Prednisolone and<i>Mycobacterium indicus pranii</i>in Tuberculous Pericarditis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tuberculous pericarditis is associated with high morbidity and mortality even if antituberculosis therapy is administered. We evaluated the effects of adjunctive glucocorticoid therapy and Mycobacterium indicus pranii immunotherapy in patients with tuberculous pericarditis. METHODS: Using a 2-by-2 factorial design, we randomly assigned 1400 adults with definite or probable tuberculous pericarditis to either prednisolone or placebo for 6 weeks and to either M. indicus pranii or placebo, administered in five injections over the course of 3 months. Two thirds of the participants had concomitant human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of death, cardiac tamponade requiring pericardiocentesis, or constrictive pericarditis. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between patients who received prednisolone and those who received placebo (23.8% and 24.5%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.18; P=0.66) or between those who received M. indicus pranii immunotherapy and those who received placebo (25.0% and 24.3%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.29; P=0.81). Prednisolone therapy, as compared with placebo, was associated with significant reductions in the incidence of constrictive pericarditis (4.4% vs. 7.8%; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.87; P=0.009) and hospitalization (20.7% vs. 25.2%; hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99; P=0.04). Both prednisolone and M. indicus pranii, each as compared with placebo, were associated with a significant increase in the incidence of cancer (1.8% vs. 0.6%; hazard ratio, 3.27; 95% CI, 1.07 to 10.03; P=0.03, and 1.8% vs. 0.5%; hazard ratio, 3.69; 95% CI, 1.03 to 13.24; P=0.03, respectively), owing mainly to an increase in HIV-associated cancer. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with tuberculous pericarditis, neither prednisolone nor M. indicus pranii had a significant effect on the composite of death, cardiac tamponade requiring pericardiocentesis, or constrictive pericarditis. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; IMPI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00810849.).
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".