DFN-02, Sumatriptan 10 mg Nasal Spray with Permeation Enhancer, for the Acute Treatment of Migraine: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study Assessing Functional Disability and Subject Satisfaction with Treatment.

BACKGROUND: The commercial formulation of sumatriptan nasal spray is an effective option for migraine patients requiring or preferring a non-oral route of drug administration, but its utility is limited by poor absorption and tolerability issues. DFN-02, a new formulation of sumatriptan 10 mg nasal spray, is co-formulated with a permeation enhancer that gives it pharmacokinetics comparable to subcutaneous sumatriptan. As reported previously, DFN-02 was significantly better than placebo on multiple efficacy endpoints at 2 h postdose, including pain freedom, absence of the most bothersome symptom, and pain relief, and its safety and tolerability profiles were excellent. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of acute treatment of migraine with DFN-02, including its effect on migraine-related functional disability and patient satisfaction with treatment. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled efficacy and safety study of DFN-02 in adults with episodic migraine. Functional disability and subject satisfaction with treatment were prespecified endpoints, assessed in real-time by subjects, using an electronic diary. RESULTS: In total, 107 subjects were randomized. DFN-02 was significantly superior to placebo for the reduction in functional disability score from predose level at 2 h after treatment (- 1.2 vs. - 0.6, p < 0.001). Subjects treated with DFN-02 were also more likely to be satisfied or very satisfied than subjects treated with placebo at 2 h postdose (70.0% vs. 44.2%, p = 0.027). Using the Patient Perception of Migraine Questionnaire-Revised at 24 h postdose, DFN-02 mean scores were significantly superior to placebo for the subscales of efficacy (65.2 vs. 42.5, p = 0.016) and function (68.9 vs. 42.1, p = 0.001), and for total score (71.0 vs. 56.6, p = 0.016); global medication effectiveness (p = 0.027); and overall satisfaction (p = 0.019). Placebo was significantly better than DFN-02 on the tolerability subscale (94.8 vs. 88.5, p = 0.026). At 24 h postdose, subjects reported significantly higher satisfaction with DFN-02 compared with satisfaction reported pre-randomization regarding their usual migraine medication (p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: DFN-02 was superior to placebo for the relief of migraine-related functional disability, and provided greater satisfaction than placebo or subjects' usual acute treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02856802.

DFN-02 (Sumatriptan 10 mg With a Permeation Enhancer) Nasal Spray vs Placebo in the Acute Treatment of Migraine: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of DFN-02 - a nasal spray comprising sumatriptan 10 mg and a permeation-enhancing excipient (0.2% 1-O-n-Dodecyl-ß-D-Maltopyranoside [DDM]) - for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura in adults. BACKGROUND: Prior work has shown that DFN-02, which contains only half the recommended adult dose of sumatriptan found in the original formulation (10 mg vs 20 mg), is more rapidly absorbed than commercial nasal spray of sumatriptan, with favorable pharmacokinetic and safety profiles. The efficacy of DFN-02 in the acute treatment of migraine has not been previously assessed. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, 2-period, double-blind, placebo-controlled efficacy, safety, and tolerability phase 2 study of DFN-02. Subjects with at least a 12 month history of episodic migraine, who averaged 2-8 attacks per month, with no more than 14 headache days per month and a minimum of 48 headache-free hours between attacks, were randomized (1:1) to receive DFN-02 or a matching placebo. Subjects were instructed to treat a single migraine attack of moderate to severe pain intensity. The primary efficacy endpoint, the proportion of subjects who were pain-free at 2 hours postdose in the first double-blind treatment period, was assessed with 2 protocol prespecified primary analyses: last observation carried forward (LOCF) and observed cases (OC). Secondary efficacy endpoints at 2 hours included pain relief; absence of the most bothersome symptom (MBS) among nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia; freedom from nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia. Sustained pain freedom from 2 through 24 hours postdose was also assessed. RESULTS: Of 107 subjects randomized, 86.9% (N = 93 [DFN-02, n = 50; placebo, n = 43]) had data in the first double-blind treatment period. The study met its primary endpoint; the proportion of subjects who were free from headache pain at 2 hours postdose, was statistically significantly higher in the DFN-02 group than in the placebo group in both prespecified primary analyses: LOCF (DFN-02, n = 21/48; placebo, n = 9/40; 43.8% vs 22.5%, P = .044) and OC (DFN-02, n = 21/48; placebo, n = 8/39; 43.8% vs 20.5%, P = .025). For secondary efficacy endpoints, at 2 hours postdose, DFN-02 was also statistically significantly superior to placebo for the proportion of subjects who had pain relief (83.3% vs 55.0%, P = .005); who were free of their MBS (70.7% vs 39.5%, P = .007); and who were free of nausea (78.3% vs 42.1%, P = .026), photophobia (71.8% vs 38.9%, P = .005), and phonophobia (78.1% vs 40.0%, P = .004). Compared with placebo, statistically significantly greater proportions of subjects who were treated with DFN-02 had sustained pain freedom from 2 through 24 hours postdose (38.9% vs 13.8%, P = .029). In total, 9.7% (9/93) of subjects reported a treatment-emergent adverse event during the study: 10.0% (5/50) of DFN-02 subjects in the first double-blind treatment period and 13.5% (5/37) of DFN-02 subjects in the second double-blind treatment period. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event with DFN-02 was dysgeusia (3/37 subjects in the second double-blind treatment period). CONCLUSIONS: DFN-02 was shown to be effective, well tolerated, and safe in the acute treatment of episodic migraine. Additional studies are needed to confirm these preliminary results. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02856802).

