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)

Iron-catalyzed benzylic C-H thiolation via photoinduced ligand-to-metal charge-transfer

Here, we describe an iron-catalyzed benzylic C-H thiolation of alkylarenes via photoinduced ligand-to-metal charge-transfer. The protocol features operational simplicity, mild reaction conditions, and the use of FeCl3 as catalyst and thiols/disulfides as sulfur sources, which enables the transformation of diverse benzylic C-H bonds into C-S bonds with a high efficiency.

Vaporized Cannabis versus Placebo for Acute Migraine: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Preclinical and retrospective studies suggest cannabinoids may be effective in migraine treatment. However, there have been no randomized clinical trials examining the efficacy of cannabinoids for acute migraine.

Methods

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial, adults with migraine treated up to 4 separate migraine attacks, 1 each with vaporized 1) 6% Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC-dominant); 2) 11% cannabidiol (CBD-dominant); 3) 6% THC+11% CBD; and 4) placebo cannabis flower in a randomized order. Washout period between treated attack was ≥1 week. The primary endpoint was pain relief and secondary endpoints were pain freedom and most bothersome symptom (MBS) freedom, all assessed at 2 hours post-vaporization.

Results

Ninety-two participants were enrolled and randomized, and 247 migraine attacks were treated. THC+CBD was superior to placebo at achieving pain relief (67.2% vs 46.6%, Odds Ratio [95% Confidence Interval] 2.85 [1.22, 6.65], p=0.016), pain freedom (34.5% vs. 15.5%, 3.30 [1.24, 8.80], p=0.017) and MBS freedom (60.3% vs. 34.5%, 3.32 [1.45, 7.64], p=0.005) at 2 hours, as well as sustained pain freedom at 24 hours and sustained MBS freedom at 24 and 48 hours. THC-dominant was superior to placebo for pain relief (68.9% vs. 46.6%, 3.14 [1.35, 7.30], p=0.008) but not pain freedom or MBS freedom at 2 hours. CBD-dominant was not superior to placebo for pain relief, pain freedom or MBS freedom at 2 hours. There were no serious adverse events.

Conclusions

Acute migraine treatment with 6% THC+11% CBD was superior to placebo at 2 hours post-treatment with sustained benefits at 24 and 48 hours.

Bi-directional nasal drug delivery systems: A scoping review of nasal particle deposition patterns and clinical application

Objectives

To compare the deposition patterns within the nasal cavity between the bi-directional and unilateral nasal delivery systems. And to summarize the clinical application of the bi-directional nasal drug delivery devices.

Data source

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). We included studies exploring patterns and influencing factors of particle depositions within the nasal cavity among patients, healthy controls, and nose cast models using the bi-directional and unilateral nasal delivery system. The clinical application of the bi-directional delivery devices was also summarized.

Results

A total of 24 studies were included in this review. Bi-directional nasal delivery systems utilize forced exhalation to power the delivery of drugs to deeper areas of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses. Unilateral nasal delivery systems included traditional liquid spray pumps, the aerosol mask system, nebulization, and conventional nasal inhalation. Compared with unilateral delivery systems, the bi-directional nasal delivery system provided a more extensive and efficient nasal deposition in the nasal cavity, especially in the olfactory cleft, without lung deposition. Several parameters, including particle size, pulsatile flow, and nasal geometry, could significantly influence nasal deposition. The bi-directional nasal delivery system enables better delivery of steroids or sumatriptan to the sinonasal cavity's high and deep target sites. This bi-directional delivery device demonstrated an effective and well-tolerated treatment that produced high drug utilization, rapid absorption, and sustained symptom improvement among patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) or migraine.

Conclusion

The bi-directional nasal drug delivery systems demonstrated significantly higher drug deposition in superior and posterior regions of the nasal cavity than unilateral nasal delivery systems. Further studies should explore its potential role in delivering drugs to the olfactory cleft among patients with olfactory disorders and central nervous system diseases.

Level of evidence

N/A.

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.

Rimegepant for the treatment of migraine

Migraine is a common form of primary headache, affecting up to 1 in every 6 Americans. The pathophysiology is an intricate interplay of genetic factors and environmental influence and is still being elucidated in ongoing studies. The trigeminovascular system is now known to have a significant role in the initiation of migraines, including the release of pain mediators such as CGRP and substance P. Traditional treatment of migraine is usually divided into acute and preventive treatment. Acute therapy includes non-specific therapy, such as NSAIDs and other analgesics, which may provide relief in mild to moderate migraines. 5-HT1 agonists may provide relief in severe migraine, but are not universally effective and carry a significant side-effect profile with frequent redosing requirement. Prophylactic therapy may reduce the occurrence of acute migraine attacks in selected patients, but does not completely eliminate it. More recently, CGRP antagonism has been studied and shown to be effective in both abortion and prevention of migraine. Novel medications, targeting CGRP, divide into CGRP antibodies and receptor antagonists (gepants). Rimegepant, a second-generation gepant, has shown efficacy in several clinical trials in treating acute migraine. Ongoing trials are also evaluating its role in migraine prophylaxis, and results are promising. It is also generally safer for use than existing options, does not appear to increase the chance of developing chronic migraines, and carries a very tolerable side effects profile. It is a part of a growing arsenal in migraine treatment, and may present the silver bullet for treatment of this disease.

Pre-referral intranasal artesunate powder for cerebral malaria: a proof-of-concept study

Background

Malaria still kills young children in rural endemic areas because early treatment is not available. Thus, the World Health Organization recommends the administration of artesunate suppositories as pre-referral treatment before transportation to the hospital in case of severe symptoms with an unavailable parenteral and oral treatment. However, negative cultural perception of the rectal route, and limited access to artesunate suppositories, could limit the use of artesunate suppositories. There is, therefore, a need for an alternative route for malaria pre-referral treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the potential of intranasal route for malaria pre-referral treatment.

Methods

The permeability of artesunate through human nasal mucosa was tested in vitro. The Transepithelial Electrical Resistance (TEER) of the nasal mucosa was followed during the permeation tests. Beside, regional deposition of artesunate powder was assessed with an unidose drug delivery device in each nostril of a nasal cast. Artesunate quantification was performed using Liquid Chromatography coupled to tandem Mass Spectrometry.

Results

The experimental model of human nasal mucosa was successfully implemented. Using this model, artesunate powder showed a much better passage rate through human nasal mucosa than solution (26.8 ± 6.6% versus 2.1 ± 0.3%). More than half (62.3%) of the artesunate dose sprayed in the nostrils of the nasal cast was recovered in the olfactory areas (44.7 ± 8.6%) and turbinates (17.6 ± 3.3%) allowing nose-to-brain and systemic drug diffusion, respectively.

Conclusion

Artesunate powder showed a good permeation efficiency on human nasal mucosa. Moreover it can be efficiently sprayed in the nostrils using unidose device to reach the olfactory area leading to a fast nose-to-brain delivery as well as a systemic effect. Taken together, those results are part of the proof-of-concept for the use of intranasal artesunate as a malaria pre-referral treatment.

Comparison between metamizole and triptans for migraine treatment: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of metamizole and triptans for the treatment of migraine. MethodsRandomized controlled trials including people who received metamizole or triptan by multiple routes of administration and at all doses as treatment compared to subjects who received another treatment or placebo were included in the systematic review. The primary outcomes were freedom from pain at 2 hours; pain relief at 2 hours; sustained headache response at 24 hours; sustained freedom from pain at 24 hours. The statistical analysis of all interventions of interest were based on random effect models compared through a network meta-analysis. Results 209 studies meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were analyzed. Of these, 130 had data that could be analyzed statistically. Only 3.0% provided enough information and were judged to have a low overall risk of bias for all categories evaluated; approximately 50% of the studies presented a low risk of selection bias. More than 75% of the studies presented a low risk of performance bias, and around 75% showed a low risk of detection and attrition bias. ConclusionThere is no evidence of a difference between dipyrone and any triptan for pain freedom after 2 hours of medication. Our study suggests that metamizole may be equally effective as triptans in acute migraine treatment.

Selective oxidative intermolecular carbosulphenylation of aryl alkenes with thiols and nucleophiles via a 1,2-dithioethane intermediate

A periodate lithium-oxidized difunctionalisation of aryl alkenes with thiols and electron-rich aromatics was achieved, selectively affording more than thirty carbosulphenylated products. Both experiments and quantum chemical calculations demonstrated the radical-polar nature of the processes, and that 1,2-dithioethane and thiiranium ions might play the role of intermediates.

The American Headache Society Consensus Statement: Update on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

To incorporate recent research findings, expert consensus, and patient perspectives into updated guidance on the use of new acute and preventive treatments for migraine in adults.

BACKGROUND

The American Headache Society previously published a Consensus Statement on the use of newly introduced treatments for adults with migraine. This update, which is based on the expanded evidence base and emerging expert consensus concerning postapproval usage, provides practical recommendations in the absence of a formal guideline.

METHODS

This update involved four steps: (1) review of data about the efficacy, safety, and clinical use of migraine treatments introduced since the previous Statement was published; (2) incorporation of these data into a proposed update; (3) review and commentary by the Board of Directors of the American Headache Society and patients and advocates associated with the American Migraine Foundation; (4) consideration of these collective insights and integration into an updated Consensus Statement.

RESULTS

Since the last Consensus Statement, no evidence has emerged to alter the established principles of either acute or preventive treatment. Newly introduced acute treatments include two small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists (ubrogepant, rimegepant); a serotonin (5-HT1F ) agonist (lasmiditan); a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (celecoxib oral solution); and a neuromodulatory device (remote electrical neuromodulation). New preventive treatments include an intravenous anti-CGRP ligand monoclonal antibody (eptinezumab). Several modalities, including neuromodulation (electrical trigeminal nerve stimulation, noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation, single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation) and biobehavioral therapy (cognitive behavioral therapy, biofeedback, relaxation therapies, mindfulness-based therapies, acceptance and commitment therapy) may be appropriate for either acute and/or preventive treatment; a neuromodulation device may be appropriate for acute migraine treatment only (remote electrical neuromodulation).

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of new treatments into clinical practice should be informed by the potential for benefit relative to established therapies, as well as by the characteristics and preferences of individual patients.

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.

Safety and efficacy of ubrogepant in participants with major cardiovascular risk factors in two single-attack phase 3 randomized trials: ACHIEVE I and II

OBJECTIVE

To examine the safety and efficacy of ubrogepant for acute treatment of migraine across cardiovascular (CV) disease risk categories.

METHODS

ACHIEVE I and II were multicenter, double-blind, single-attack, phase 3 trials in adults with migraine, with or without aura. Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant (50 or 100 mg in ACHIEVE I; 25 or 50 mg in ACHIEVE II), to treat one migraine attack of moderate or severe headache pain intensity. This post-hoc analysis pooled data from ubrogepant 50 mg and placebo groups from the ACHIEVE trials to examine the safety and efficacy of ubrogepant by baseline cardiovascular disease risk factors. Using a cardiovascular risk assessment algorithm, participants were categorized as having no cardiovascular risk, low cardiovascular risk or moderate-high cardiovascular risk at baseline. Treatment-emergent adverse events were documented 48 h and 30 days after taking the trial medication. Co-primary efficacy outcomes were 2-h pain freedom and 2-h absence of most bothersome migraine-associated symptom.

RESULTS

Overall, 3358 participants were randomized in the ACHIEVE trials (n = 2901 safety population; n = 2682 modified intent-to-treat population). In the safety population, 11% of participants were categorized as moderate-high (n = 311), 32% low (n = 920), and 58% no cardiovascular risk factors (n = 1670). The proportion of ubrogepant participants reporting a treatment-emergent adverse event was comparable across risk categories and similar to placebo. The treatment effects of ubrogepant versus placebo were consistent across cardiovascular risk categories for all efficacy outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The safety and efficacy of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of a single migraine attack did not differ by the presence of major cardiovascular risk factors. No evidence of increased treatment-emergent adverse events or cardiac system organ class adverse events with ≥2 major cardiovascular risk factors and no safety concerns were identified.Trial Registration: ACHIEVE I ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02828020; ACHIEVE II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02867709.

Onset of action in placebo-controlled migraine attacks trials: A literature review and recommendation

BACKGROUND

Migraine patients want acute treatment to provide complete relief of the migraine attack within 30 minutes. Traditionally, "speed of onset of effect" is evaluated by estimating the time-point for first statistical separation of drug and placebo. The estimated onset of effect can be a few percent difference of patients being pain free in very large randomised, controlled trials. This difference, however, can be clinically irrelevant.

METHODS

Placebo-controlled randomised, controlled trials with pain freedom results from 30 min to 2-4 hours were retrieved from the literature. For each time-point, the therapeutic gain (drug minus placebo) (TG) was calculated. Therapeutic gain for being pain free of 5% was chosen for the definition of "onset of action", since this is approximately 1/3 of the 16% TG and 1/4 of 21% of TG for sumatriptan 50 mg and 100 mg, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 22 time-effect curves based on randomised, controlled trials were analysed. Based on the "onset of action" of 5% pain freedom, the evaluated drugs and administration forms can be classified as follows: i) Early time to onset, ≤30 min (three randomised, controlled trials); ii) medium time to onset, 60 min (nine randomised, controlled trials); iii) delayed time to onset, 90-120 min (10 randomised, controlled trials).

CONCLUSION

Only three non-oral administration forms with a triptan (subcutaneous sumatriptan and nasal zolmitriptan) resulted in an "onset of action" at ≥30 min; in the future, early onset of action should be a priority in the development of new drugs or new administration-forms for the treatment of acute migraine attacks.

Ubrogepant, an Acute Treatment for Migraine, Improved Patient-Reported Functional Disability and Satisfaction in 2 Single-Attack Phase 3 Randomized Trials, ACHIEVE I and II

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of ubrogepant on patient-reported functional disability, satisfaction with study medication, and global impression of change.

BACKGROUND

Ubrogepant is a small-molecule, oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist indicated for the acute treatment of migraine. In 2 phase 3 trials (ACHIEVE I and II), ubrogepant demonstrated efficacy vs placebo on the 2 co-primary endpoints of headache pain freedom and absence of the most bothersome migraine-associated symptom at 2 hours post dose for the 50 and 100 mg doses. Patient-reported outcomes, such as functional disability, satisfaction, and patient global impression of change, can provide additional evidence of the efficacy of an acute treatment for migraine on clinically meaningful and patient-relevant outcomes.

METHODS

ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II were multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, single-attack trials in adults (18-75 years) with migraine. In ACHIEVE I, participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant 50 or 100 mg; in ACHIEVE II, participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant 25 or 50 mg to treat a migraine attack with moderate or severe headache pain. Participants rated ability to perform daily activities on the Functional Disability Scale, before dosing and at 1, 2, 4, and 8 hours after the initial dose; satisfaction with study medication at 2 and 24 hours; and impression of overall change in migraine on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale at 2 hours. In prespecified analyses for each trial, each outcome was compared between each ubrogepant dose group and the relevant placebo group. Data were pooled from the ubrogepant 50 mg and placebo groups of the 2 trials in a post hoc analysis.

RESULTS

In ACHIEVE I, 559 participants were randomized to placebo, 556 to ubrogepant 50 mg, and 557 to ubrogepant 100 mg; in ACHIEVE II, 563 were randomized to placebo, 561 to ubrogepant 25 mg, and 562 to ubrogepant 50 mg. At 2 hours post dose, significantly higher proportions of ubrogepant-treated participants vs placebo-treated participants reported being able to function normally (ACHIEVE I: ubrogepant 50 mg, 40.6% [171/421], P = .0012 vs placebo; ubrogepant 100 mg, 42.9% [192/448], P < .0001 vs placebo; placebo, 29.8% [136/456]; ACHIEVE II: ubrogepant 25 mg, 42.6% [185/434], P = .0015 vs placebo; ubrogepant 50 mg, 40.5% [188/464], P = .0118 vs placebo; placebo, 34.2% [156/456]; pooled 50 mg, 40.6% [359/885], vs pooled placebo, 32.0% [292/912]; P < .0001), were satisfied/extremely satisfied with study medication (ACHIEVE I: 50 mg, 36.3% [147/405], P < .0001 vs placebo; 100 mg, 35.8% [149/416], P = .0002 vs placebo; placebo, 24.1% [104/432]; ACHIEVE II: 25 mg, 35.1% [141/402], P = .0018 vs placebo; 50 mg, 37.8% [163/431], P < .0001 vs placebo; placebo, 24.8% [106/427]; pooled ubrogepant 50 mg, 37.1% [310/836], vs pooled placebo, 24.5% [210/859]; P < .0001), and indicated that their migraine was much/very much better on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale (ACHIEVE I: 50 mg, 34.4% [103/299], P = .0006 vs placebo; 100 mg, 34.3% [102/297], P = .0009 vs placebo; placebo, 22.0% [69/313]; ACHIEVE II: 25 mg, 34.1% [124/364], P < .0001 vs placebo; 50 mg, 33.4% [131/392], P = .0002 vs placebo; placebo, 20.7% [78/376]; pooled 50 mg, 33.9% [234/691], vs pooled placebo, 21.3% [147/689]; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

A significantly higher proportion of participants treated with ubrogepant were able to function normally, were satisfied with the study medication, and reported clinically meaningful improvement compared with those receiving placebo. The results reinforce the potential benefits of ubrogepant on patient-centered outcomes in the acute treatment of migraine.

Effect of Ubrogepant vs Placebo on Pain and the Most Bothersome Associated Symptom in the Acute Treatment of Migraine: The ACHIEVE II Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Ubrogepant is an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist under investigation for acute treatment of migraine.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of ubrogepant compared with placebo for acute treatment of a single migraine attack.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-attack, clinical trial (ACHIEVE II) conducted in the United States (99 primary care and research clinics; August 26, 2016-February 26, 2018). Participants were adults with migraine with or without aura experiencing 2 to 8 migraine attacks per month.

INTERVENTIONS

Ubrogepant 50 mg (n = 562), ubrogepant 25 mg (n = 561), or placebo (n = 563) for a migraine attack of moderate or severe pain intensity.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Co-primary efficacy outcomes were pain freedom and absence of the participant-designated most bothersome migraine-associated symptom (among photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea) at 2 hours after taking the medication.

RESULTS

Among 1686 randomized participants, 1465 received study treatment (safety population; mean age, 41.5 years; 90% female); 1355 of 1465 (92.5%) were evaluable for efficacy. Pain freedom at 2 hours was reported by 101 of 464 participants (21.8%) in the ubrogepant 50-mg group, 90 of 435 (20.7%) in the ubrogepant 25-mg group, and 65 of 456 (14.3%) in the placebo group (absolute difference for 50 mg vs placebo, 7.5%; 95% CI, 2.6%-12.5%; P = .01; 25 mg vs placebo, 6.4%; 95% CI, 1.5%-11.5%; P = .03). Absence of the most bothersome associated symptom at 2 hours was reported by 180 of 463 participants (38.9%) in the ubrogepant 50-mg group, 148 of 434 (34.1%) in the ubrogepant 25-mg group, and 125 of 456 (27.4%) in the placebo group (absolute difference for 50 mg vs placebo, 11.5%; 95% CI, 5.4%-17.5%; P = .01; 25 mg vs placebo, 6.7%; 95% CI, 0.6%-12.7%; P = .07). The most common adverse events within 48 hours of any dose were nausea (50 mg, 10 of 488 [2.0%]; 25 mg, 12 of 478 [2.5%]; and placebo, 10 of 499 [2.0%]) and dizziness (50 mg, 7 of 488 [1.4%]; 25 mg, 10 of 478 [2.1%]; placebo, 8 of 499 [1.6%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among adults with migraine, acute treatment with ubrogepant compared with placebo led to significantly greater rates of pain freedom at 2 hours with 50-mg and 25-mg doses, and absence of the most bothersome migraine-associated symptom at 2 hours only with the 50-mg dose. Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of ubrogepant against other acute treatments for migraine and to evaluate the long-term safety of ubrogepant among unselected patient populations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02867709.

Why is the therapeutic effect of acute antimigraine drugs delayed? A review of controlled trials and hypotheses about the delay of effect

In randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of oral drug treatment of migraine attacks, efficacy is evaluated after 2 hours. The effect of oral naratriptan 2.5 mg with a maximum blood concentration (Tmax ) at 2 hours increases from 2 to 4 hours in RCTs. To check whether such a delayed effect is also present for other oral antimigraine drugs, we hand-searched the literature for publications on RCTs reporting efficacy. Two triptans, 3 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), a triptan combined with an NSAID and a calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist were evaluated for their therapeutic gain with determination of time to maximum effect (Emax ). Emax was compared with known Tmax from pharmacokinetic studies to estimate the delay to pain-free. The delay in therapeutic gain varied from 1-2 hours for zolmitriptan 5 mg to 7 hours for naproxen 500 mg. An increase in effect from 2 to 4 hours was observed after eletriptan 40 mg, frovatriptan 2.5 mg and lasmiditan 200 mg, and after rizatriptan 10 mg (Tmax  = 1 h) from 1 to 2 hours. This strongly indicates a general delay of effect in oral antimigraine drugs. A review of 5 possible effects of triptans on the trigemino-vascular system did not yield a simple explanation for the delay. In addition, Emax for triptans probably depends partly on the rise in plasma levels and not only on its maximum. The most likely explanation for the delay in effect is that a complex antimigraine system with more than 1 site of action is involved.

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.

Evaluating Mean Level and Within-Person Consistency in Migraine Pain Intensity and Migraine-Related Disability for AVP-825 vs Oral Sumatriptan: Results from the COMPASS Study, A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Consistency of response across multiple attacks is typically measured as the proportion of study participants who achieve a categorical endpoint over a specified number of attacks (ie, 2-hour pain-free response in 2 of 3 attacks). We applied a novel analytic approach for measuring consistency of response in the acute treatment of episodic migraine using data from the COMPASS study.

METHODS

The COMPASS study (NCT01667679) was a multiple attack crossover study which compared AVP-825, a Breath Powered^® intranasal delivery system for low-dose sumatriptan powder (22 mg), with 100-mg oral sumatriptan tablets in the acute treatment of migraine. Participants were 18-65 years old, met ICHD-2 criteria for migraine with or without aura, and had migraine for ≥1 year prior to screening. They were instructed to treat up to 5 migraine attacks with each treatment and recorded migraine pain intensity and disability data at pre-dose and 10, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 minutes post-dose for each attack. We explored the mean level and within-person variability (WPV; a measure of consistency) in migraine pain intensity and migraine-related disability across multiple attacks after treatment with AVP-825 (22 mg) vs oral sumatriptan (100 mg) using location scale mixed-effects models (LSMEMs). LSMEMs controlled for pre-dose pain/disability, demographics, treatment sequence, and treatment period.

RESULTS

The mean age was 40 and the sample was 84.6% women. Participants (N = 259) treated an average of 6.8 attacks each during the course of the study. Attacks treated with AVP-825 showed significantly lower mean pain intensity and mean disability from 10 to 90 minutes post-dose (effect sizes ranged from -0.09 to -0.29 and P values ranged from P < .0001 to P = .01). WPV was significantly greater at 10-15 minutes (WPV ratios ranged from 1.20 to 1.58 and P values ranged from P < .0001 to P = .04) but significantly reduced from 45 to 120 minutes for attacks treated with AVP-825 compared to oral sumatriptan (WPV ratios ranged from 0.67 to 0.81 and P values ranged from P < .0001 to P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

LSMEMs demonstrate that treatment with AVP-825 is associated with lower average migraine pain intensity and disability from 10 to 90 minutes and greater within-person consistency across multiple migraine attacks (reduced WPV) from 45 to 120 minutes post-dose compared to oral sumatriptan. These findings may reflect the more rapid and consistent absorption of sumatriptan using AVP-825. Increased WPV with AVP-825 in the first 15 minutes likely reflects the earlier onset of treatment effects with the device compared to oral sumatriptan. LSMEMs show promise as a novel approach for assessing and comparing consistency of treatment response in migraine trials.

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.

Acute treatment of migraine with external trigeminal nerve stimulation: A pilot trial

Objective:

The main objective of this study was to obtain efficacy data for external trigeminal nerve stimulation (e-TNS) in the acute treatment of migraine in patients using the device at home.

Methods:

This was a single-center, open-label trial conducted at the Rochester Clinical Research Center (Rochester, NY, USA). Patients who met International Classification of Headache Disorders, Third Edition, criteria for migraine with and without aura for ≥1 year and having between 2 and 8 moderate or severe attacks per month were recruited. Patients were advised to treat one migraine attack of moderate to severe intensity that started less than 4 h earlier and was not treated with an acute migraine medication, with a 2-h e-TNS session. Primary outcome measures were pain freedom at 2 h and most bothersome migraine-associated symptom (MBS) freedom at 2 h. Secondary outcome measures were pain relief at 2 h, the absence of migraine-associated symptoms at 2 h, the use of rescue medication between 2 and 24 h, and sustained pain freedom at 24 h.

Results:

Fifty-nine subjects were included in the study, and among them, 48 subjects were eligible for the modified intention-to-treat analysis. After 2 h of e-TNS, 35.4% of the subjects were pain-free, 60.4% were MBS-free, 70.8% had pain relief, and 45.8% were free from all migraine-associated symptoms. Half of the subjects took rescue medication between 2 h and 24 h, and sustained pain freedom at 24 h was achieved for 25.0% of the subjects. Regarding safety, 15 patients reported adverse events, all minor and fully reversible, mainly forehead paresthesia.

Conclusions:

This study shows that e-TNS with the Cefaly® Acute Device is effective, well-tolerated, and safe for the acute treatment of migraine in patients using the device at home. A large, multicenter, randomized, sham-controlled trial is needed to confirm this finding.

The American Headache Society Position Statement On Integrating New Migraine Treatments Into Clinical Practice

OBJECTIVE

To provide healthcare professionals with updated guidance in the use of novel preventive and acute treatments for migraine in adults.

BACKGROUND

The principles of preventive and acute pharmacotherapy for patients with migraine have been outlined previously, but the emergence of new technologies and treatments, as well as new formulations of previously established treatments, has created a need for an updated guidance on the preventive and acute treatment of migraine.

METHODS

This statement is based on a review of existing guidelines and principles for preventive and acute treatment of migraine, as well as the results of recent clinical trials of drugs and devices for these indications. Input was sought from health insurance providers, employers, pharmacy benefit service companies, device manufacturers, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, patients, and patient advocates. Expert clinicians and researchers in the field of headache medicine from across North America and the European Union provided input and feedback.

RESULTS

The principles of pharmacologic preventive treatment of migraine with oral treatments have been as follows: use evidence-based treatments when possible and appropriate; start with a low dose and titrate slowly; reach a therapeutic dose if possible; allow for an adequate treatment trial duration; establish expectations of therapeutic response and adverse events; and maximize adherence. Newer injectable treatments may work faster and may not need titration. The principles of acute treatment include: use evidence-based treatments when possible and appropriate; treat early after the onset of a migraine attack; choose a nonoral route of administration for selected patients; account for tolerability and safety issues; consider self-administered rescue treatments; and avoid overuse of acute medications. Neuromodulation and biobehavioral therapy may be appropriate for preventive and acute treatment, depending on the needs of individual patients. Neuromodulation may be useful for patients who prefer nondrug therapies or who respond poorly, cannot tolerate, or have contraindications to pharmacotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This statement updates prior recommendations and outlines the indications for initiating, continuing, combining, and switching preventive and acute treatments of migraine.

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.

Efficacy and mode of action of external trigeminal neurostimulation in migraine

INTRODUCTION

Available preventive drug treatments for migraine lack complete efficacy and often have unpleasant adverse effects. Hence, their clinical utility and therapeutic adherence are limited. Noninvasive neurostimulation methods applied over various peripheral sites (forehead, mastoid, upper arm, cervical vagus nerve) have raised great interest because of their excellent efficacy/tolerance profile. Among them external trigeminal nerve stimulation (eTNS) was first to obtain FDA approval for migraine therapy. Areas covered: All clinical trials of eTNS as preventive or acute migraine treatment published in extenso or presented at congresses are reviewed. The paper analyzes neuroimaging and neurophysiological studies on mechanisms of action of eTNS. As many of these studies point toward the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) as a likely eTNS target, the paper scrutinizes the available literature on the ACC implication in migraine pathophysiology. Expert commentary: eTNS is a viable alternative to standard pharmacological antimigraine strategies both for prevention and abortive therapy. eTNS could chiefly exert its action by modulating the perigenual ACC, which might also be of interest for treating other disorders like fibromyalgia or depression. It remains to be determined if this might be a common mechanism to other peripheral noninvasive neurostimulation methods.

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.

Evaluating the reporting of adverse events in controlled clinical trials conducted in 2010–2015 on migraine drug treatments

Background

In 2008, the International Headache Society published guidelines on the “evaluation and registration of adverse events in clinical drug trials on migraine”. They listed seven recommendations for reporting adverse events in randomized controlled trials on migraine. The present study aimed to evaluate adherence to these recommendations, and based on the results, to recommend improvements.

Methods

We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE database to identify controlled trials on migraine drugs published from 2010 to 2015. For each trial, we noted whether five of the recommended parameters were presented. In addition, we noted whether adverse events were reported in abstracts.

Results

We identified 73 trials; 51 studied acutely administered drugs and 22 studied prophylactic drugs for migraine. The number of patients with any adverse events were reported in 74% of acute-administration and 86% of prophylactic drug trials. Only 30 (41%) of the 73 studies reported adverse events with data in the abstracts, and 27 (37%) abstracts did not mention adverse events.

Conclusion

Adverse events, both frequency and symptoms, should be reported to allow a fair judgement of benefit/tolerability ratio when randomized controlled trials in migraine treatment are published. Clinically significant adverse events should be included in the abstract of every randomized controlled trial in migraine treatment.

