Therapeutic applications for subcutaneous triptans in the acute treatment of migraine

Efficacy and safety of intranasal agents for the acute treatment of migraine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal agents may be ideal for the treatment of migraine patients. Many new acute intranasal-specific therapies have been developed, but few of them have been directly compared. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and safety of various intranasal agents for the treatment of acute migraine in adult patients.

METHODS

The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and PubMed were searched from inception to 15 August 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using intranasal agents (no restrictions on dose, formulation, dosing regimen or timing of the first dose) to treat adult patients with acute migraine were included. The primary efficacy endpoint was pain freedom at 2 h, and the primary safety endpoint was adverse events (AEs). The analysis process followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies (21 RCTs, 9738 participants) were included. Compared to the placebo, 5 mg of zolmitriptan using a conventional liquid nasal spray device was the most effective for pain freedom at 2 h [odds ratio (OR): 4.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.43 to 6.43] and 24 h (OR: 5.49, 95% CI: 3.58 to 8.42) among all the interventions. Butorphanol nasal spray 1 mg was the most effective (OR: 8.62, 95% CI: 1.11 to 66.92) for pain freedom at 1 h, but with low-quality evidence. DFN-02 presented the highest freedom from nausea (OR: 4.95, 95% CI: 1.29 to 19.01) and phonophobia (OR: 5.36, 95% CI: 1.67 to 17.22) at 2 h, albeit with lower odds of achieving complete pain freedom. ROX-828 showed the highest improvement in freedom from photophobia at 2 h (OR: 4.03, 95% CI: 1.66 to 9.81). Dihydroergotamine nasal spray was significantly associated with the highest risk of AEs (OR: 9.65, 95% CI: 4.39 to 21.22) and was not recommended for routine use. Zavegepant nasal spray demonstrated the lowest risk of AEs (OR: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.37 to 3.03). The results of sensitivity analyses for the primary endpoints (pain freedom at 2 h and AEs) were generally consistent with those of the base case model.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with other new intranasal-specific therapies in treating migraine attacks, zolmitriptan nasal spray 5 mg was the most effective agent for pain freedom at 2 h. Zavegepant nasal spray 10 mg had the fewest adverse side effects.

A Framework for Estimating the Eligible Patient Population for New Migraine Acute Therapies in the United States

Introduction

Migraine is associated with considerable disability for patients not adequately managed with current standards of care. New acute therapies may offer relief for this population of patients; however, population size and associated potential costs of new therapies are unclear. In this study, a conceptual framework was developed to estimate anticipated use of new acute therapies.

Methods

Targeted literature review (TLR) was conducted to identify factors affecting access to migraine-specific acute therapies, and characteristics of individuals who would be eligible for new acute therapies. Findings from the TLR were combined to create a framework for estimating the size of the eligible patient population. This framework was used to calculate two estimates of the eligible patient population by applying parameters (i) identified in the TLR and (ii) from a recent budget-impact analysis (BIA).

Results

The primary factors affecting access to migraine-specific acute therapies identified in the TLR were consulting a healthcare professional for headache, receiving a migraine diagnosis, and receiving a prescription for migraine-specific treatment. Characteristics of individuals likely to use new acute therapies reflected in the TLR were contraindication to triptans, or failure to respond to/tolerate at least two oral triptans. Application of the framework suggested that 15–25% of individuals with migraine would be eligible for new acute therapies.

Conclusion

A limited number of patients currently use migraine-specific acute therapies. Among such patients, a significant proportion do not have adequate symptom control. Accordingly, a minority of individuals with migraine may be expected to use new acute therapies. The framework developed in this study is intended to facilitate estimating the eligible patient population in assessments of costs of new acute therapies. Such assessments should also consider recommendations that patients have access to multiple types of acute therapies, which may yield savings from reduced medication-overuse headache (MOH), progression to chronic migraine, and urgent-care costs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01781-z.

Randomized, double-blind, crossover study comparing DFN-11 injection (3 mg subcutaneous sumatriptan) with 6 mg subcutaneous sumatriptan for the treatment of rapidly-escalating attacks of episodic migraine

Background

A 6-mg dose of SC sumatriptan is the most efficacious and fast-acting acute treatment for migraine, but a 3-mg dose of SC sumatriptan may improve tolerability while maintaining efficacy.

Methods

This randomized, double-blind, crossover study compared the efficacy and tolerability of 3 mg subcutaneous (SC) sumatriptan (DFN-11) with 6 mg SC sumatriptan in 20 adults with rapidly-escalating migraine attacks. Eligible subjects were randomized (1:1) to treat 1 attack with DFN-11 and matching placebo autoinjector consecutively or 2 DFN-11 autoinjectors consecutively and a second attack similarly but with the alternative dose (3 mg or 6 mg).

