a common symptom throughout the world. The main purpose of patient-centered approaches is the utilization of useful and simple treatment. Nowadays, there is a rising propensity toward herbal remedies. Nasal route is one of the ancient and topical prescriptions used in headache. In Iranian traditional medicine, physicians such as Avicenna were prescribing herbal drugs through the nose to treat a variety of central nervous system diseases like headache. In this review paper, authors have attempted to introduce different types of nasal administrations which were used in Iranian traditional medicine for the treatment of headaches.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Initially, we studied two different types of Canon and separated all herbs used in the treatment of headache. Next, all plants were classified according to the method of prescription. Then, we pick out all the plants which were nasally utilized in the treatment of headache and divided them based on the method of administration. In order to find scientific names of herbs, we used two different botany references. Moreover, we conducted various researches in scientific databases with the aim of finding results concerning the analgesic and antinociceptive effects of herbs. Throughout the research, key terms were "analgesic" and "antinociceptive "with the scientific names of all herbs separately. The databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane library and SID.

RESULTS

35 plants were prescribed for the treatment of headaches, which were all nasally used. These plants took either the form of powder, liquid or gas (steam). They were divided in to six categories according to the method of prescription. The Percentage of usage for each method was as follows: 62% Saoot (nasal drop), 25% Shamoom (smell), 17% Inkabab (vapor), 11% Nafookh (snuff), 11% Nashooq (inhaling) and 2% Bokhoor (smoke).

CONCLUSIONS

Medications that are used via nasal delivery have greater effect than oral medications. Iranian physicians were fully aware of systemic effects of topical medications, including prescription drugs through the nose. The study of ancient medical texts helps us in identification of herbal medicine and the investigation of new way for the preparation of drugs.