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‐β‐D‐Maltopyranoside [DDM]) — for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura in adults...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inHeadache Vol. 58; no. 5; pp. 676 - 687
Main Authors Lipton, Richard B., Munjal, Sagar, Brand‐Schieber, Elimor, Rapoport, Alan M.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States 01.05.2018
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary: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‐β‐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).
Bibliography:Conflict of Interest
Wolff's Headache
This study was supported and funded by Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, manufacturer of oral and subcutaneous formulations of sumatriptan. Sahar Munjal and Elimor Brand‐Schieber are employed by and own stock in Dr. Reddy's Laboratories; and Richard B. Lipton and Alan M. Rapoport were paid consultants of Dr. Reddy's Laboratories. Richard B. Lipton has received grant support from the National Institutes of Health, the National Headache Foundation, and the Migraine Research Fund. He serves as consultant, an advisory board member, or has received honoraria from Alder, Allergan, American Headache Society, Autonomic Technologies, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, eNeura Therapeutics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Teva, Inc. He receives royalties from
8th edition (Oxford University Press, 2009). He holds stock options in eNeura Therapeutics and Biohaven. Alan M. Rapoport is on the speaker's bureau of Amgen, Avanir, Depomed, and Promius. He is a consultant for Amgen, Autonomic Technologies, Depomed, ElectroCore, Impax, Pernix, Teva, and Zosano.
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-3
ISSN:0017-8748
1526-4610
1526-4610
DOI:10.1111/head.13309