MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241201441 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy008.113

A112 EARLY USE OF THERAPEUTIC DRUG MONITORING TO INDIVIDUALIZE INFLIXIMAB THERAPY IN PAEDIATRIC IBD: A MULTICENTRE PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY

2018· article· en· W4241201441 on OpenAlexaffabout
Eileen Crowley, Nicholas Carman, Valerie Arpino, Karen Frost, Amanda Ricciuto, Mary Sherlock, Jeffrey Critch, David R. Mack, Eric I. Benchimol, K Jacobson, S Lawrence, Jennifer deBruyn, A Otley, H Huynh, Peter Church, Thomas D. Walters, A Griffiths

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMicroscopic Colitis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of OttawaUniversity of CalgaryChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioMemorial University of NewfoundlandMcMaster Children's HospitalDalhousie UniversityBC Children's HospitalSickKids Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInfliximabTherapeutic drug monitoringTrough levelDosingMaintenance therapyRegimenInternal medicineCohortPharmacokineticsPediatricsDiseaseChemotherapyTransplantation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Utilization of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) to individualize biologic therapy is a logical strategy, given the variable drug clearance and multiple factors influencing pharmacokinetics. Indeed, previously documented wide variability of infliximab levels have been observed early post induction in pediatric patients. However, a randomized controlled trial in adults did not demonstrate improved outcomes with TDM implemented following induction phase of infliximab treatment. The aim of the study was to determine infliximab trough levels during induction therapy in children with IBD, with the goal to pre-emptively personalize maintenance dosing. Beginning in May 2016, children with IBD at participating sites in the Canadian Children IBD Network, when prescribed 3-dose infliximab induction therapy via either standard or intensified regimen, had pre-infusion trough levels measured by ELISA at the time of 3rd dose. An algorithm incorporating this trough level and the interval between doses 2 and 3 was used to determine timing and dose of first maintenance infusion, aiming to provide a trough level of 5–10 ug/mL when tested before dose 4. Induction regimens were at the discretion of the treating physician, but often intensified among patients with severe UC. Influence of patient demographics and baseline clinical disease activity (physician global assessment and wPCDAI or PUCAI) on early trough levels were assessed. From May to October 2016 at 6 participating sites, 77 children (mean age 12.4 years, 57% male, 53% CD, 47% UC/IBD-U) received 3-dose infliximab induction. CD patients were infused in standard fashion at weeks 0, 2, 6 with a mean dose of 5.5mg/kg/dose and concomitant immunomodulation (93% methotrexate; 7 % azathioprine); median pre-dose 3 IFX level was 11.9ug/ml (IQR: 8.5–27.2). UC/IBD-U patients (18% steroid-dependent, 82% steroid-refractory) received more drug (mean 6.8mg/kg/dose across 3 doses) and via an intensified regimen in 34%. Pre-dose 3 IFX levels (median 13.5ug/ml;IQR: 4.9–24.3) were comparable to CD despite higher dosing. 25% of UC/IBD-U patients vs. 11% of CD patients had infliximab trough level <5 ug/ml at time of dose 3. Variability in infliximab exposure is evident during induction. Patients with UC cleared drug more rapidly, requiring higher weight-based dosing and a more intensive regimen to achieve comparable drug levels post induction. Ongoing monitoring of trough levels measured prior to dose 4 in this cohort will determine whether early TDM with personalized dosing more consistently ensures adequate drug exposure with subsequent better clinical outcome. None

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicMicroscopic ColitisFrench-language works237,207