Comparison of Itraconazole and Ketoconazole in HIV-Positive Patients with Oropharyngeal or Esophageal Candidiasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy of oral itraconazole and ketoconazole in the treatment of oropharyngeal and/or esophageal candidiasis, and the rate of post-treatment relapse, were compared in a multicenter, prospective, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, parallel-group trial. A total of 143 adult HIV-positive patients with oropharyngeal and/or esophageal candidiasis were assigned to receive either itraconazole or ketoconazole (200 mg/day). Patients with oropharyngeal and esophageal candidiasis were treated for 2 and 4 weeks, respectively. Patients were evaluated clinically and mycologically after 1, 2 and 4 (for esophageal patients) weeks of therapy, and relapses were compared in a 6-week post-treatment follow-up period. Of 129 evaluable patients, 98 had oropharyngeal candidiasis and 31 esophageal infection. CDC classification, CD4+ cell counts, and number of previous episodes of oropharyngeal or esophageal candidiasis were comparable in both groups. Oropharyngeal infection was cleared clinically at 21 days in 71% of patients receiving itraconazole and 60% receiving ketoconazole, and esophageal candidiasis was cleared at 41 days in 100% of patients receiving itraconazole and 91% receiving ketoconazole. Marginally significant differences were found between itraconazole and ketoconazole in rates of clearing of infection clinically in patients with oropharyngeal and esophageal candidiasis (p = 0.0614 and 0.0781, respectively). Mean rates of infection relapse were not statistically different in the two treatment groups. Adverse events were generally mild and not considered drug related. Itraconazole is marginally more efficacious than ketoconazole in the treatment of oropharyngeal and esophageal candidiasis in HIV-positive patients and both drugs appear safe and well tolerated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".