Model-Informed Clinical Development of Once-Every-6-Month Injection of Paliperidone Palmitate in Patients with Schizophrenia: A Pharmacometric Bridging Approach (Part I).

Abstract

Background and objective: A model-informed drug development (MIDD) approach was implemented for paliperidone palmitate (PP) 6-month (PP6M) clinical development, using pharmacokinetics and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model-based simulations.

Methods: PP6M pharmacokinetics were simulated by extending the PP 3-month (PP3M) pharmacokinetic model to account for increased injection volume, and hence dose. Contribution of the MIDD approach to the design of the pivotal PP6M phase-3 study (PP6M/PP3M noninferiority study, NCT03345342) investigating schizophrenia relapse rates was twofold: (1) PP6M dose selection, and (2) hypothesis generation that lower trough concentrations (C_trough) associated with PP6M, relative to PP3M, were not associated with lower efficacy, which was to be evaluated in the phase-3 study. Moreover, accompanied by an intense sampling scheme to adequately characterize paliperidone pharmacokinetics and to elucidate the potential relationship between concentration and safety/efficacy, the bridging strategy eliminated the need for additional phase-1/phase-2 clinical studies.

Results: Using a MIDD bridging strategy, PP6M doses were selected that, compared with PP3M, were expected to have a similar range of exposures and a noninferior relapse rate and safety profile. Clinical data from PP6M/PP3M noninferiority study confirmed that PP6M, compared with PP3M, had a similar range of exposures (T'jollyn et al. in Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet 2024), as well as a noninferior relapse rate and safety profile (this manuscript).

Conclusions: Consistency of the MIDD approach with observed clinical outcomes confirmed the hypothesis that lower C_trough did not lead to increased relapse rates at the doses administered. Although higher paliperidone peak concentrations are achieved with corresponding doses of PP6M relative to PP3M in the phase-3 clinical study, types and incidences of treatment-related adverse events were comparable between PP6M and PP3M groups and no new safety concerns emerged for PP6M (Najarian et al. in Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 25(3):238-251, 2022).