MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2513426503 · doi:10.1111/head.12905

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

2016· article· en· W2513426503 sur OpenAlexaff
Sagar Munjal, Anirudh Gautam, Elliot Offman, Elimor Brand‐Schieber, Kent Allenby, Dennis M. Fisher

Notice bibliographique

RevueHeadache The Journal of Head and Face Pain · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMigraine and Headache Studies
Établissements canadiensCelerion (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSumatriptanTolerabilityNasal administrationMedicinePharmacokineticsBioavailabilityCrossover studyBioequivalenceMigraineAnesthesiaNasal sprayPharmacologyAdverse effectAgonistInternal medicinePlacebo

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

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‐β‐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; t max 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 t max (10 minutes) was significantly earlier (15 minutes; P < .0001). Mean sumatriptan exposure metrics were similar for DFN‐02 and 4 mg sumatriptan: AUC 0‐2 : 35.12 and 44.82 ng*hour/mL, respectively; AUC 0‐∞ : 60.70 and 69.21 ng*hour/mL, respectively; C max : 51.79 and 49.07 ng/mL, respectively. With 6 mg subcutaneous sumatriptan, these exposure metrics were about 50% larger (AUC 0–2 : 67.17 ng*hour/mL; AUC 0‐∞ : 103.78 ng*hour/mL; C max : 72.75 ng/mL). Inter‐subject variability of AUC 0‐2 , AUC 0‐∞ , and C max 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 C max : 1.63 ng/mL), t max 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.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,019
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,462

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,306
Écart entre enseignants0,283 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations35
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHeadache The Journal of Head and Face PainMême sujetMigraine and Headache StudiesTravaux en français237 207