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

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) 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 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).