4.1 Article

A multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of primary cryptococcal meningitis prophylaxis in HIV-infected patients with severe immune deficiency

Journal

HIV MEDICINE
Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages 140-143

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-1293.2004.00201.x

Keywords

cryptocoocal meningitis; fluconazole; fungal infection; primary cryptococcal prophylaxis; survival

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To assess the efficacy and survival benefit of low-dose fluconazole (400 mg weekly) for primary prophylaxis for cryptococcal meningitis in patients with advanced HIV infection. Methods A prospective multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was carried out in HIV-infected patients with CD4 counts < 100cells/pL. Results Of 90 patients enrolled, 44 received fluconazole and 46 received placebo. The baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. On an in tent-to-treat basis, 10 cases of cryptococcal meningitis developed, three (6.8%) in the fluconazole group and seven (15.2%) in the placebo group. Patients in the placebo group were more likely to develop cryptococcal meningitis than those in the fluconazole group [hazard ratio 2.23; 95% confidence interval (Cl): 0.58-8.63; P 0.245]. The survival benefit of fluconazole was greater than that of the placebo. The number of deaths per 10 000 person-days was 2.7 for the fluconazole group (2/7342) and 11.7 for the placebo group (9/7713) (rate difference 9; 95% Cl: 0.4-17.5; P = 0.046). Based on survival analysis, patients in the placebo group were 4.3 times more likely to die than those in the fluconazole group (95% CI: 0.9-19.8; P = 0.065). Conclusion Fluconazole 400 mg once weekly for primary prophylaxis for cryptococcal meningitis in Thailand should be considered in HIV-infected patients, as our study suggested a survival benefit. However, a larger study should be conducted to confirm our findings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available