Comparison of hypersensitivity rates to intravenous and intramuscular PEG‐asparaginase in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A meta‐analysis and systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pegylated-asparaginase (PEG-ASP) is a critical treatment for pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and has traditionally been delivered via intramuscular (IM) injection. In an attempt to reduce pain and anxiety, PEG-ASP has increasingly been delivered via intravenous (IV) administration. The study objective was to perform a meta-analysis and systematic review to compare and generate pooled hypersensitivity rates for IM and IV PEG-ASP. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted for all epidemiological studies that investigated IV and IM hypersensitivity rates for pediatric ALL. Included studies were critically appraised using the GRACE checklist. Pooled estimates and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for IM and IV hypersensitivity rates were derived based on either a random or fixed effects model. RESULTS: Four studies satisfied the inclusion criteria and were of adequate quality. The random effects pooled hypersensitivity rates were 23.5% (95% CI 14.7-33.7) and 8.7% (95% CI 5.4-12.8) for IV and IM, respectively. The fixed effects pooled odds ratio after adjusting for publication bias was 2.49 (95% CI 1.62-3.83), indicating a significantly higher risk of hypersensitivity for IV over IM PEG-ASP. This risk is far more pronounced for high-risk (HR) patients compared with standard-risk (SR) patients (IV vs. IM: HR ↑35.2% and SR ↓2.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Although administering PEG-ASP through IV is preferable for patients, it poses a significantly higher risk of hypersensitivity when compared with IM administration, especially for HR patients. We recommend pediatric oncologists consider treating patients with HR pediatric ALL with IM PEG-ASP to reduce the risk of hypersensitivity.
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 | 0.019 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.049 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".