2018
DOI: 10.1093/ibd/izy093
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of Rapid vs Standard Infliximab Infusions in the Pediatric Population

Abstract: This study suggests that rapid infusion of infliximab over 1 hour is not associated with an increased risk of infusion reactions when compared with standard 2- to 3-hour infusions and can be safely used in children with no previous reaction to standard infusions to treat inflammatory bowel disease and other autoimmune diseases.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

1
2
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
1
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the present study, including 297 patients and 8381 IFX infusions, accelerated IFX infusions did not increase the risk of acute IR. This finding supports previous pediatric studies, suggesting that accelerated 1-h IFX infusions are safe (17–20,27,28). A shortened infusion duration of 30 minutes to 1 hour has been studied more extensively in adults with IBD (13–16,29–31).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In the present study, including 297 patients and 8381 IFX infusions, accelerated IFX infusions did not increase the risk of acute IR. This finding supports previous pediatric studies, suggesting that accelerated 1-h IFX infusions are safe (17–20,27,28). A shortened infusion duration of 30 minutes to 1 hour has been studied more extensively in adults with IBD (13–16,29–31).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…To our knowledge, this is the largest study so far assessing the safety of accelerated versus standard IFX infusions in children with IBD. Previous studies consisted of smaller cohorts (16-116 children with IBD) (18)(19)(20)27,28) or lacked a control group (17). In addition, multiple studies (19,20) only included children who switched from standard to accelerated infusion, thus acting as their own controls.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reasons for exclusion were different patient populations (eg, no children or age unspecified) (n ¼ 48), no original research (n ¼ 5), different study design (not about rapid infusions or IR) (n ¼ 3) and no full texts (eg, conference abstracts or letter to the editor) (n ¼ 10). One study included patients ages 2 to 28 years old and 1 included patients ages 6 to 21 years old, but despite efforts to contact the authors, the data on children only could not be retrieved (7,8). These studies were, therefore, not included.…”
Section: Included Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%