Treatment of CMV Retinitis with Intravitreal Ganciclovir in the HAART Era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the course and outcome of cytomegalovirus (CMV) retinitis among AIDS patients treated with intravitreal ganciclovir and systemic highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). The secondary objective was to compare the course of CMV retinitis between patients receiving HAART and those not receiving this treatment. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort design consisting of 21 eyes from 16 patients with AIDS and CMV retinitis consecutively enrolled between January 1996 and August 1999. All patients received intravitreal ganciclovir therapy, and half of the patients began HAART as well. Duration of intravitreal therapy and ensuing disease quiescence, as well as CD4+ T cell counts at diagnosis and at cessation of ganciclovir, were calculated. Secondly, instantaneous hazards for outcomes such as CMV retinitis progression, ocular complications and mortality were compared. SETTING: Tertiary care centre in Ottawa, Ontario. RESULTS: Five of eight patients receiving HAART discontinued intravitreal ganciclovir after a mean treatment period of 428 days. During this period, their mean CD4+ count rose from 7.5 to 190microL. Subsequently, none of these patients experienced retinitis progression during follow-up periods lasting up to 820 days (mean of 617 days). Progression of CMV retinitis was 11.4 times more likely among those not receiving HAART (P=0.049). CONCLUSIONS: On initiating HAART, patients with CMV retinitis may enjoy significant recovery in CD4+ counts and sustained retinitis quiescence without specific anti-CMV therapy. Intravitreal ganciclovir injections seem well suited to offer effective CMV control during temporary periods of decreased CD4+ counts while awaiting HAART-mediated immune system reconstitution.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".