Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27333588›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2016

Prospective dose selection and acceleration of paliperidone palmitate 3-month formulation development using a pharmacometric bridging strategy.

Mahesh N Samtani, Partha Nandy, Paulien Ravenstijn, Bart Remmerie, An Vermeulen, Alberto Russu, Peter D'hoore, Ellen Z Baum, Adam Savitz, Srihari Gopal and 1 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Mahesh N SamtaniJanssen Research & Development LLC, New Jersey, USA. msamtani@its.jnj.com.
Partha NandyJanssen Research & Development LLC, New Jersey, USA.
Paulien RavenstijnJanssen Research & Development, a Division of Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, Beerse, Belgium.
Bart RemmerieJanssen Research & Development, a Division of Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, Beerse, Belgium.
An VermeulenJanssen Research & Development, a Division of Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, Beerse, Belgium.
Alberto RussuJanssen Research & Development, a Division of Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, Beerse, Belgium.
Peter D'hooreJanssen Research & Development, a Division of Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, Beerse, Belgium.
Ellen Z BaumJanssen Research & Development LLC, New Jersey, USA.
Adam SavitzJanssen Research & Development LLC, New Jersey, USA.
Srihari GopalJanssen Research & Development LLC, New Jersey, USA.
David HoughJanssen Research & Development LLC, New Jersey, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo prospectively select the dose of the paliperidone palmitate 3-month (PP3M) formulation, using a pharmacometric bridging strategy based on the paliperidone palmitate 1-month (PP1M) formulation previously approved for schizophrenia treatment.

methodsPharmacokinetic (PK) data from a 6-month interim analysis of a single dose PP3M Phase I clinical trial was integrated with a previously developed PP1M population-PK model. The model was updated to incorporate formulation as a covariate on absorption parameters and to explore the most critical design element of the Phase III study: the PP1M-to-PP3M dose multiplier for patients switching formulations. Plasma paliperidone concentrations were measured at predetermined intervals during Phase III, enabling comparison of the multiple-dose PK between PP1M and PP3M. Exposure matching was assessed graphically to determine whether paliperidone plasma concentrations from the two formulations overlapped.

resultsProspective steady-state PK simulations revealed that a 3.5 multiple of the PP1M dose would yield a corresponding PP3M dose with comparable exposure. The prospective pharmacometric simulation and observed Phase III PK data agreed closely. Phase III results confirmed the hypothesis that efficacy of PP3M was noninferior to that of PP1M. The similarity in exposures between the two formulations was likely a key determinant of the equivalent efficacy between the two products observed in the Phase III study.

conclusionsSuccessful prospective PP3M Phase III clinical trial dose selection was achieved through the use of pharmacometric bridging, without conducting a Phase II study and using only limited Phase I data for PP3M. We estimate that this strategy reduced development time by 3-5 years and may be applicable to other drug development projects.

Indexed as

Drug Administration ScheduleDrug CompoundingAdolescentAdultAgedDelayed-Action PreparationsDrug Dosage CalculationsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, BiologicalPaliperidone PalmitateProspective StudiesSchizophreniaYoung AdultDelayed-Action PreparationsPaliperidone Palmitatepaliperidone palmitatepharmacometric bridgingprospective validation

Identifiers

PMID27333588
PMCPMC5061800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.