Rapid Infliximab Infusion in Children with Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infliximab (IFX) infusion may lead to development of anti-IFX antibodies, and subsequent infusion reactions (IRs). The safety of rapid IFX infusion administered over 60 minutes has been under-investigated in children with inflammatory bowel disease. In a multicenter study, the frequency and nature of rapid infusion-associated IRs were examined. METHODS: The medical records of all consecutive children with inflammatory bowel disease receiving rapid IFX infusions between January 2014 and December 2016 were reviewed. Poisson regression analysis was used to identify possible associated factors with IRs. RESULTS: A total of 4120 rapid infusions for 453 children (median age 16 yrs [interquartile range 13.8-17.8], 289 males, 374 with Crohn's disease) were included. One hundred thirty-five participants (29.8%) received rapid IFX infusion for induction and maintenance while the rest received rapid IFX infusion after a median of 5 (interquartile range 4-9) standard infusions. The median dose of IFX using rapid protocol was 8 mg/kg/infusion (interquartile range 6-10). Two hundred sixty-seven (59%) patients received 1 or more premedications and 161 (35.5%) participants received concomitant immunosuppression. Twenty-one participants (4.6%) had IRs with rapid infusions and 2 participants discontinued IFX because of IRs (0.4%). Antihistamine premedications were associated with less frequent IR (adjusted relative risk = 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.64; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In children with inflammatory bowel disease, rapid IFX infusion administered over 60 minutes is safe and well-tolerated. Antihistamine premedications may reduce frequency of IRs (see Video Abstract, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/IBD/B632).
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".