Exposure–response Modeling From the CLARITY Trial of Pimavanserin for Adjunctive Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder

Abstract

AbstractIn the 10‐week, phase 2 CLARITY study of patients with major depressive disorder, adjunctive therapy to antidepressants with pimavanserin 34 mg once daily statistically significantly improved the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD‐17) total score (primary endpoint) and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) score (secondary endpoint) versus placebo. This analysis characterized the exposure–response (E–R) relationships of pimavanserin in this CLARITY patient population. Exposure measures were estimated for each patient based on population‐pharmacokinetic empirical Bayesian estimates. E–R models were developed to describe exposure–efficacy (HAMD‐17, SDS, and Clinical Global Impression‐Improvement [CGI‐I] scale) and exposure–safety relationships (Karolinska Sleepiness Scale [KSS], Massachusetts General Hospital Sexual Functioning Inventory [MGH‐SFI], and adverse events [AEs] of headache, sedation, and somnolence) relationships. For the primary efficacy endpoint (HAMD‐17 scores), a sigmoid maximum‐effect model described the time course of response, and a linear function of pimavanserin exposure was statistically significant. HAMD‐17 scores decreased steadily over time following placebo and pimavanserin treatment; separation from placebo increased as peak pimavanserin plasma concentration (Cmax) increased. At median pimavanserin Cmax (34‐mg dose), the reduction from baseline in HAMD‐17 scores was −11.1 and −13.5 at weeks 5 and 10, respectively. Relative to placebo, the model predicted comparable reductions in HAMD‐17 scores at weeks 5 and 10. Similar improvements in favor of pimavanserin were detected with SDS, CGI‐I, MGH‐SFI, and KSS scores. No E–R relationship was found for AEs. E–R modeling predicted a relationship between higher pimavanserin exposure and improvement in HAMD‐17 score and improvement across multiple secondary efficacy endpoints.