Three monthly doses of palivizumab are not adequate for 5-month protection: A population pharmacokinetic analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent guidelines in British Columbia, Canada have suggested that the use of a maximum of 3 monthly doses of palivizumab 15 mg/kg intramuscularly for RSV immunoprophylaxis of high risk infants born prior to the RSV season is adequate to provide protection against severe RSV disease for a 5-month RSV season. Efficacy was established, however, with 2 large, randomized controlled clinical studies using 5 monthly doses of immunoprophylaxis. To evaluate the differences in expected palivizumab exposures between the 2 dosing regimens (3 vs 5 monthly doses across a 5-month period), we used a population pharmacokinetic (PK) model that was developed using palivizumab PK data collected from 22 clinical studies with a total of 1800 subjects. This model adequately described observed palivizumab concentrations from the different pediatric studies and was subsequently used to simulate expected palivizumab serum concentrations for 3 monthly doses compared with 5 monthly doses in children younger than 24 months with chronic lung disease of prematurity and infants younger than 6 months postnatal age who were born at ≤ 35 weeks gestational age. Results from the population PK model indicated lower serum concentrations of palivizumab during the fourth and fifth months, after an abbreviated 3-monthly-dose regimen when compared with the mean trough concentrations seen with the 5-monthly-dose regimen studied in the pivotal clinical trials in premature infants. Specifically, during the fourth and fifth months, 52% and 85%, respectively, would have levels below the lowest concentration (fifth percentile) in those receiving the 5-monthly-dose regimen. Simulations using this model did not support a 3-monthly-dose regimen to protect against severe RSV disease during the typical 5-month season.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".