A Study Investigating the Association of Dermatological and Infusion Reactions to Infliximab and Infliximab Trough Levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although infliximab is an effective therapy for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), it is associated with dermatological events and infusion reactions. It is not known whether a relationship between these adverse events (AEs) and infliximab trough levels (ITLs) exists. OBJECTIVES: To report the prevalence of infliximab-associated AEs in IBD patients receiving stable maintenance infliximab therapy, and to correlate ITLs with dermatological and infusion reactions to infliximab. METHODS: Adult IBD patients receiving stable maintenance infliximab therapy were recruited from the University of Alberta Infusion Clinic (Edmonton, Alberta). ITLs were measured in blood samples collected before infusion, and the patients' records were reviewed for dermatological and infusion reactions to infliximab. RESULTS: One-quarter (18 of 71 [25.4%]) of patients experienced dermatological or infusion reactions to infliximab: nine (12.7%) dermatological events and nine (12.7%) infusion reactions. The median ITL was similar among patients with and without these AEs (7.2 μg⁄mL [interquartile range (IQR) 2.0 μg⁄mL to 13.3 μg⁄mL] versus 6.6 μg⁄mL [IQR 3.2 μg⁄mL to 12.7 μg⁄mL]; P=0.648). The median ITL of patients who experienced infusion reactions (2.0 μg⁄mL [IQR 0.1 μg⁄mL to 5.7 μg⁄mL]) was lower than that of patients who experienced no such AEs (6.6 μg⁄mL [IQR 3.2 μg⁄mL to 12.7 μg⁄mL]; P=0.008]) and lower than that of patients who experienced dermatological AEs (13.3 μg⁄mL [IQR 8.8 μg⁄mL to 17.4 μg⁄mL]; P<0.001). CONCLUSION: One-quarter of IBD outpatients receiving stable maintenance infliximab therapy experienced dermatological and infusion reactions. Low ITLs were correlated with infusion reactions, and normal or high ITLs with dermatological events.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".