Immunogenicity of Influenza Vaccine for Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease on Maintenance Infliximab Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on infliximab, data are limited on immune response to influenza vaccine and the impact of vaccine timing. The study aims were to evaluate immune responses to the influenza vaccine in IBD patients on infliximab and the impact of vaccine timing on immune responses. METHODS: In this randomized study, 137 subjects with IBD on maintenance infliximab therapy were allocated to receive the 2012/2013 inactivated influenza vaccine at the time of infliximab infusion (n = 69) or midway between infusions (n = 68). Serum was collected before and after vaccination for hemagglutination inhibition titers. Serologic protection was defined by postvaccine titer of ≥1:40. RESULTS: Comparing subjects vaccinated at the time of infliximab with those vaccinated midway, serologic protection was achieved in 67% versus 66% to H1N1 (P = 0.8), in 43% versus 49% to H3N2 (P = 0.5), and in 69% versus 79% to influenza B (P = 0.2). Although solicited adverse events were common (60%), no subject experienced a serious adverse event requiring additional medical attention. Only 6% of subjects had a clinically significant increase in disease activity score, not impacted by vaccine timing. CONCLUSIONS: Serologic protection to influenza vaccine is achieved in only approximately 45% to 80% of IBD patients on maintenance infliximab therapy varying by antigen. Yet, importantly, vaccine timing relative to infliximab infusion does not affect the achievement of serologic protection, and the influenza vaccine is well tolerated. Therefore, influenza vaccination at any point during infliximab scheduling is recommended for patients with IBD and opportunities to broaden the availability and convenience of influenza vaccine to optimize coverage should be explored.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".