The Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness of 4 Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay Kits for Monitoring Infliximab in Crohn Disease Patients: Protocol for a Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, treatment decisions for people with Crohn disease are based on clinical judgment and trial and error. Consequently, people may continue to receive high drug dosages and experience unnecessary toxicity when it is possible to reduce or discontinue without a detrimental effect on clinical outcomes. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) involves regularly testing blood samples for drug and antibody levels that could help clinicians identify the optimal treatment strategy and pre-empt treatment failure. However, heterogeneity in the assays can lead to a discrepancy in results and difficulties in decision-making. Standardization of the kits, and therefore results, would allow clinicians to optimize the use of biologics. Currently, there is also a lack of evidence for the cost-effectiveness of TDM using commercial test kits. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to analyze the clinical and cost-effectiveness of 4 commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits (LISA TRACKER, IDKmonitor, Promonitor, and RIDASCREEN) to generate evidence which could support a recommendation for wider adoption in the National Health Service. METHODS: We propose to carry out a prospective-retrospective predictive biomarker validation study using the blood samples and clinical/utilization data collected during the ongoing SPARE trial (NCT02177071). A total of 200 stored samples from people with Crohn's disease who respond to treatment with infliximab will be used along with clinical and cost data from the trial. We will investigate the relationship between the drug and antidrug antibody levels with the main clinical outcomes (relapse rate at 2 years and time spent in remission), as well as resource utilization and quality of life. RESULTS: Funding is being sought to conduct this research. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to compare the 4 ELISA kits for monitoring infliximab in patients with Crohn disease. It aims to address the uncertainties in the potential benefits of using the technologies for TDM. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/11218.
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 | 0.088 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.006 |
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".