Tolerability of Vidaza (azacitidine) subcutaneous administration using a maximum volume of 3 ml per injection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The azacitidine (Vidaza®) product monograph indicates that doses greater than 4 ml should be divided equally into two syringes and injected into different sites. Although 2 ml is a more commonly used maximum volume for subcutaneous injections, there is a lack of evidence to support the use of any given maximum volume with azacitidine. Applying the status quo of 2 ml to azacitidine results in patients receiving 3-4 injections per visit. This prospective study evaluated the frequency and type of injection site reactions when the maximum subcutaneous injection volume was increased from 2 to 3 ml per injection site. Among 30 patients, 309 doses were administered, and injection site reactions were noted in 92.9% of all doses, with the majority (82.2%) being grade 1; only 10.7% of doses resulted in grade 2 reactions, and there were no grade 3 or 4 reactions. There was no increase in frequency or severity of injection site reactions when the maximum volume was increased to 3 ml. The median number of injections that patients received per visit decreased from 3 to 2 after the volume was increased, and there was a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of pain. Decreasing the number of injections also facilitates ease of rotation of injection sites and decreases pharmacy preparation time. This is the first time that injection site reaction data relating to injection volume have been reported for azacitidine.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".