Treatment of Aspergillus fumigatus in Patients with Cystic Fibrosis: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many patients with cystic fibrosis develop persistent airway infection/colonization with Aspergillus fumigatus, however the impact of A. fumigatus on clinical outcomes remains unclear. The objective of this study was to determine whether treatment directed against Aspergillus fumigatus improves pulmonary function and clinical outcomes in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). METHODS: We performed a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled pilot clinical trial involving 35 patients with CF whose sputum cultures were chronically positive for A. fumigatus. Participants were centrally randomized to receive either oral itraconazole 5 mg/kg/d (N = 18) or placebo (N = 17) for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who experienced a respiratory exacerbation requiring intravenous antibiotics over the 24 week treatment period. Secondary outcomes included changes in FEV(1) and quality of life. RESULTS: Over the 24 week treatment period, 4 of 18 (22%) patients randomized to itraconazole experienced a respiratory exacerbation requiring intravenous antibiotics, compared to 5 of 16 (31%) placebo treated patients, P = 0.70. FEV(1) declined by 4.62% over 24 weeks in the patients randomized to itraconazole, compared to a 0.32% improvement in the placebo group (between group difference = -4.94%, 95% CI: -15.33 to 5.45, P = 0.34). Quality of life did not differ between the 2 treatment groups throughout the study. Therapeutic itraconazole blood levels were not achieved in 43% of patients randomized to itraconazole. CONCLUSION: We did not identify clinical benefit from itraconazole treatment for CF patients whose sputum was chronically colonized with A. fumigatus. Limitations of this pilot study were its small sample size, and failure to achieve therapeutic levels of itraconazole in many patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00528190.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".