5-Flucytosine Longitudinal Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of <i>Cryptococcus neoformans</i>: A Substudy of the EnACT Trial Testing Oral Amphotericin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The EnACT trial was a phase 2 randomized clinical trial conducted in Uganda, which evaluated a novel orally delivered lipid nanocrystal (LNC) amphotericin B in combination with flucytosine for the treatment of cryptococcal meningitis. When flucytosine (5FC) is used as monotherapy in cryptococcosis, 5FC can induce resistant Cryptococcus mutants. Oral amphotericin B uses a novel drug delivery mechanism, and we assessed whether resistance to 5FC develops during oral LNC–amphotericin B therapy. Methods We enrolled Ugandans with HIV diagnosed with cryptococcal meningitis and who were randomized to receive 5FC and either standard intravenous (IV) amphotericin B or oral LNC–amphotericin B. We used broth microdilution to measure the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the first and last cryptococcal isolates in each participant. Breakpoints are inferred from 5FC in Candida albicans. We measured cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) 5FC concentrations by liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry. Results Cryptococcus 5FC MIC50 was 4 µg/mL, and MIC90 was 8 µg/mL. After 2 weeks of therapy, there was no evidence of 5FC resistance developing, defined as a &gt;4-fold change in susceptibility in any Cryptococcus isolate tested. The median CSF 5FC concentration to MIC ratio (interquartile range) was 3.0 (1.7–5.5) µg/mL. There was no association between 5FC/MIC ratio and early fungicidal activity of the quantitative rate of CSF yeast clearance (R2 = 0.004; P = .63). Conclusions There is no evidence of baseline resistance to 5FC or incident resistance during combination therapy with oral or IV amphotericin B in Uganda. Oral amphotericin B can safely be used in combination with 5FC.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".