Decreased Infliximab Concentrations in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease Who Carry a Variable Number Tandem Repeat Polymorphism in the Neonatal Fc Receptor or Variant<i>HLADQA1*05G&gt;A</i>Genotype
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiple variables contribute to variation in patient exposure and response to tumor necrosis factor alpha antagonist biologics such as infliximab. This study aimed to assess the association between maintenance-phase infliximab concentrations and genetic variation in HLADQA1*05G>A and fragment crystallisable (Fc) fragment of IgG receptor and transporter (FCGRT) among patients with inflammatory bowel disease. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out in participants with inflammatory bowel disease prescribed infliximab who were in the maintenance phase of treatment. Participants were genotyped for the presence of the FCGRT variable number tandem repeat (VNTR) and HLADQA1*05G>A (rs74291249). A point estimate of the infliximab trough concentration during the maintenance phase was determined using a standard enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for each patient. Other variables associated with infliximab pharmacokinetics were collected. RESULTS: A total of 156 participants with inflammatory bowel disease were included from 2 tertiary care centers affiliated with Western University, London, Canada. Median infliximab trough concentrations were lower in participants who carried the FCGRT VNTR 2/3 or 2/2 (4.14 µg/mL; interquartile range [IQR], 6.48 µg/mL) vs wild type individuals (7.00 µg/mL; IQR, 7.66; P = .0027). Median infliximab trough concentrations were significantly lower in participants who were HLADQA1*05G>A variant carriers (4.73µg/mL; IQR, 4.79) vs wild type individuals (7.85µg/mL; IQR, 7.44; P = .0006). A significant decrease in infliximab trough concentrations was seen in individuals who were dual carriers of variant polymorphisms in HLADQA1*05G>A and FCGRT VNTR (no variants, 8.96µg/mL; IQR, 6.84 vs one variant, 4.96 µg/mL; IQR, 4.95 vs dual variants, 0.86µg/mL; IQR, 5.82). CONCLUSION: FCGRT VNTR and HLADQA1*05G>A are associated with lower maintenance-phase infliximab concentrations, particularly among patients who carry both variants.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".