Infusion-related reactions to infliximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in a clinical practice setting: relationship to dose, antihistamine pretreatment, and infusion number.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We describe infusion-related reactions to infliximab (during infusion or within 1 hour postinfusion) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated in a quaternary care center. METHODS: We followed 113 patients for a mean of 60.6 +/- 28.9 weeks, obtaining 10.5 +/- 4.9 infusions per patient. RESULTS: We observed 1183 infusions resulting in 104 infusion reactions (8.8%). All reactions resolved within several hours following cessation of the infusion and none was serious enough to warrant hospitalization. Reactions included allergic reactions (pruritus, urticaria) in 4.2% of infusions, cardiopulmonary (hypotension, hypertension, tachycardia) in 3.0%, and miscellaneous reactions (headache, nausea, vomiting) in 2.0%. Reactions occurred in 8.0% of 3 mg/kg infusions and in 10.3% of 5 mg/kg infusions. Reactions occurred in 13.2% of infusions that involved antihistamine pretreatment compared to only 7.5% of infusions that involved no pretreatment. At both infliximab doses, there was a similar frequency of infusion reactions in patients pretreated due to a previous infusion (12.6%) compared to those pretreated strictly based on infusion number (14.7%). A number of the reactions involving antihistamine pretreatment may be explained by known side effects of diphenhydramine, including headache, dizziness, nausea, and palpitations. CONCLUSION: Infusion-related reactions to infliximab were infrequent, rarely severe, and easily manageable. The frequency of reactions was equivalent in patients treated with 3 mg/kg compared to 5 mg/kg. Reactions were significantly more frequent in infusions where patients were pretreated with the antihistamine diphenhydramine, compared to those not involving pretreatment.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".