Oral Miltefosine as Adjunctive Treatment for Recalcitrant Acanthamoeba Keratitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Acanthamoeba keratitis is a rare, vision-threatening disease. Commercially available antiamoebics are poorly cysticidal and highly toxic, and therapeutic keratoplasties can be complicated by recurrence or graft failure. We aimed to discuss the use of oral miltefosine for treatment of recalcitrant Acanthamoeba keratitis. METHODS: A 44-year-old contact lens wearer presented with a 2-week history of red painful eye and decreasing vision. After poorly responding to topical corticosteroid on the presumptive diagnosis of anterior uveitis, she developed radial keratoneuritis. Corneal scraping was positive for Acanthamoeba. No clinical response to treatment was observed with topical chlorhexidine 0.02%, polyhexamethylene biguanide 0.02%, and oral voriconazole. She then underwent 2 therapeutic keratoplasties with prompt recurrence of the disease in the keratoplasty graft. RESULTS: Oral miltefosine was added to the treatment. She underwent a third penetrating keratoplasty 8 months later. The excised button was negative for amoeba. She continued miltefosine for 3 more months. No recurrence was observed after 30 months. CONCLUSIONS: This case shows resolution of recalcitrant Acanthamoeba keratitis with oral miltefosine in an immunocompetent patient. Further clinical evidence would be needed to possibly incorporate this medication in the antiamoebic armamentarium.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".