Pharmacokinetic Characterization and Dose Selection of a Novel Sumatriptan Nasal Spray Formulation, DFN-02.

This 3-way, single-dose, randomized crossover study evaluated the pharmacokinetics (PK) and dose proportionality of 5-, 10-, and 15-mg doses of intranasal sumatriptan (DFN-02) coformulated with a permeation enhancer (DDM) in 18 healthy adults. The objective was to determine which DFN-02 dose approximates the PK of a 6-mg dose of sumatriptan delivered via subcutaneous injection in the deltoid muscle of the arm. Sumatriptan plasma concentrations peaked with DFN-02 between 10 and 15 minutes postdose, declining thereafter, with a t1/2 of about 2.5 hours; mean Cmax and AUC0-∞ values increased linearly across doses. After DFN-02 doses of 5, 10, and 15 mg, mean Cmax was 40.7 ± 14.2, 71.2  ±  22.1, and 101.0  ±  49.5 ng/mL, and mean AUC0-∞ was 49.9  ±  20.6, 87.1  ± 31.2, and 120.5  ± 53.3 ng·h/mL, respectively. The increase in sumatriptan bioavailability was less than dose-proportional among the DFN-02 doses studied. Based on the established PK of a 6-mg subcutaneous sumatriptan injection (mean Tmax ,  12 minutes; mean Cmax ,  74  ± 15 ng/mL in the deltoid area of the arm) and the peak and time to peak sumatriptan concentrations of the DFN-02 doses tested, a 10-mg dose of DFN-02 was found to be the closest match. Overall, DFN-02 was well tolerated at doses of 5 to 15 mg, and no new safety concerns were identified.

