Oral versus Intravenous Flucytosine in Patients with Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Associated Cryptococcal Meningitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a randomized controlled trial of amphotericin B-based therapy for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated cryptococcal meningitis in Thailand, we also compared the mycological efficacy, toxicity, and pharmacokinetics of oral versus intravenous flucytosine at 100 mg/kg of body weight/day for the initial 2 weeks. Half of 32 patients assigned to the two arms containing flucytosine were randomized to oral and half to intravenous flucytosine. Early fungicidal activity was determined from serial quantitative cultures of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and toxicity was assessed by clinical and laboratory monitoring. Flucytosine and fluorouracil concentrations in plasma and CSF were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography. No significant bone marrow or hepatotoxicity was seen, there was no detectable difference in bone marrow toxicity between patients on intravenous and those on oral formulation, and no patients discontinued treatment. In patients receiving intravenous flucytosine, the median 24-h area under the concentration-time curve was significantly higher than in the oral group. Despite this difference, there was no difference in early fungicidal activity between patients on intravenous compared with patients on oral flucytosine. The results suggest that either formulation can be used safely at this dosage in a developing country setting, without drug concentration monitoring. The bioavailability of the oral formulation may be reduced in late-stage HIV-infected patients in Thailand. Concentrations of flucytosine with intravenous formulation at 100 mg/kg/day may be in excess of those required for maximal fungicidal activity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".