Results

The proportions of subjects who were pain-free at 60 min postdose, the primary endpoint, were similar following treatment with 3 mg SC sumatriptan and 6 mg SC sumatriptan (50% vs 52.6%, P  =  .87). The proportions of subjects experiencing pain relief (P  ≥  .48); reductions in migraine pain intensity (P  ≥  .78); and relief from nausea, photophobia, or phonophobia (P  ≥  .88) with 3 mg SC sumatriptan and 6 mg SC sumatriptan were similar, as were the mean scores for satisfaction with treatment (M  =  2.6 vs M  =  2.4, P  =  .81) and the mean number of rescue medications used (M  =  .11 vs M  =  .26, P  =  .32). The most common adverse events with the 3- and 6-mg doses were triptan sensations — paresthesia, neck pain, flushing, and involuntary muscle contractions of the neck — and the incidence of adverse events with both doses was similar (32 events total: 3 mg, n  =  14 [44%]; 6 mg, n  =  18 [56%], P  =  .60). Triptan sensations affected 4 subjects with the 6-mg dose only, 1 subject with the 3-mg dose only, and 7 subjects with both sumatriptan doses. Chest pain affected 2 subjects (10%) treated with the 6-mg dose and no subjects (0%) treated with the 3-mg dose of DFN-11. There were no serious adverse events.

Conclusions

The 3-mg SC dose of sumatriptan in DFN-11 provided relief of migraine pain and associated symptoms comparable to a 6-mg SC dose of sumatriptan. Tolerability was similar with both study medications; DFN-11 treatment was associated with fewer triptan sensations than the 6-mg dose. DFN-11, with its 3-mg dose of sumatriptan, may be a clinically useful alternative to higher-dose autoinjectors.

Optimal management of severe nausea and vomiting in migraine: improving patient outcomes

Migraine is a common and potentially disabling disorder for patients, with wide-reaching implications for health care services, society, and the economy. Nausea and vomiting during migraine attacks are common symptoms that affect at least 60% of patients suffering from migraines. These symptoms are often more disabling than the headache itself, causing a great burden on the patient’s life. Nausea and vomiting may delay the use of oral abortive medication or interfere with oral drug absorption. Therefore, they can hinder significantly the management and treatment of migraine (which is usually given orally). The main treatment of pain-associated symptoms of migraine (such as nausea and vomiting) is to stop the migraine attack itself as soon as possible, with the effective drugs at the effective doses, seeking if necessary alternative routes of administration. In some cases, intravenous antiemetic drugs are able to relieve a migraine attack and associated symptoms like nausea and vomiting. We performed an exhaustive PubMed search of the English literature to find studies about management of migraine and its associated symptoms. Search terms were migraine, nausea, and vomiting. We did not limit our search to a specific time period. We focused on clinical efficacy and tolerance of the various drugs and procedures based on data from human studies. We included the best available studies for each discussed drug or procedure. These ranged from randomized controlled trials for some treatments to small case series for others. Recently updated books and manuals on neurology and headache were also consulted. We herein review the efficacy of the different approaches in order to manage nausea and vomiting for migraine patents.

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

Objectives.—

The purpose of this study was to directly compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of 22-mg sumatriptan powder delivered intranasally with a novel Breath Powered™ device (11 mg in each nostril) vs a 20-mg sumatriptan liquid nasal spray, a 100-mg oral tablet, and a 6-mg subcutaneous injection.

Background.—

A prior PK study found that low doses of sumatriptan powder delivered intranasally with a Breath Powered device were efficiently and rapidly absorbed. An early phase clinical trial with the same device and doses found excellent tolerability with high response rates and rapid onset of pain relief, approaching the benefits of injection despite significantly lower predicted drug levels.

Methods.—

An open-label, cross-over, comparative bioavailability study was conducted in 20 healthy subjects at a single center in the USA. Following randomization, fasted subjects received a single dose of each of the 4 treatments separated by a 7-day washout. Blood samples were taken pre-dose and serially over 14 hours post-dose for PK analysis.

Results.—

Quantitative measurement of residuals in used Breath Powered devices demonstrated that the devices delivered 8 ± 0.9 mg (mean ± standard deviation) of sumatriptan powder in each nostril (total dose 16 mg). Although the extent of systemic exposure over 14 hours was similar following Breath Powered delivery of 16-mg sumatriptan powder and 20-mg liquid nasal spray (area under the curve [AUC]0-∞ 64.9 ng*hour/mL vs 61.1 ng*hour/mL), sumatriptan powder, despite a 20% lower dose, produced 27% higher peak exposure (Cmax 20.8 ng/mL vs 16.4 ng/mL) and 61% higher exposure in the first 30 minutes compared with the nasal spray (AUC0-30 minutes 5.8 ng*hour/mL vs 3.6 ng*hour/mL). The magnitude of difference is larger on a per-milligram basis. The absorption profile following standard nasal spray demonstrated bimodal peaks, consistent with lower early followed by higher later absorptions. In contrast, the profile following Breath Powered delivery showed higher early and lower late absorptions. Relative to the 100-mg oral tablet (Cmax 70.2 ng/mL, AUC0-∞, 308.8 ng*hour/mL) and 6-mg injection (Cmax 111.6 ng/mL, AUC0-∞ 128.2 ng*hour/mL), the peak and overall exposure following Breath Powered intranasal delivery of sumatriptan powder was substantially lower.

Conclusions.—

Breath Powered intranasal delivery of sumatriptan powder is a more efficient form of drug delivery, producing a higher peak and earlier exposure with a lower delivered dose than nasal spray and faster absorption than either nasal spray or oral administration. It also produces a significantly lower peak and total systemic exposure than oral tablet or subcutaneous injection.