MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record 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 on OpenAlexaff
Sagar Munjal, Anirudh Gautam, Elliot Offman, Elimor Brand‐Schieber, Kent Allenby, Dennis M. Fisher

Bibliographic record

VenueHeadache The Journal of Head and Face Pain · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsCelerion (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSumatriptanTolerabilityNasal administrationMedicinePharmacokineticsBioavailabilityCrossover studyBioequivalenceMigraineAnesthesiaNasal sprayPharmacologyAdverse effectAgonistInternal medicinePlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeadache The Journal of Head and Face PainSame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207