Relevance of absorption rate and lag time to the onset of action in migraine

Why pharmacokinetic differences among oral triptans have little clinical importance: a comment

Triptans, selective 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonists, are specific drugs for the acute treatment of migraine that have the same mechanism of action. Here, it is discussed why the differences among kinetic parameters of oral triptans have proved not to be very important in clinical practice. There are three main reasons: (1) the differences among the kinetic parameters of oral triptans are smaller than what appears from their average values; (2) there is a large inter-subject, gender-dependent, and intra-subject (outside/during the attack) variability of kinetic parameters related to the rate and extent of absorption, i.e., those which are considered as critical for the response; (3) no dose-concentration–response curves have been defined and it is, therefore, impossible both to compare the kinetics of triptans, and to verify the objective importance of kinetic differences; (4) the importance of kinetic differences is outweighed by non-kinetic factors of variability of response to triptans. If no oral formulations are found that can allow more predictable pharmacokinetics, the same problems will probably also arise with new classes of drugs for the acute treatment of migraine.

Subcutaneous sumatriptan pharmacokinetics: delimiting the monoamine oxidase inhibitor effect

BACKGROUND

The absolute bioavailability of subcutaneous (s.c.) sumatriptan is 96-100%. The decay curve for plasma concentration after 6 mg s.c. sumatriptan (ie, after T(max) = about 0.2 hours) includes a large distribution component. Metabolism by monoamine oxidase-A (MAO-A) leads to about 40% of the s.c. dose appearing in the urine as the inactive indole acetic acid. Product labeling states that co-administration of an inhibitor of MAO-A (a MAOI-A) causes a 2-fold increase in sumatriptan plasma concentrations, and a 40% increase in elimination half-life.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to determine whether MAOI-A therapy should deter the use of 6 mg s.c. sumatriptan on pharmacokinetic grounds.

METHODS

Summary pharmacokinetic data were taken from the literature and from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) study C92-050. Half-times were converted into rate constants, which were then used in a parsimonious compartmental model (needing only 3 simultaneous differential equations). Acceptance criteria for the model included observed plasma sumatriptan concentrations at T(max), 1, 2, and 10 hours post-dose. A set of 1000 concentration measurements at a resolution of 36 seconds was generated. The model was then perturbed with elimination constants observed during concomitant moclobemide administration, creating a second set of concentration measurements. The 2 sets were then plotted, examined for their differences, and integrated for a second time to obtain and compare areas under the curve (AUCs).

RESULTS

The greatest absolute difference between the 2 sets of measurements was 2.85 ng/mL at t = 2.95 hours. A 2-fold difference between the 2 sets occurred only after t = 5.96 hours, when the concentration in the presence of the MAOI-A was 3.72 ng/mL (or <4% of C(max)). At t = 10 hours, the concentrations in both sets were <1 ng/mL (ie, below the lower limit of assay quantitation), and AUC(0-10h) was 97.4 and 117 ng.hour/mL in the absence and presence of the MAOI-A.

CONCLUSIONS

There are no pharmacokinetic grounds to deter co-administration of an MAOI-A and subcutaneous sumatriptan. The dominance of the distribution phase and completeness of absorption of a 6 mg dose of s.c. sumatriptan explains the trivial effect size of the MAOI-A on plasma sumatriptan concentrations. Importantly, these findings should not be extrapolated to other routes of administration for sumatriptan.

Rationale for faster oral delivery to overcome the pathophysiology associated with dental pain--biopharmaceutic and pharmacokinetic challenges

Recent published evidences on ibuprofen and meloxicam confirm the need of faster oral drug absorption to overcome the pathophysiological conditions associated with dental pain (due to excessive vagal nerve suppression) in order to provide relief in acute pain management. While the communication provides relevant case studies to support the hypothesis in both dental pain and migraine attacks, it also provides biopharmaceutical and pharmacokinetic challenges of developing such a strategy for faster oral drug absorption. It is envisaged that the unmet need in this area, to overcome the pathophsiological barriers, should provide impetus for further research exploration in formulation strategies and biopharmaceutical/pharmacokinetic integration.