MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Infusion Speed-Escalation Trial To Give Full-Dose Rituximab in One Hour without Steroids Pre-Medication.

2005· article· en· W2586451500 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michele Ghielmini, Laura Negretti, Erika Lerch, B Roth, Michèle Voegeli, Tatiana Terrot, Flavia Pandiani, Emanuele Zucca, Cristiana Sessa

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRituximabAdverse effectCohortAnesthesiaInternal medicineLymphoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The first administration of rituximab can cause important side effects due to cytokine release into the blood. It is therefore recommended to administer it over 4–6 hours. According to the manufacturer subsequent doses can be given in approximately 3 hours, but this is demanding for the patient (pt) and facilities and resources-consuming. A Canadian study has recently shown that rituximab can be given safely over 90 minutes from the second administration in combination with CHOP, provided that steroids and chemotherapy are administered before the antibody. We are conducting an infusion speed-escalation trial to verify if rituximab can be given in one hour without steroids pre-medication, in pts having received at least two previous doses of rituximab (with or without chemotherapy) in the previous 3 months. Further inclusion criteria include a normal cardiac function as evaluated by ECG and echocardiography. Cohorts of 3 patients are assigned to receive rituximab at a given initial infusion speed, to be increased by 100 mg /hour every 30 minutes. All receive standard anti-hystamine and paracetamol pre-medication. At every subsequent rituximab administration the initial speed is increased by 100 mg/h (intra-patient speed-escalation). If a pt experiences serious adverse events (SAE), then 6 pts are treated in the same cohort, in case of SAE in 2 of them the trial is discontinued. In each new cohort the initial speed is 100 mg/hr higher than in the previous cohort. Pts are monitored every 15 minutes for symptoms, blood pressure and hearth rate, hourly for temperature and an ECG is performed after treatment. For patients receiving chemo-immunotherapy, rituximab is given first and chemotherapy only later on the same day. Fifteen pts have so far been included (14 evaluable), with the first 4 cohorts complete. Median age was 60 (range 41–76), lymphoma type was diffuse large cell (8 pts), follicular (4 pts) and other indolent (3 pts). Two patients were treated with single agent rituximab and 12 in combination with chemotherapy. The median time from the last rituximab to inclusion in the study was 3 weeks (range 1–11). Overall, 3 cycles were given at a starting infusion speed of 200 mg/hr, 7 cycles at 300 mg/hr, 11 cycles at 400 mg/hr, 11 cycles at 500 mg/hr, 8 cycles at 600 mg/hr and 7 cycles at 700 mg/hr. The latter schedule allowed the administration of the whole prescribed drug in one hour. All pts tolerated the increased-speed infusion without major side effects. The blood pressure dropped by a median 10–15% of baseline, without symptoms and without significant differences between cohorts. The highest blood pressure drops were of respectively 25% and 29% without symptoms and spontaneously resolving within 15 minutes. There was no variation in the hearth frequency and no elevation of body temperature above 37°C. No relevant ECG changes were seen. We conclude that rituximab can be given in one hour without steroids pre-medication in pts who have already received at least two previous rituximab doses. The study is ongoing to evaluate the maximum infusion speed and will further explore if the latter is applicable from the second infusion on.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207