Safety of Infliximab Treatment in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis in a Real-world Clinical Setting: Description and Evaluation of Infusion Reactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe acute and delayed infusion reactions in a large cohort of patients with inflammatory arthritis, treated with infliximab (IFX). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients treated with IFX at the Mary Pack Arthritis Centre between 2000 and 2008. The primary outcome was the occurrence of acute infusion reactions during infusions or 1-2 hours after each infusion, and secondary outcome was the occurrence of delayed infusion reactions 1-14 days after an infusion. Descriptive analyses were conducted to summarize study outcomes and identify trends over followup. RESULTS: Since 2000, 376 patients were referred to the Mary Pack IFX clinic and 200 received 4399 IFX infusions over a mean 140 ± 132 weeks of followup. Of these, 135 were patients with RA who received 2977 IFX infusions over mean followup of 138 ± 132 weeks. In total 258 episodes of acute reactions were observed for an overall acute reaction rate of 5.8%. Acute infusion reactions were mostly mild (42.6%) and moderate (43.8%) and commonly affected sites were head and neck (31.5%) and cutaneous (21.1%). A total of 37 delayed infusion reaction episodes were observed (0.9% rate); reactions were also mostly mild (16.2%) and moderate (64.9%). CONCLUSION: These clinical data from 200 patients treated with IFX demonstrate that acute and delayed infusion reactions occur infrequently and are mostly mild to moderate in presentation.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".