MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213241246 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1280524/v1

Hypersensitivity Reaction to Paclitaxel: A Retrospective Analysis on the Non-Inferiority of Oral Famotidine to Intravenous Ranitidine in Premedication Regimen

2022· preprint· en· W4213241246 on OpenAlexaff
Tsz Ting TSOI, W. M. Young, Yin Ting Cheung, Tai Ning Lam, Chun Yu LAU, Shing Yu SUEN, Yuk Tung Chanel TSUI, Man Ho WONG, Hong Kei WONG, Tsz Hei TAM, Keary Rui Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDrug-Induced Adverse Reactions
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePremedicationFamotidineRanitidinePaclitaxelRegimenConfidence intervalHypersensitivity reactionAnesthesiaRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Previous studies have only evaluated intravenous histamine H2 receptor antagonists for use as paclitaxel premedication. This study aims to investigate whether oral famotidine is non-inferior to intravenous ranitidine as a premedication to prevent paclitaxel-associated hypersensitivity reactions. It could provide guidance on the use of alternative orally administered agents.Methods: It is a retrospective, multi-center, non-inferiority, historical control cohort study. Paclitaxel-naïve adult patients who began treatment with paclitaxel between August 2018 and December 2020, and received all cycles of paclitaxel in seven tertiary public hospitals in Hong Kong were enrolled. The patients received either intravenous ranitidine (control group) or oral famotidine (study group) as the premedication on the day of paclitaxel infusion. The primary outcome was the occurrence of a paclitaxel-induced hypersensitivity reaction of any severity during any cycle. The proportion of patients with the primary outcome in each group were compared by the two-proportion Z-test. The non-inferiority margin was pre-defined as an absolute hypersensitivity reaction rate difference of 5%.Results: We enrolled 1282 paclitaxel-naïve adult patients. Patients in both control (n = 635) and study (n = 647) groups had a median age of 59 years, and 476 (75%) and 485 (75%) were females, respectively. A median of five cycles of paclitaxel were administered in both groups. Hypersensitivity reactions occurred in 121 (19%) patients in study group, and 105 (17%) patients in control group (difference: +2.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.02% to +6.35%; non-inferiority one-sided p = 0.092). A subgroup analysis of patients receiving standard-dose steroid premedication demonstrated a hypersensitivity reaction rate difference of +0.4% (95% CI: -3.97% to +4.83%, non-inferiority one-sided p = 0.021).Conclusions: We found no statistically significant differences in the hypersensitivity reaction rates between intravenous ranitidine and oral famotidine. Oral famotidine was not found to be non-inferior to intravenous ranitidine as a paclitaxel premedication based on the pre-defined non-inferiority margin. The use of oral famotidine with standard-dose steroid as premedication may provide better protection against hypersensitivity reactions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicDrug-Induced Adverse ReactionsFrench-language works237,207