Early Onset of Efficacy and Consistency of Response Across Multiple Migraine Attacks From the Randomized COMPASS Study: AVP‐825 Breath Powered®Exhalation Delivery System (Sumatriptan Nasal Powder) vs Oral Sumatriptan
Authors: Silberstein Stephen , Winner Paul K. , McAllister Peter J. , Tepper Stewart J. , Halker Rashmi , Mahmoud Ramy A. , Siffert Joao 
Published: May 2017

Objective

To further characterize the clinical utility of AVP‐825 based on additional prespecified outcomes and post hoc analyses of COMPASS, a Phase 3 comparative efficacy trial of AVP‐825 vs 100 mg oral sumatriptan (NCT01667679). AVP‐825 was approved in January 2016 by the US Food and Drug Administration under the name ONZETRA®Xsail®(sumatriptan nasal powder) for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura in adults.

Background

AVP‐825 is a delivery system that uses a patient's own breath to deliver low‐dose sumatriptan powder to the upper posterior regions of the nasal cavity beyond the narrow nasal valve, areas lined with vascular mucosa conducive to rapid drug absorption into the systemic circulation. The recommended dose of AVP‐825 is 22 mg sumatriptan powder administered as one 11 mg nosepiece in each nostril, which delivers approximately 15‐16 mg of sumatriptan intranasally. The COMPASS trial compared AVP‐825 22‐100 mg oral sumatriptan across multiple migraine attacks for efficacy, safety, and tolerability endpoints.

Design/Methods

COMPASS was a randomized, multicenter, double‐dummy, crossover, multiattack, comparative efficacy study with two 12‐week double‐blind periods. Patients with 2‐8 migraine attacks/month were randomized 1:1 to AVP‐825 (22 mg) plus oral placebo or an identical placebo delivery system plus 100 mg oral sumatriptan for the first period, and then patients switched treatments for the second period. Patients treated up to 5 qualifying migraines per period within 1 h of onset, even if the intensity of the attack was mild. Results from the primary endpoint (SPID‐30, defined as the sum of pain intensity differences from dosing to 30 minutes), key secondary efficacy endpoints and safety assessments have been reported in the primary publication (Tepper et al., 2015). This article reports additional prespecified outcomes, including the SPID‐30 for attacks treated when baseline severity was mild vs moderate/severe, measures of sustained response and consistency of effect in patients who experienced multiple migraine attacks, and the results of post hoc analyses performed to assess total migraine freedom (defined as no pain and no migraine‐associated symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, photophobia, and phonophobia), time to pain freedom, time to meaningful pain relief, and local (occurring at the site of administration in the nose) vs systemic treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

Results

A total of 185 patients completed both treatment periods, yielding 1,531 migraine attacks which were treated and assessed (765 AVP‐825, 766 oral sumatriptan). Treatment with AVP‐825 provided greater reduction in migraine pain intensity which was statistically significant vs oral sumatriptan in the first 30 minutes postdose regardless of whether attacks were treated when pain was mild (least squares mean SPID‐30 = 3.90 vs 0.24,P = .0013) or moderate/severe (least squares mean SPID‐30 = 13.83 vs 10.07,P = .0002). At every time point from 15 to 90 minutes postdose, the proportion of attacks achieving total migraine freedom was greater and statistically significant after treatment with AVP‐825 vs 100 mg oral sumatriptan. AVP‐825 treatment resulted in greater odds of achieving pain freedom (odds ratio, OR = 1.29,P < .01) and meaningful pain relief (OR = 1.32,P < .0001), which were also statistically significant compared with oral sumatriptan. In addition, a greater proportion of attacks treated with AVP‐825 vs oral sumatriptan was associated with sustained pain freedom, achieving statistical significance when assessed from 1 h postdose through 24 hours postdose (33.3% vs 27.9%;P < .05) and through 48 hours postdose (32.7% vs 27.4%;P < .05). For patients who treated multiple migraine attacks in both treatment periods, a greater proportion had consistent pain relief and pain freedom following treatment with AVP‐825 compared to oral sumatriptan across multiple attacks, a difference that achieved statistical significance at 30 minutes postdose. Local TEAEs of abnormal taste and nasal discomfort were more common following AVP‐825 treatment. Of the patients experiencing either of these TEAEs, about 90% described the intensity as mild, and only one discontinued treatment because of either of these two TEAEs.

Conclusions

These results from the COMPASS study further demonstrate that treatment with AVP‐825 provides earlier onset and more consistent across‐episode improvement of pain and migraine‐associated symptoms compared with oral sumatriptan, highlighting the clinical advantages of this newly approved intranasal delivery system for low‐dose sumatriptan powder.