A Randomized Trial Comparing the Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of DFN-02, an Intranasal Sumatriptan Spray Containing a Permeation Enhancer, With Intranasal and Subcutaneous Sumatriptan in Healthy Adults.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: Intranasal sumatriptan (Imitrex® ) may be an alternative for patients who refuse injections and cannot tolerate oral agents, but due to low bioavailability and slow absorption, the clinical utility of the currently marketed formulation is limited, highlighting an unmet need for an effective non-oral migraine medication with a rapid onset of action. To overcome the slow absorption profile associated with intranasal administration, we evaluated the impact of 1-O-n-Dodecyl-ß-D-Maltopyranoside (DDM, Intravail A-3™), a permeation enhancer, on sumatriptan's pharmacokinetic profile by comparing the pharmacokinetic characteristics of two commercial sumatriptan products, 4 mg subcutaneous and 6 mg subcutaneous in healthy adults, with DFN-02 - a novel intranasal agent comprised of sumatriptan 10 mg plus 0.20% DDM. We also determined the pharmacokinetic characteristics of DDM and evaluated its safety and tolerability. METHODS: We conducted two studies: a randomized, three-way crossover study comparing monodose and multidose devices for delivery of single doses of DFN-02 with commercially available intranasal sumatriptan 20 mg in 18 healthy, fasted adults, and an open-label, randomized, single-dose, three-way crossover bioavailability study comparing DFN-02 with 4 mg and 6 mg subcutaneous sumatriptan in 78 healthy, fasted adults. In the study comparing DFN-02 with IN sumatriptan, subjects received a single dose of DFN-02 (sumatriptan 10 mg plus DDM 0.20%) via monodose and multidose delivery systems with at least 5 days between treatments. In the comparison with SC sumatriptan, subjects received a single dose of each treatment with at least 3 days between treatments. In both studies, blood was sampled for pharmacokinetic evaluation of sumatriptan and DDM through 24 hours post-dose; safety and tolerability were monitored throughout. RESULTS: In the comparison with commercially available intranasal sumatriptan 20 mg, DFN-02 had a more rapid absorption profile; tmax was 15 minutes for DFN-02 monodose, 10.2 minutes for DFN-02 multidose, and 2.0 hours for commercially available intranasal sumatriptan 20 mg. Compared with 4 and 6 mg subcutaneous sumatriptan, DFN-02's median tmax (10 minutes) was significantly earlier (15 minutes; P < .0001). Mean sumatriptan exposure metrics were similar for DFN-02 and 4 mg sumatriptan: AUC0-2 : 35.12 and 44.82 ng*hour/mL, respectively; AUC0-∞ : 60.70 and 69.21 ng*hour/mL, respectively; Cmax : 51.79 and 49.07 ng/mL, respectively. With 6 mg subcutaneous sumatriptan, these exposure metrics were about 50% larger (AUC0-2 : 67.17 ng*hour/mL; AUC0-∞ : 103.78 ng*hour/mL; Cmax : 72.75 ng/mL). Inter-subject variability of AUC0-2 , AUC0-∞ , and Cmax was 42-58% for DFN-02, 15-22% for 4 mg subcutaneous sumatriptan, and 15-25% for 6 mg subcutaneous sumatriptan. DDM exposure was low (mean Cmax : 1.63 ng/mL), tmax was 30 minutes, and it was undetectable by 4 hours. There were no serious adverse events, discontinuations due to adverse events, or remarkable findings for vital signs, physical examinations (including nasal and injection site examinations), or clinical laboratory assessments. The overall incidence of adverse events was comparable across treatments, and all treatment-related events were mild in severity. Adverse events occurring in ≥10% of subjects were dysgeusia (19%), headache (18%), nausea (15%), paresthesia (15%), and dizziness (12%). CONCLUSIONS: In healthy subjects, DFN-02, an intranasal spray containing 10 mg sumatriptan plus DDM, had a more rapid absorption profile than commercially available intranasal sumatriptan 20 mg, and systemic exposure from a single-dose administration of DFN-02 was similar to 4 mg SC sumatriptan and two-thirds that of 6 mg SC sumatriptan. With DFN-02, plasma sumatriptan peaked 5 minutes earlier than with both subcutaneous formulations. Systemic exposure to sumatriptan was similar with DFN-02 and 4 mg subcutaneous sumatriptan; both yielded lower systemic exposure than 6 mg subcutaneous sumatriptan. Systemic exposure to DFN-02's excipient DDM was short-lived. DFN-02's safety and tolerability appear to be comparable to subcutaneous sumatriptan. Addition of a permeation enhancer improved the absorption profile compared with commercially available intranasal sumatriptan 20 mg.

Efficacy endpoints in migraine clinical trials: the importance of assessing freedom from pain.

Many efficacy endpoints have been used in clinical trials of acute migraine pharmacotherapy. Headache response or headache relief (i.e., moderate/severe pain reduced to mild/no pain) at a single, specified time-point, traditionally the primary endpoint, and headache recurrence (i.e., return of pain after initial postdose relief) are inadequate. Headache relief does not provide information about pain-free response and counts a partial response as a treatment success. Headache recurrence can reflect sustained efficacy but is confounded by initial response to treatment, because ineffective drugs have low recurrence rates. The International Headache Society (IHS) guidelines state that 2 hour pain-free response and sustained pain-free response (i.e., freedom from pain with no recurrence or use of rescue or study medication 2-24 hours postdose) provide the most clinically relevant information about the efficacy of migraine pharmacotherapy. The pain-free criterion counts partial responses as failures and thus is a more rigorous test of therapeutic benefit than headache relief, and the two endpoints together incorporate the main treatment attributes that determine patient satisfaction. As an example, consider needle-free subcutaneous sumatriptan and oral triptan tablets. An open-label study of needle-free subcutaneous sumatriptan by Cady and colleagues found that 2 hour pain-free response and sustained pain-free response were 64% and 42% respectively. For oral triptan tablets, the 2001 metaanalysis by Ferrari and colleagues reported 2 hour pain-free response rates ranging from 23% to 38% and sustained pain-free response rates ranging from 11% to 26%. The measures of pain-free response 2 hours postdose and sustained pain-free response can differentiate among treatments and be used to guide therapeutic choices.

Unanticipated acyloxymethylation of sumatriptan indole nitrogen atom and its implications in prodrug design.

Sumatriptan is a potent and selective 5-HT(1B) and 5-HT(1D )agonist used in the symptomatic treatment of migraine; it shows poor oral bioavailability ascribed, in part, to its low lipophilicity. In an attempt to develop acyloxymethyl prodrugs of sumatriptan suitable for oral administration, we carried out the reaction of sumatriptan with chloromethyl esters. To our surprise, acyloxymethylation occurred preferentially at the indole nitrogen rather than at sulfonamide nitrogen, reflecting a difference either in product stability or in the nucleophilicities of the indole and sulfonamide anions. The hydrolysis of the corresponding N(1)-acyloxymethyl derivatives was studied in aqueous buffers and in human plasma, by HPLC. N(1)-Acyloxymethyl derivatives of sumatriptan are rapidly hydrolysed to the chemically stable N(1)-hydroxymethylsumatriptan at pH 1-13. Slow formation of the parent drug was observed only at high pH values. Hydrolysis of sumatriptan derivatives is slower in human plasma than in phosphate buffer and also generates N(1)-hydroxymethylsumatriptan rather than the parent drug. These results indicate that N(1)-acyloxymethyl derivatives of sumatriptan cannot be considered as true prodrugs of sumatriptan.

The triptan formulations : how to match patients and products.

The 5-HT(1B/1D) receptor agonists (the 'triptans') are migraine-specific agents that have revolutionised the treatment of migraine. They are usually the drugs of choice to treat a migraine attack in progress. Different triptans are available in various strengths and formulations, including oral tablets, orally disintegrating tablets, nasal sprays and subcutaneous injections. In Europe, sumatriptan is also available as a suppository. Specific differences among the triptans exist, as evidenced by different pharmacological profiles including half-life, time to peak plasma concentrations, peak plasma concentrations, area under the concentration-time curve, metabolism and drug-drug interaction profiles. How or whether these differences translate to clinical efficacy and tolerability advantages for one agent over another is not well differentiated. However, delivery systems may play an important role in onset of action. Given that the clinical distinctions among these agents are subtle, identification of the most appropriate triptan for an individual patient requires consideration of the specific characteristics of the patient and knowledge of patient preference, an accurate history of the efficacy of previous acute-care medications and individual features of the drug being considered. The selection of an acute antimigraine drug also depends upon the stratification of the patient's migraine attack by peak intensity, time to peak intensity, level of associated symptoms such as nausea and vomiting, time to associated symptoms, comorbid diseases and concomitant treatments that might cause drug-drug interactions. Individual patient response to the triptans seems to be idiosyncratic and possibly genetically determined. Therefore, a set of specific questions can be used to determine whether a currently used triptan is optimally effective, whether the dose needs to be increased or whether another triptan should be tried. The clinician has in his/her armamentarium an ever-expanding variety of triptans, available in multiple formulations and dosages, which have good safety and tolerability profiles. Continued clinical use will yield familiarity with the various triptans, and it should become possible for the interested physician to match individual patient needs with the specific characteristics of a triptan to optimise therapeutic benefit. Use of the methods outlined in this review in choosing a triptan for an individual patient is probably more likely to lead to migraine relief than making an educated guess as to which triptan is most appropriate.

Practical approaches to migraine management.

Migraine is a recurrent clinical syndrome characterised by combinations of neurological, gastrointestinal and autonomic manifestations. The exact pathophysiological disturbances that occur with migraine have yet to be elucidated; however, cervico-trigemino-vascular dysfunctions appear to be the primary cause. Despite advances in the understanding of the pathophysiology of migraine and new effective treatment options, migraine remains an under-diagnosed, under-treated and poorly treated health condition. Most patients will unsuccessfully attempt to treat their headaches with over-the-counter medications. Few well designed, placebo-controlled studies are available to guide physicians in medication selection. Recently published evidence-based guidelines advocate migraine-specific drugs, such as serotonin 5-HT(1B/1D) agonists (the 'triptans') and dihydroergotamine mesylate, for patients experiencing moderate to severe migraine attacks. Additional headache attack therapy options include other ergotamine derivatives, phenothiazines, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents and opioids. Preventative medication therapy is indicated for patients experiencing frequent and/or refractory attacks.

Triptans: do they differ?

Headache care specialists agree that the introduction of sumatriptan constitutes a major advance in headache therapy, but they differ about whether other triptans offer clinically significant advantages over sumatriptan. This article examines this issue by considering the similarities and differences among triptans.

Triptans: are they all the same?

The triptans have provided a major advance in the treatment of the pain and disability associated with migraine headache. With seven triptans in use or in clinical development, the clinician is faced with the decision of which triptan to prescribe to the patient with migraine. Although the triptans are pharmacologically similar, they each have unique attributes. This article focuses on the pharmacologic differences between triptans with regard to their pharmacokinetics and drug interactions, and provides some helpful tips on how to optimize migraine treatment with the triptans.