Observational studyRheumatology international2015
Comparison of two ELISA versions for infliximab serum levels in patients diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis.
Observational study in Rheumatology international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immunogenicity of biologic agents in rheumatology.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2021Review
- Therapeutic drug monitoring of infliximab in spondyloarthritis. A review of the literature.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Review
- Assays for measurement of TNF antagonists in practice.Frontline gastroenterology · 2017Article
- Clinical performance of an infliximab rapid quantification assay.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2017Article
- Therapeutic drug monitoring of CT-P13: a comparison of four different immunoassays.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are various immunosorbent assays which can be used to determine infliximab (IFX) levels. Results vary between assays complicating reliability in everyday clinical practice. The aim of this study was to determine whether quantitative or qualitative assay data prove more accurate in the assessment of infliximab levels in AS patients. We analyzed 40 serum samples, taken prior to infusion, from AS patients who had been undergoing IFX therapy as a first-line of biological treatment for more than a year. IFX levels and IFX-anti-drug antibodies (ADA) were measured using two different ELISA assays [Promonitor IFX R1 and R2 (version 1), Promonitor IFX and anti-IFX (version 2) (Progenika Biopharma, Spain)] strictly following the manufacturer's guidelines. Cohen's unweighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient determined qualitative and quantitative agreement for serum levels in version 1 and version 2. Bland-Altman plots were drawn to compare both assays. The comparison of data measuring IFX levels for version 1 and version 2 resulted in questionable quantitative agreement (ICC 0.659; 95% CI 0.317-0.830) and moderate qualitative agreement (κ 0.607; 95% CI 0.387-0.879) owing to systematically higher values in version 2 than version 1. Version 2 consistently detected higher levels of infliximab, particularly when analyzed in a quantitative context. Further research is needed to synchronize cutoff levels between essays and diseases so therapeutic drug ranges can be established.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.