A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study of itraconazole capsules for the prevention of deep fungal infections in immunodeficient patients with HIV infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether systemic or deep fungal infections can be prevented, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of itraconazole prophylaxis was undertaken in HIV-infected patients. METHODS: HIV-1 infected patients with CD4 counts < 300 cells/microL were treated with itraconazole (200 mg per day) or matching placebo and followed for 2 years. Development of deep fungal infections, episodes of mucocutaneous candidiasis, change in CD4 count, survival and safety data were collected at each study visit. RESULTS: Three hundred and seventy-four patients received study medication, 187 were given itraconazole and 187 matching placebo. Time to development of deep fungal infection did not differ between groups, in an intention to treat analysis. Low CD4 cell count and prior use of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) prophylaxis were significantly associated with a more rapid development of deep fungal infection (P = 0.044 and 0.017, respectively). Itraconazole treatment significantly reduced the incidence of oral candidosis (25% vs. 48% P < 0.001) and time to development of oral candidosis (508 vs. 413 days, P < 0.001) but not the number of deep fungal infections (11 vs. 13). Survival did not differ significantly between groups (nine vs. 14 deaths). CD4 counts decreased significantly over time in both study arms. Adverse events did not differ between groups; 20% vs. 23% stopped study medication due to an adverse experience. CONCLUSIONS: Although itraconazole prophylaxis significantly reduced the number and time to development of oral candidosis, too few episodes of deep fungal infection were noted to determine whether itraconazole prophylaxis was effective for this condition. Chronic itraconazole treatment is well tolerated in HIV-infected patients with marked immunodeficiency.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".