Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2006 Mar 30;12(3):1.

Results of a randomized open-label crossover study of the bioequivalence of subcutaneous versus intramuscular administration of alefacept

Affiliations
  • PMID: 16638415
Free article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Results of a randomized open-label crossover study of the bioequivalence of subcutaneous versus intramuscular administration of alefacept

Marianne T Sweetser et al. Dermatol Online J. .
Free article

Abstract

Alefacept selectively reduces memory T cells and inhibits T-cell activation. Large randomized trials have shown that intramuscular (IM) delivery of alefacept is safe and effective in treating plaque psoriasis. Subcutaneous (SC) administration of alefacept may provide advantages for some patients including convenience, ease of use, and reduced pain on injection. We conducted a randomized, open-label, crossover study in 50 healthy volunteers to determine if alefacept 15 mg administered SC is bioequivalent to alefacept 15 mg administered IM. The pharmacokinetic parameters used to determine bioequivalence were area under the serum concentration-time curve to the last measurable value (AUClast; primary endpoint), peak serum concentration (Cmax), and AUC to infinity (AUCinfinity). For each of these parameters, the 90 percent confidence intervals for the least squares mean ratios of alefacept SC to alefacept IM were well within the conventional bioequivalence range of 80 percent to 125 percent. These data, together with the finding that the mean serum concentration-time curves for alefacept were nearly identical following both routes of administration, demonstrate the bioequivalence of alefacept SC and alefacept IM. No clinically important differences between the pharmacodynamic profiles (total lymphocyte and lymphocyte subset counts) of the two routes of administration were observed. Alefacept SC and alefacept IM were similarly well tolerated. Our results suggest that SC dosing may represent a viable delivery option for alefacept.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources