This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Background: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) protein levels exhibit high variability in HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis from being normal to markedly elevated. However, the clinical implications of CSF protein levels in cryptococcal meningitis remain unclear. Methods: We analysed data from 890 adults with HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis randomized into two clinical trials in Uganda between 2015 and 2021. CSF protein was grouped into ≥100 mg/dL (n=249) and <100 mg/dL (n=641). We described baseline clinical variables and mortality by CSF protein levels. Results: Approximately one-third of individuals had a baseline CSF protein ≥100 mg/dL. Those with CSF protein ≥100 mg/dL were more likely to present with Glasgow coma scale scores <15 (P<0.01), self-reported seizures at baseline (P=0.02), higher CD4 T-cells (p<0.001), and higher CSF white cells (p<0.001). Moreover, those with a baseline CSF protein ≥100 mg/dL also had a lower baseline CSF fungal burden (p<0.001) and a higher percentage of sterile CSF cultures at day 14 (p=0.02). Individuals with CSF protein ≥100 mg/dL demonstrated a more pronounced immune response consisting of upregulation of immune effector molecules pro-inflammatory cytokines, type-1 T-helper cell cytokines, type-3 chemokines, and immune-exhaustion marker (p<0.05). 18-week mortality risk in individuals with a CSF protein <100 mg/dL was 34% higher, (unadjusted Hazard Ratio 1.34; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.70; p=0.02) than those with ≥100 mg/dL. Conclusion: In cryptococcal meningitis, individuals with CSF protein ≥100 mg/dL more frequently presented with seizures, altered mental status, immune activation, and favourable fungal outcomes. Baseline CSF protein levels may serve as a surrogate marker of immune activation and prognosis.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kasibante et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: