A randomized, open-label, 5-period crossover study evaluating the pharmacokinetics and safety of a single dose of intranasal dihydroergotamine (DHE) powder (STS101), intramuscular DHE mesylate, and liquid nasal spray DHE in healthy adults

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of dihydroergotamine (DHE) after administration of intranasal DHE powder (STS101), liquid nasal spray (LNS) DHE mesylate, and intramuscular (IM) DHE mesylate injection in healthy participants.

BACKGROUND

DHE is an effective acute migraine treatment; however, self-administration difficulties have prevented its broader role in the management of migraine.

METHODS

This randomized, active-controlled, five-period crossover study was conducted over 5 weeks separated by 1-week washout periods. Three STS101 dosage strengths (5.2, 7.0, 8.6 mg), and one dose each of LNS DHE 2.0 mg, and IM DHE 1.0 mg, were administered to 36 healthy participants. Liquid chromatography, tandem mass spectrometry was used to determine DHE (including its 8'OH-DHE metabolite) plasma levels and to calculate PK parameters (Cmax , Tmax , AUC0-2h , AUC0-last , AUC0-inf , and t1/2 ). Safety was evaluated by monitoring adverse events (AEs), vital signs, electrocardiograms, nasal examinations, and laboratory parameters.

RESULTS

Thirty-six participants (mean age 36 years; 19% Hispanic Black and 81% Hispanic White) were enrolled. DHE plasma concentrations rose rapidly after STS101 5.2, 7.0, and 8.6 mg and IM DHE injection, with mean concentrations greater than 2000 pg/mL for all STS101 dose strengths at 20 min. All STS101 dose strengths showed approximately 3-fold higher Cmax , AUC0-2h , and AUC0-inf , than the LNS DHE. The mean AUC0-inf of STS101 7.0 and 8.6 mg were comparable to IM DHE (12,600 and 13,200 vs. 13,400 h × pg/mL). All STS101 dose strengths showed substantially lower variability (CV%) compared to LNS DHE for Cmax (35%-41% vs. 87%), and AUC0-inf (37%-46% vs. 65%). STS101 was well tolerated, and all treatment-emergent AEs were mild and transient.

CONCLUSION

STS101 showed rapid absorption and was well tolerated with mild and transient treatment-emergent AEs. Achieving effective DHE plasma concentrations within 10 min, STS101 displayed a favorable PK profile relative to the LNS with higher Cmax , AUC0-2h , and AUC0inf , and with greater response consistency. The AUC0-inf was comparable to IM DHE.

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.

5-hydroxytryptamine in migraine: The puzzling role of ionotropic 5-HT3 receptor in the context of established therapeutic effect of metabotropic 5-HT1 subtypes

5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT; serotonin) is traditionally considered as a key mediator implicated in migraine. Multiple 5-HT receptor subtypes contribute to a variety of region-specific functional effects. The raphé nuclei control nociceptive inputs by releasing 5-HT in the brainstem, whereas dural mast cells provide the humoral source of 5-HT in the meninges. Triptans (5-HT_1B/D agonists) and ditans (5-HT_1F agonists) are the best established 5-HT anti-migraine agents. However, activation of meningeal afferents via ionotropic 5-HT₃ receptors results in long-lasting excitatory drive suggesting a pro-nociceptive role for these receptors in migraine. Nevertheless, clinical data do not clearly support the applicability of currently available 5-HT₃ antagonists to migraine treatment. The reasons for this might be the presence of 5-HT₃ receptors on inhibitory interneurons dampening the excitatory drive, a lack of 5-HT₃ A-E subunit-selective antagonists and gender/age-dependent effects. This review is focusing on the controversial role of 5-HT₃ receptors in migraine pathology and related pharmacological perspectives of 5-HT ligands.

Acute Migraine Treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Migraine is a disabling disease of attacks of moderate to severe pain with associated symptoms. Every person with migraine requires treatment for acute attacks. Treatments can range from behavioral management and nonspecific medications to migraine-specific medications and neuromodulation. For many with migraine, having a combination of tools allows for effective treatment of all types of attacks.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over the past several years, four neuromodulation devices have been cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of acute migraine, and three medications with novel mechanisms of action have been FDA approved. They add to the arsenal available to people with migraine and focus on migraine-specific pathways to allow for precise care with fewer side effects.

SUMMARY

This article discusses acute migraine therapy, focusing on best-level evidence.

Pharmacological strategies to treat attacks of episodic migraine in adults

INTRODUCTION

Migraine patients prioritize early complete relief of headache and associated symptoms, sustained freedom of pain, and good tolerability. One major obstacle for the successful use of drug treatment of migraine attack is that the speed of action of triptans, 5-HT_1B/1D receptor agonists, is delayed.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the author discusses the following features of acute migraine drugs: pharmacology; pharmacokinetics, and absorption of drugs during migraine attacks. Next, dose-response curves for effect; and the delayed onset of action is reviewed. In the more clinical part of the review, the following items are discussed: overall clinical judgments; comparison of triptans; comparison of triptans with NSAIDs; early intervention with triptans; medication-overuse headache; comments on the effect of gepants; and the general principle of acute migraine therapy.

EXPERT OPINION

The delay in the onset of effect of acute migraine drugs is likely due to a complex antimigraine system involving more than one site of action. Investigations into the mechanisms of the delay should have a high priority, both in studies with animals, migraine models, and in migraine patients during attacks. Non-oral administration of antimigraine drugs resulting in early absorption of drugs should be developed as they possibly also can increase E_max.

A Phase 1, Randomized, Open-Label, Safety, Tolerability, and Comparative Bioavailability Study of Intranasal Dihydroergotamine Powder (STS101), Intramuscular Dihydroergotamine Mesylate, and Intranasal DHE Mesylate Spray in Healthy Adult Subjects

Objective

To investigate and compare the safety and the pharmacokinetics of dihydroergotamine (DHE) after administration of intranasal DHE powder (STS101), intranasal DHE spray (Migranal^®), and intramuscular (IM) DHE injection in healthy subjects.

Methods

This was a 2‐part, active‐controlled, 3‐period crossover study over 3 weeks, separated by 1‐week washout periods. In part 1, 3 ascending dosage strengths of STS101 (1.3, 2.6, and 5.2 mg) were administered to 15 healthy subjects with no history of migraine. In part 2, 27 healthy subjects were administered 1 dose each of STS101 5.2 mg, Migranal DHE Mesylate Liquid Nasal Spray 2.0 mg, and IM DHE Mesylate 1.0 mg in a randomized order. Liquid chromatography, tandem mass spectrometry was used to determine plasma levels of DHE and its major metabolite, 8′OH‐DHE. Pharmacokinetic parameters (C_max, T_max, AUC_0‐2 h, AUC_0‐48 h, AUC_0‐inf, and t_1/2) for DHE and metabolite were calculated. Geometric means and 90% confidence intervals of log‐transformed data were calculated and the ratio of means compared. Safety was evaluated by monitoring adverse events, vital signs, electrocardiograms, subjective and objective assessments of nasal signs and symptoms, and changes in laboratory parameters. The study is registered as NCT03874832.

Results

Forty‐three subjects were enrolled and received study medication. Forty completed all study activities, 14 in part 1 and 26 in part 2. In part 1, DHE plasma levels showed a dose‐dependent increase, with STS101 5.2 mg reaching a mean C_max of 1870 pg/mL with a T_max of 23 minutes. In part 2, STS101 5.2 mg showed rapid absorption, achieving mean DHE plasma concentrations of 1230 and 1850 pg/mL at 10 and 15 minutes after administration, respectively. In comparison to Migranal, STS101 5.2 mg showed approximately 2‐fold higher C_max (2175 vs 961 pg/mL), AUC_0‐2 h (2979 vs 1316 h × pg/mL), and AUC_0‐inf (12,030 vs 6498 h × pg/mL), respectively. The mean AUC_0‐inf of STS101 5.2 mg was comparable to IM DHE (12,030 vs 13,650 h × pg/mL). STS101 5.2 mg showed substantially lower variability compared to Migranal for C_max (41% vs 76%), AUC_0‐2 h (39% vs 75%), and AUC_0‐inf (39% vs 55%). The incidence of treatment emergent AEs (TEAEs), all mild and transient, reported in parts 1 and 2 combined was 9/15 (60%), 5/15 (33%), and 16/41 (39%) of the subjects after 1.3, 2.6, and 5.2 mg STS101, respectively, and 4/26 (15%) and 5/27 (19%) of the subjects after IM DHE and Migranal, respectively.

Conclusion

STS101 showed rapid absorption, achieving effective DHE plasma concentrations within 10 minutes. It achieved substantially higher C_max, AUC_0‐2 h and AUC_0‐inf, compared to Migranal suggesting potentially better efficacy than Migranal. Its variability was better than Migranal, thus offering improved consistency of response. AUC_0‐inf was comparable to IM DHE, suggesting prolonged action and low recurrence. Additionally, the C_max was sufficiently low to avoid any significant nausea reported with IV DHE. Thus, STS101 is an easy to administer, non‐injected, acute treatment for migraine, with a favorable tolerability profile and is expected to provide rapid and consistent freedom from pain and associated migraine symptoms without recurrence.

Dihydroergotamine (DHE) - Then and Now: A Narrative Review

OBJECTIVE

To provide a narrative review of clinical development programs for non-oral, non-injectable formulations of dihydroergotamine (DHE) for the treatment of migraine.

BACKGROUND

Dihydroergotamine was one of the first "synthetic drugs" developed in the 20th century for treating migraine. It is effective and recommended for acute migraine treatment. Since oral DHE is extensively metabolized, it must be given by a non-oral route. Intravenous DHE requires healthcare personnel to administer, subcutaneous/intramuscular injection is challenging to self-administer, and the approved nasal spray formulation exhibits low bioavailability and high variability that limits its efficacy. Currently there are several attempts underway to develop non-oral, non-injected formulations of DHE.

METHOD

A systematic search of MEDLINE/PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov databases, then narrative review of identified reports, focusing on those published in the last 10 years.

RESULTS

Of 1881 references to DHE from a MEDLINE/PubMed search, 164 were from the last 10 years and were the focus of this review. Further cross reference was made to ClinicalTrials.gov for 19 clinical studies, of which some results have not yet been published, or are studies that are currently underway. Three nasal DHE products are in clinical development, reawakening interest in this route of delivery for migraine. Other routes of DHE administration have been, or are being, explored.

CONCLUSION

There is renewed appreciation for DHE and the need for non-oral, non-injected delivery is now being addressed.

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 (T_max ) 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 (E_max ). E_max was compared with known T_max 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 (T_max  = 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, E_max 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.

The discovery and development of inhaled therapeutics for migraine

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a disabling primary headache disorder that requires effective treatments. Inhalation is currently being explored for the delivery of drugs for migraine. Pulmonary-route delivery of drugs shows potential advantages for its use as a treatment, particularly compared the oral route. Areas covered: The authors highlight the current state of the literature and review multiple therapies for migraine-utilizing inhalation as the route of administration. The following therapeutics are discussed: inhaled ergotamine, inhaled dihydroergotamine mesylate (MAP0004), inhaled prochlorperazine, and inhaled loxapine. Coverage is also given to normobaric oxygen, hyperbaric oxygen, and nitrous oxide therapies. Expert opinion: Inhalation of MAP0004 showed promising results in terms of efficacy for acute migraine treatment in phase 3 studies, together with a more favorable tolerability profile compared to parenteral dosing and a better pharmacokinetic profile versus oral or intranasal delivery. In phase 2 trials, inhaled prochlorperazine shows good pharmacokinetics and efficacy, in contrast to inhaled loxapine that did not provide encouraging results in terms of efficacy. The authors see the potential for the use of dihydroergotamine mesylate in clinical practice pending regulatory approval.

STOP 101: A Phase 1, Randomized, Open-Label, Comparative Bioavailability Study of INP104, Dihydroergotamine Mesylate (DHE) Administered Intranasally by a I123 Precision Olfactory Delivery (POD® ) Device, in Healthy Adult Subjects

OBJECTIVE

Investigate the safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of INP104, intranasal dihydroergotamine mesylate (DHE) administered via a Precision Olfactory Delivery (POD^® ) device, (Impel NeuroPharma, Seattle, WA) vs intravenous (IV) DHE and DHE nasal spray (Migranal^® ) in healthy adult subjects.

METHODS

This was a Phase 1, open-label, randomized, single-dose, 3-period, 3-way crossover study. Subjects received a single dose of A) INP104 1.45 mg (a drug-device combination product composed of DHE and the I123 POD device); B) DHE 45^® Injection (IV) 1.0 mg; and C) DHE by Migranal^® Nasal Spray 2.0 mg. Plasma levels of DHE and the major bioactive metabolite, 8'OH-DHE, were measured, and PK parameters were determined for both. Comparative bioavailability (BA) was assessed by calculating the ratio of the geometric means between treatments for C_max and AUC_0-inf on the ln-transformed data. Safety was assessed from adverse events, vital signs, electrocardiograms, and clinical laboratory values.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight subjects were enrolled, 36 were dosed with at least 1 IP and 27 were included in the evaluation of PK and comparative BA. DHE plasma levels following INP104 1.45 mg administration reached 93% of C_max by 20 minutes and were comparable to IV DHE 1.0 mg by 30 minutes (1219 ng/mL for INP104 vs 1224 ng/mL for IV DHE), which was the T_max for INP104. From 30 minutes onward, DHE levels for INP104 closely matched those of IV DHE to 48 hours, the last time point measured. In comparison, the C_max for Migranal was 299.6 pg/mL (approximately 4-fold less than INP104) and occurred at 47 minutes, 17 minutes later than INP104. Plasma DHE AUC_0-inf were 6275, 7490, and 2199 h*pg/mL for INP104, IV DHE, and Migranal, respectively. Variability (coefficient of variation [CV%]) for C_max and AUC_0-inf for INP104 compared to Migranal indicated more consistent delivery with INP104. In the BA comparison using the PK population (subjects who had received all 3 treatments), the ratios of geometric means (percent) for C_max and AUC_0-inf were 7.9% and 74.2%, respectively, for INP104: IV DHE, and 445% and 308% for INP104: Migranal. Mean plasma concentration profiles for 8'-OH-DHE were proportionately lower and followed a similar profile to the parent compound, regardless of route of administration (IN vs IV) or delivery system (Migranal vs INP104). Treatment emergent AEs (TEAEs), of mostly mild intensity, were reported by 15/31 (48.4%), 21/32 (65.6%), and 14/34 (41.2%) subjects after INP104, IV DHE, and Migranal, respectively. Treatment-related TEAEs occurred in 6/31 (19.4%), 16/32 (50.0%), and 4/34 (11.8%) subjects after INP104, IV DHE, and Migranal, respectively.

CONCLUSION

INP104 met the predefined statistical criteria for comparative bioavailability with IV DHE and Migranal. The shorter time to reach C_max and at 4 times the plasma concentration of DHE in comparison to Migranal combined with a favorable tolerability profile support further investigation of INP104 as an effective, well tolerated, and non-invasive treatment for acute episodic migraine.

Is the Generally Held View That Intravenous Dihydroergotamine Is Effective in Migraine Based on Wrong "General Consensus" of One Trial? A Critical Review of the Trial and Subsequent Quotations

BACKGROUND

The claim that parenteral dihydroergotamine (DHE) is effective in migraine is based on one randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial from 1986. The aim of this review was to critically evaluate the original article. It was also found to be of interest to review quotes concerning the results in the more than 100 articles subsequently referring to the article.

METHODS

The correctness of the stated effect of intravenous DHE in the randomized clinical trial (RCT) was first critically evaluated. Then, Google Scholar was searched for references to the article and these references were classified as to whether they judged the reported RCT as positive or negative.

RESULTS

The design of the RCT, with a crossover within one migraine attack, only allows evaluation of the results for the first period and the effect of DHE and placebo were quite comparable. About 151 references were found for the article in Google scholar. Among the 95 articles with a judgment on the efficacy of intravenous DHE in the RCT, 90 stated that DHE was effective or likely effective whereas only 5 articles stated that DHE was ineffective.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a "negative" RCT, authors of subsequent articles on the efficacy of parenteral DHE overwhelmingly reported this RCT as "positive." This is probably due to the fact that the authors concluded in the abstract that DHE is effective, and to a kind of "wrong general consensus."

Dihydroergotamine and sumatriptan in isolated human coronary artery, middle meningeal artery and saphenous vein

BACKGROUND

Dihydroergotamine (DHE) and sumatriptan are contraindicated in patients with cardiovascular disease because of their vasoconstricting properties, which have originally been explored in proximal coronary arteries. Our aim was to investigate DHE and sumatriptan in the proximal and distal coronary artery, middle meningeal artery and saphenous vein.

METHODS

Blood vessel segments were mounted in organ baths and concentration response curves for DHE and sumatriptan were constructed.

RESULTS

In the proximal coronary artery, meningeal artery and saphenous vein, maximal contractions to DHE (proximal: 8 ± 4%; meningeal: 32 ± 7%; saphenous: 52 ± 11%) and sumatriptan (proximal: 17 ± 7%; meningeal: 61 ± 18%, saphenous: 37 ± 8%) were not significantly different. In the distal coronary artery, contractions to DHE (5 ± 2%) were significantly smaller than those to sumatriptan (17 ± 9%). At clinically relevant concentrations, mean contractions to DHE and sumatriptan were below 3% in proximal coronary arteries and below 6% in distal coronary arteries. Contractions in the meningeal artery and saphenous vein were higher (7%-38%).

CONCLUSIONS

Contractions to DHE in distal coronary arteries are smaller than those to sumatriptan, while at clinical concentrations they both induce only slight contractions. In meningeal arteries contractions to DHE and sumatriptan are significantly larger, showing their cranioselectivity. Contractions to DHE in the saphenous vein are higher than those in the arteries, confirming its venous contractile properties.