MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391162386 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad212.0802

P672 Occurrence of malignancy among infliximab biosimilar and bio-originator initiators in Canada: a comparative population-based analysis

2024· article· en· W4391162386 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marina Gabriela Birck, Luck Lukusa, Harminder Singh, Neeraj Narula, Laura E. Targownik, Yvette Leung, Waqqas Afif, Sasha Bernatsky

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical Methods
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaHamilton Health SciencesMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of ManitobaMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiosimilarInfliximabMalignancyMedicinePopulationInternal medicineTumor necrosis factor alphaEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Infliximab (INF) downregulates the immune system. Given the immune system's role in deleting pre-cancerous cells, malignancy is a potential concern. Still, relatively few real-world data analyses have compared biosimilar versus bio-originator INF in terms of malignancy incidence. We aimed to compare malignancy occurrence among initiators of infliximab biosimilar (INF-B) and originator (INF-O). Methods We used data from the National Prescription Drug Utilization Information System (NPDUIS), containing pan-Canadian (except Quebec) claims-level data on prescription dispensations paid from public drug programs linked to comprehensive day surgery and inpatient care (Discharge Abstract Database, DAD) and hospital-based and community-based ambulatory care (National Ambulatory Care Reporting System, NACRS). We studied adults (≥18 years) initiating INF between January 2015 and December 2019 with no history of malignancy, HIV or organ transplant (1-year pre-baseline). Follow-up began 365 days after treatment initiation (lag period) and continued until the first cancer diagnostic code (ICD-10 C00-C97), treatment discontinuation + 365 days, or end of study period. We compared INF-B and INF-O using Cox regression models, adjusting for potential confounders/ effect modifiers: sex, age at treatment initiation, prior use of other biologics or prednisone, province (Ontario versus others), and calendar year. Results New users of INF-B (2,019) and INF-O (5,183) were about half female (52%), with a median age (interquartile range) of 45 years (28-62). Overall, the malignancy incidence rate was 10.2 (95% confidence interval, CI, 8.7-11.8) events per 1,000 person-years. Comparing INF-B to INF-O, the adjusted hazard ratio for malignancy was 0.97 (95% CI 0.63-1.48). Conclusion In this real-world dataset, we were unable to identify clear differences in malignancy comparing INF-B and INF-O. Limitations include the inability to control for residual confounders (e.g., disease severity), potential outcome misclassification, and selection bias.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.945

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Crohn s and ColitisSame topicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical MethodsFrench-language works237,207