Intranasal epinephrine effects on epinephrine pharmacokinetics and heart rate in a nasal congestion canine model

Development of neffy, an Epinephrine Nasal Spray, for Severe Allergic Reactions

Epinephrine autoinjectors (EAIs) are used for the treatment of severe allergic reactions in a community setting; however, their utility is limited by low prescription fulfillment rates, failure to carry, and failure to use due to fear of needles. Given that delayed administration of epinephrine is associated with increased morbidity/mortality, there has been a growing interest in developing needle-free, easy-to-use delivery devices. neffy (epinephrine nasal spray) consists of three Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved components: epinephrine, Intravail A3 (absorption enhancer), and a Unit Dose Spray (UDS). neffy's development pathway was established in conjunction with the FDA and the European Medicines Agency and included multiple clinical trials to evaluate pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic responses under a variety of conditions, such as self-administration and allergic and infectious rhinitis, as well as an animal anaphylaxis model of severe hypotension, where neffy demonstrated a pharmacokinetic profile that is within the range of approved injection products and a pharmacodynamic response that is as good or better than injections. The increased pulse rate (PR) and blood pressure (BP) observed even one minute following the administration of neffy confirm the activation of α and β adrenergic receptors, which are the key components of epinephrine's mechanism of action. The results suggest that neffy will provide a safe and effective needle-free option for the treatment of severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis.

The impact of anaphylaxis on the absorption of intranasal epinephrine in anaesthetized non-naive beagle dogs

Background

Epinephrine delivery via an intranasal spray (neffy) is being evaluated as an additional option to treat severe allergic reaction and may provide clinical benefit by reducing the time to dosing in community settings by avoiding needles. Given that hypotension is a hallmark symptom of severe allergic reactions, a preclinical study was conducted to evaluate the impact of this factor on epinephrine absorption via neffy.

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the absorption of epinephrine via neffy in a dog model of anaphylaxis with severe hypotension.

Methods

Epinephrine absorption via neffy was evaluated in anesthetized beagle dogs under both normal conditions and hypotension associated with anaphylaxis. A total of 14 dogs (10 males and 4 females) were dosed with neffy, 1.0 mg, under normal conditions, followed by neffy, 1.0 mg, under conditions of anaphylaxis.

Results

The mean maximum concentration of epinephrine was higher during anaphylaxis than under normal conditions (2,670 ± 2,150 pg/mL and 1,330 ± 739 pg/mL [P < .05]). Relative to normal conditions, anaphylaxis resulted in higher overall epinephrine exposure (area under the curve from 0 to 45 minutes = 54,400 ± 18,100 min × pg/mL and 34,300 ± 21,500 minutes × pg/mL [P < .05]), which is likely due to the increase in vascular permeability commonly observed during severe allergic reactions.

Conclusion

Taken together with real-world evidence from nasal naloxone treatment for opioid overdose demonstrating that the reduced blood flow or hypotension associated with overdose does not appear to suppress naloxone's efficacy, the current findings demonstrate that epinephrine is well absorbed following neffy delivery during the hypotension associated with severe anaphylaxis reactions.

Fast Acting, Dry Powder, Needle-Free, Intranasal Epinephrine Spray: A Promising Future Treatment for Anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

Epinephrine intramuscular (IM) autoinjector is a life-saving drug for the emergency treatment of immediate-type allergic reactions (type I). Nevertheless, it is sometimes applied incorrectly or underused because of short shelf life, high costs, fear of use, or inconvenience of carrying. FMXIN002, a nasal powder spray of epinephrine, was developed as a needle-free alternative.

OBJECTIVE

To compare epinephrine pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety after the administration of the FMXIN002 nasal spray versus autoinjector.

METHODS

An open-label trial was performed in 12 adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis without asthma. Epinephrine pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety were compared between FMXIN002 (1.6 mg and 3.2 mg) administered intranasally with/without a nasal allergen challenge and IM (0.3 mg) EpiPen.

RESULTS

FMXIN002 3.2 mg, administered after a nasal allergen challenge, displayed a shorter Tmax than EpiPen (median: 2.5 minutes vs 9.0 minutes, statistically nonsignificant [NS]) and a significantly shorter time when the measured analyte concentration is 100 pg/mL during the absorption phase pg/mL (median: 1.0 minutes vs 3.0 minutes for FMXIN002, P < .02). Moreover, FMXIN002 3.2 mg administered after the challenge test has resulted in a doubling of the maximal measured plasma analyte concentration over the sampling period (1110 vs 551 pg/mL, NS); area under the curve from 0 to 8 hours was 56% higher (672 vs 431 hours pg/mL, compared with EpiPen, NS). Pharmacodynamic response was comparable at all treatments. FMXIN002 was well tolerated, and treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were mild, local, and resolved spontaneously. No AEs were reported after the administration of EpiPen in our study. FMXIN002 was stable for 2 years at room temperature conditions. However, variability in the pharmacokinetics (expressed in coefficient of variation) is high. Having a prior nasal allergen challenge results in a substantial increase and speed of absorption.

CONCLUSIONS

Intranasal absorption of dry powder epinephrine is faster than EpiPen offering a clinical advantage in the short therapeutic window for the treatment of anaphylaxis. The FMXIN002 product offers a needle-free, pocket-size, safe, user-friendly, and stable alternative to epinephrine autoinjectors.

Pharmacokinetics of intravenous, oral transmucosal, and intranasal buprenorphine in healthy male dogs

Effective management of pain in animals is of critical importance but options are limited for treating acute pain in dogs on an outpatient basis. The objective of this study was to compare the plasma concentrations and pharmacokinetics of a concentrated solution of buprenorphine, 1.8 mg/ml (Simbadol™) administered intravenously, intranasally, and via the oral transmucosal (OTM) route in healthy male dogs. Five healthy castrated adult male Beagle‐cross dogs were included in this randomized blocked crossover study. The dogs received 0.03 mg/kg body weight buprenorphine intravenously, intranasally, or via the OTM route, with a minimum 72‐h washout period between treatments. Blood samples were collected at multiple intervals up to 24 h post administration and buprenorphine plasma concentrations were determined by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Non‐compartmental pharmacokinetic analysis revealed that the area under the curve of intravenous, intranasal, and OTM routes were 28.0 (15.1–41.3) h × ng/ml, 16.1 (3.4–28.7) h × ng/ml and 10.8 (8.8–11.8) h × ng/ml, respectively. The bioavailability of intranasal and OTM routes were 57.5 (22.7–93.7)% and 41.1 (25.5–69.4)%, respectively. Intranasal and OTM routes of administration of concentrated buprenorphine in dogs may allow for the provision of analgesic care at home.

Emerging Therapies in Anaphylaxis: Alternatives to Intramuscular Administration of Epinephrine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Anaphylaxis is a severe, life-threatening, systemic allergic reaction that should be recognized and treated promptly. Intramuscular (IM) epinephrine is the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis and there are no absolute contraindications to its use. Despite its established track record of efficacy and safety, physicians and patients face barriers in the recognition and treatment of anaphylaxis, including the maintenance and appropriate use of epinephrine auto-injectors. This has led to investigation into potential alternatives to IM epinephrine administration in anaphylaxis.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review investigates the current standard of care in the treatment of anaphylaxis, barriers to IM epinephrine use, and alternative therapies under investigation for administration in anaphylaxis. Alternative routes under investigation include intranasal, sublingual, inhaled, and needle-free intramuscular administration of epinephrine. There are currently numerous investigational alternatives to IM epinephrine therapy which could hold promise as future effective treatments in the emergent management of anaphylaxis.