Review of Treatments for Oropharyngeal Fungal Infections in HIV/AIDS Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HIV and AIDS patients are susceptible to opportunistic infections. Oral candidiasis or thrush is the primary manifestation of fungal infection in these patients. The primary objective of this literature review was to summarize established and novel treatment options for oropharyngeal fungal infections in HIV/AIDS patients. Azoles and polyenes are the two primary antifungal drug classes employed for the treatment of oral candidiasis. A literature review was conducted on Medline and Google Scholar in October of 2021 using the keywords “Oral”, “Fungal”, “HIV”, and “Treatment”. Included studies were clinical trials, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials. Nineteen studies regarding azoles, polyenes, and novel treatments for oropharyngeal fungal infections in HIV/AIDS patients were examined in this review. The primary concern demonstrated from these studies is increased reports of resistance to antifungals, especially development of fluconazole resistance. Additionally, studies demonstrated that fluconazole had different relapse durations comparative to other medications, and that posaconazole could possibly act as an alternate form of treatment. Nystatin was indicated as a first-line therapy for thrush in multiple studies but could be upstaged by miconazole nitrate in resource-poor settings. Amphotericin B was an effective treatment option and was shown to be resilient in terms of fungal resistance, however potent adverse side effects were reported. Alternative treatments, such as immunoglobulin antibodies and lemon grass, revealed promising antifungal effects for immunocompromised individuals. Taken together, this review provides a thorough summary of treatment options of oropharyngeal fungal infections in HIV/AIDS patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".