Combination Therapy for Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Associated Cryptococcal Meningitis: Whom, When, and Where?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
To the editor—We appreciate the thoughtful comments raised by Wolbers and Day [1] in response to our article [2]. We agree with their primary point—that our meta-analysis summarized data across studies, and it is therefore best suited to evaluate study-level and not individual-level predictors of outcomes. We should have specified more clearly that our analysis is best suited for drawing inferences about relationships among patient populations, but not about individual patients. Indeed, this point is true for almost all meta-analysis, and it also applies to most individual randomized trials [3]. It is important to note that we did not intend to imply that combination amphotericin B and flucytosine conferred a benefit in patients with cryptococcal meningitis with altered mental status. Rather, in our meta-analysis, we were unable to identify a statistically significant treatment benefit across all published literature, for combination amphotericin B with flucytosine over amphotericin B alone. Although there was some implication of a benefit from adjunctive flucytosine in a subanalysis limited to studies that included patients with altered levels of consciousness, this estimate was not statistically significant (odds ratio = 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], .23–1.43) (Figure (Figure1).1). As such, we hypothesized in the discussion that populations with altered consciousness might be more likely to benefit from adjunctive flucytosine therapy. If this hypothesis were correct, it would require patient-level data for confirmation. Figure 1. Forrest plot from network meta-analysis comparing odds of early (2-week) and late (10-week) mortality between combination amphotericin B and flucytosine with amphotericin B alone for human immunodeficiency virus-associated cryptococcal meningitis. Abbreviations: ... In their recent large, randomized trial, Day et al [4] demonstrated superiority of combination amphotericin B and flucytosine over amphotericin B alone at 10 weeks. They now present a subanalysis with patient-level data that suggests that those with a normal Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) appeared to derive as much benefit (if not more) from the addition of flucytosine as those with a GCS < 15. Although their study was not powered to detect differences in these subgroups, their data do lend support to the use of flucytosine in individual patients with normal mental status within their study population. It should be noted that the overall mortality in their study was 36% at 10 weeks (and 30% among those who received amphotericin B and flucytosine combination therapy). In contrast, the only other large randomized trial to compare amphotericin B alone with amphotericin B and adjunctive flucytosine found no difference in mortality between groups at 10 weeks (6.7% versus 6.9%; relative risk = 0.97; 95% CI, .46–2.04) [5]. It is noteworthy that this other study was conducted in the United States, excluded comatose patients from enrollment, and had a lower prevalence of participants with altered mental status than the Day et al [4] study (11% vs 28%). We believe that the contrasting data from these 2 studies are in line with our overall conclusion: that current available evidence suggests that the adjunctive use of flucytosine might be beneficial in populations with advanced disease who are at high overall risk for mortality. As Wolbers and Day [4] point out, this does not necessarily mean that patients with normal mental status will not benefit from adjunctive flucytosine, only that populations with low overall risk of mortality are less likely to benefit. Unfortunately, for the time being, it appears that flucytosine is largely only available and in use in the areas of the world where the current data suggest it has the least benefit, whereas populations with the highest mortality often cannot access it [6, 7]. Indeed, the most important conclusion we draw from our study is that more data is required, across a range of patient populations and disease stages, to elucidate which drugs are needed for which patients, and to ensure that the optimal therapies are available to those who need them.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».