Outcomes of Cryptococcal Meningitis in Uganda Before and After the Availability of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cryptococcal meningitis (CM) is the proximate cause of death in 20%-30% of persons with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in Africa. METHODS: Two prospective, observational cohorts enrolled human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected, antiretroviral-naive persons with CM in Kampala, Uganda. The first cohort was enrolled in 2001-2002 (n = 92), prior to the availability of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), and the second was enrolled in 2006-2007 (n = 44), when HAART was available. RESULTS: Ugandans presented with prolonged CM symptoms (median duration, 14 days; interquartile range, 7-21 days). The 14-day survival rates were 49% in 2001-2002 and 80% in 2006 (P < .001). HAART was started 35 +/- 13 days after CM diagnosis and does not explain the improved 14-day survival rate in 2006. In 2006-2007, the survival rate continued to decrease after hospitalization, with only 55% surviving to initiate HAART as an outpatient. Probable cryptococcal-related immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome occurred in 42% of patients, with 4 deaths. At 6 months after CM diagnosis, 18 persons (41%) were alive and receiving HAART in 2007. The median cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) opening pressure was 330 mm H(2)O; 81% of patients had elevated pressure (>200 mm H(2)O). Only 5 patients consented to therapeutic lumbar puncture. There was a trend for higher mortality for pressures >250 mm H(2)O (odds ratio [OR], 2.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9-5.2; P = .09). Initial CSF WBC counts of <5 cells/mL were associated with failure of CSF sterilization (OR, 17.3; 95% CI, 3.1-94.3; P < .001), and protein levels <35 mg/dL were associated with higher mortality (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-3.3; P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: Significant CM-associated mortality persists, despite the administration of amphotericin B and HIV therapy, because of the high mortality rate before receipt of HAART and because of immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome-related complications after HAART initiation. Approaches to increase acceptance of therapeutic lumbar punctures are needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".