Detrimental Outcomes of Unmasking Cryptococcal Meningitis With Recent ART Initiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Increased antiretroviral therapy (ART) availability has been associated with more patients developing cryptococcosis after ART initiation. Despite this changing epidemiology, data regarding cryptococcal meningitis in those already receiving ART are limited. We compared clinical presentations and outcomes among ART-naïve and ART-experienced Ugandans. Methods We prospectively enrolled 605 HIV-infected persons with first-episode cryptococcal meningitis from August 2013 to May 2017 who received amphotericin-based combination therapy. We classified participants by ART status and ART duration and compared groups for 2-week survival. Results Overall, 46% (281/605) of participants were receiving ART at presentation. Compared with those not receiving ART, those receiving ART had higher CD4 counts (P < .001) and lower cerebrospinal fluid fungal burdens (P < .001). Of those receiving ART, 56% (156/281) initiated ART within 6 months, and 18% (51/281) initiated ART within 14 days. Two-week mortality did not differ by ART status (27% in both ART-naïve and ART-experienced%; P > .99). However, 47% (24/51) of those receiving ART for ≤14 days died within 2 weeks, compared with 19% (20/105) of those receiving ART for 15–182 days and 26% (32/125) of those receiving ART for >6 months (P < .001). Among persons receiving ART for >6 months, 87% had HIV viral loads >1000 copies/mL. Conclusions Cryptococcosis after ART initiation is common in Africa. Patients initiating ART who unmask cryptococcal meningitis are at a high risk of death. Immune recovery in the setting of central nervous system infection is detrimental, and management of this population requires further study. Implementing pre-ART cryptococcal antigen screening is urgently needed to prevent cryptococcal meningitis after ART initiation.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".