High body mass index is not associated with increased treatment failure in infliximab treated pediatric patients with inflammatory bowel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aim While weight gain during infliximab therapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is common, there has been limited research evaluating its impact on infliximab efficacy. Methods Primary aims of this study were to determine the frequency of excess weight gain (body mass index [BMI] > 25 kg/m 2 ) in children with IBD on maintenance infliximab and evaluate the impact on infliximab dosing, serum trough levels, and treatment failure. Secondary aims were to determine differences in weight gain, treatment characteristics, and clinical/biochemical variables between patients with therapeutic and subtherapeutic maintenance therapy trough levels. We performed a retrospective study of 253 pediatric IBD (75.1% Crohn's disease, 23.3% ulcerative colitis, 1.6% IBD‐unclassified) patients on infliximab followed at BC Children's Hospital between January 2013 and January 2018. Results Median age at infliximab initiation was 13.9 years, median length of follow up was 56.9 months, and 55.7% were males; 10.3% of the cohort demonstrated excess weight gain (7.5% overweight, 2.8% obese). Average mg/kg dosing was not statistically different between groups (normal, overweight, and obese: 6.7, 6.4, and 6.7 mg/kg, respectively, P = 0.52). Median BMI of patients with therapeutic and subtherapeutic trough levels was similar at 19.9 kg/m 2 (interquartile range [IQR], 17.3–23.8) and 19.7 kg/m 2 (IQR, 17.4–21.9), respectively. BMI had no effect on secondary loss of response to infliximab, with no significant difference between normal and high BMI subgroups (13.4 vs. 16.7%, P = 0.9). Conclusions In a subgroup of pediatric IBD patients on maintenance infliximab, excess weight gain was not associated with higher weight‐based dosing, lower serum trough levels, or increased risk of treatment failure.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".