Efficacy and safety of infliximab in patients with autoimmune hepatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A limited number of drugs are used as standard or alternative therapies in autoimmune hepatitis (AIH). No specific recommendations are available for patients failing to respond to these therapies. We analyzed the efficacy and safety of infliximab in patients with AIH. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We performed a retrospective study of 42 patients with AIH who received infliximab at 21 liver centers in 12 countries. Patients were categorized according to the reason for infliximab therapy. Patients in group 1 (n=20) had failed standard, second-line (mycophenolate mofetil and 6-mercaptopurine) or third-line (tacrolimus or cyclosporine) therapy. In group 2 (n=22), infliximab was given for treatment of concomitant extrahepatic autoimmune diseases. Patients received a median of 17 (range: 3-104) infliximab infusions. Complete biochemical response (CR) was achieved or maintained in 33 (78%) patients during infliximab therapy. In group 1, infliximab induced CR in 11 of 20 (55%) patients. In group 2, 16 patients with CR prior to infliximab maintained remission, and the remaining 6 patients with active AIH (5 on standard and 1 on both second-line and third-line therapy) showed CR following infliximab therapy. Infliximab led to CR in 75% (6/8) of nonresponders to second-line and in 46% (6/13) of failing third-line therapy. Overall, 65% (17/26) of the patients with active AIH achieved CR on infliximab. Infliximab was discontinued in 3 patients of group 1. One patient had a severe allergic reaction and 2 developed anti-infliximab autoantibodies. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that infliximab may be an effective and safe rescue therapy in AIH.
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".