Intranasal immunization with dry powder vaccines

Vaccination represents a cost-effective weapon for disease prevention and has proven to dramatically reduce the incidences of several diseases that once were responsible for significant mortality and morbidity worldwide. The nasal cavity constitutes the initial stage of the respiratory system and the first contact with inhaled pathogens. The intranasal (IN) route for vaccine administration is an attractive alternative to injection, due to the ease of administration as well as better patient compliance. Many published studies have demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of IN immunization with liquid vaccines. Currently, two liquid IN vaccines are available and both contain live attenuated influenza viruses. FluMist® was approved in 2003 in the United States, and Nasovac® H1N1 vaccine was approved in India in 2010. Preclinical studies showed that IN immunization with dry powder vaccines (DPVs) is feasible. Although there is not a commercially available DPV yet, DPVs have the inherent advantage of being relatively more stable than liquid vaccines. This review focuses on recent developments of DPVs as next-generation IN vaccines.

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.

Minority Representation in Migraine Treatment Trials

BACKGROUND

Minorities have historically been underrepresented in clinical research trials despite having comparatively poor health indicators. Recognizing the dual inequalities of increased disease burden and decreased research participation, the National Institute of Health (NIH) Revitalization Act of 1993 mandated the inclusion and reporting of women and minorities in NIH-funded research. While progress has been made in the subsequent decades, this underrepresentation of minorities in research trials persists and has been documented in multiple disciplines. However, the extent of adequate representation and reporting of minority inclusion in clinical trials for migraine remains unknown.

OBJECTIVES

In this systematic review and study, we review the literature examining the representation of women and minorities in migraine clinical research trials METHODS: First we searched PubMed for pertinent articles examining the inclusion of women and minorities in migraine clinical research trials. Second, we identified controlled-trials for migraine published since 2011 in major neurology, headache, and general medicine journals using the terms "migraine randomized controlled trial." We then reviewed the results manually and excluded pilot studies and those with fewer than 50 participants. We next determined (a) how frequently representation of minorities and women were reported in these major trials; (b) what factors correlated with reporting; and (c) whether women and minority inclusion comprised their ratios in the general population.

RESULTS

We identified 128 relevant clinical trials, of which 36 met our inclusion criteria. All 36 trials (100%) reported gender frequency, and 25 of 36 (69.4%) reported ethnicity or race. Among all studies, women and Whites represented 84.2 and 82.9% of participants (mean), respectively. Studies conducted in the United States and funded by a private company were more likely to report race than studies conducted exclusively outside of the U.S. or with a public sponsor. No studies stratified efficacy or safety by ethnicity or gender. Men and non-Whites in the U.S. were statistically underrepresented.

CONCLUSIONS

Most recent headache studies comply with the NIH mandate to include women and minorities in research trials, particularly U.S.-based and industry-funded studies. Whites are overrepresented compared to both the general population and the population of migraineurs. Future studies should strive to increase minority participation and investigate race-based differences in migraine expression, treatment response, and medication toxicity.

Sumatriptan iontophoretic transdermal system for acute treatment of episodic migraine

Migraine is a common and debilitating condition affecting approximately nearly one in four women in the USA and Europe. Episodic attacks can be associated with a number of symptoms, with nausea and/or vomiting being among the most frequent and distressing. Sumatriptan is widely used for acute treatment of migraine and is available in several formulations. The efficacy of oral sumatriptan is well-established. However, patients who experience migraine-associated nausea and/or vomiting can have difficulty swallowing tablets and may delay taking anti-migraine medication. In addition, absorption of oral sumatriptan can be reduced by migraine-associated gastroparesis. Non-oral formulations of sumatriptan are recommended for patients with nausea and/or vomiting, but their use may be limited by adverse effects and patient acceptance. A new transdermal formulation of sumatriptan has recently become available in the USA for acute treatment of migraine in adults. In this article, we review the properties of the sumatriptan iontophoretic transdermal patch and discuss the evidence to support its use in clinical practice.

Emerging treatments for the primary headache disorders

Migraine and cluster headache are common, episodic, often chronic and disabling disorders of the brain. Although there are many standard treatment techniques, none are ideal. This article reviews various novel pharmacologic and device-related treatments for migraine and cluster headache. Emphasis is given to recent advances in the development of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and its receptor, including promising results from phase 2 trials studying the safety and efficacy of LY2951742, ALD403 and TEV-48125, three anti-CGRP mAbs. Other new pharmacologic treatments discussed include the 5-HT1F receptor agonist lasmiditan and glial cell modulator ibudilast. Also reviewed is neuromodulation for migraine and cluster headache, including promising recent results of randomized controlled trials studying sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation, trigeminal nerve stimulation, transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation, and transcranial magnetic stimulation. Finally, we discuss patch, inhaled, and intranasal methods of triptan and dihydroergotamine delivery.

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.

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.