Peer-reviewed article
Safety of Rapid Infliximab Infusions in Children
Elsa A. van Wassenaer, Janneke P. M. van Oosterhout, Joost G. Daams, Merlijn J.M. van den Berg, Hanneke van der Lee et al. ·
Summary
Written by AI, not yet AICS's view · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001This systematic review examines whether rapid infliximab infusions (under 1 hour) cause more infusion reactions than standard infusions (2-3 hours) in children. Four studies with nearly 4,000 infusions were analyzed. The review found no significant difference in infusion reaction rates between rapid and standard infusions, with rates consistently below 2% in both groups.
Key points
- Four studies included, totaling 498 children with 347 standard infusions and 3,703 rapid infusions
- Infusion reaction rates ranged from 0-2% in both standard and rapid infusion groups
- No studies reported a statistically significant difference between rapid and standard infusion groups
- Three of four studies were retrospective in design
- Evidence is insufficient to definitively conclude whether rapid infusions increase infusion reaction risk
Limitations
The review includes only four studies, three of which are retrospective, limiting causal inference. The confidence intervals are wide and overlap zero, preventing firm conclusions about safety differences between infusion speeds.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to assess whether the incidence of infusion reactions (IR) increases after rapid (≤1 hour) infliximab (IFX) infusions, compared with standard (2-3 hour) infusions in children. METHODS: Systematic review including studies describing the number of IR after rapid IFX infusion in children ages 0 to 18 years. RESULTS: Four records were included (3 retrospective, n = 498, 347 standard infusions, 3703 rapid infusions). Reported incidences of IR ranged from 0% to 2% of infusions in standard groups (reported 95% confidence intervals [CIs] ranged from 0% to 7%) and from 0% to 2% of infusions in rapid groups (reported 95% CIs ranged from 0% to 12%). None of the studies included reported a significant difference in incidence of IR between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether the rate of IR after rapid IFX increases. The consistent finding of no increase in IR in all studies and the low rate of observed IR suggests there is no significant difference in rate of IR.