A one-hour infusion of infliximab during maintenance therapy is safe and well tolerated: a prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infliximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody to tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) with efficacy in inducing and maintaining remission of inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and psoriasis. Infliximab is generally administered over 2h with a further 1-h postinfusion observation. This time interval has substantial impact on healthcare resources and is costly in terms of patient's time away from work. AIM: To examine the safety and tolerability of a 1-h, relative to a 2-h maintenance of infusion of infliximab, and to determine the effect of corticosteroid premedication and concurrent immunosuppressor use on infusion reaction rates. METHOD: A prospective cohort study with variable follow-up duration of 2165 consecutive infliximab infusions in 415 patients during 2009 was conducted. Diagnosis, infusion episode number, infusion rate, premedication, concurrent immunosuppressor therapy, the nature and the outcome of infusion reactions were examined. RESULTS: The majority of infusions (74%) were for management of inflammatory bowel disease. Infusion reactions clustered within the first eight infusions with subsequent sporadic reactions. The infusion reaction incidence rate per 1000 person days in 274 1-h infusions from 54 patients and 1356 2-h infusions from 256 patients were 0.08 and 0.28 respectively (P=0.07). Poisson regression model confirmed that the concurrent use of immunosuppressor therapy was associated with a lower infusion reaction rate, whereas corticosteroid premedication was not. CONCLUSIONS: During maintenance therapy, infliximab infusion can be safely administered over 1h in patients with no past history of significant infliximab infusion reaction. Corticosteroid premedication had no impact on the infusion reaction rates.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".