Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 May 21;19(5):e0303805. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303805

Poor long-term outcomes despite improved hospital survival for patients with cryptococcal meningitis in rural, Northern Uganda

Mark Okwir 1,2,3,*, Abigail Link 4,5, Bosco Opio 2, Fred Okello 3, Ritah Nakato 2,3, Betty Nabongo 3, Jimmy Alal 3, Joshua Rhein 6,7, David Meya 6,7, Yu Liu 1, Paul R Bohjanen 1,2,6,7,5,*
Editor: Felix Bongomin8
PMCID: PMC11108149  PMID: 38771769

Abstract

Background

Cryptococcal meningitis (CM) remains a major cause of death among people living with HIV in rural sub-Saharan Africa. We previously reported that a CM diagnosis and treatment program (CM-DTP) improved hospital survival for CM patients in rural, northern Uganda. This study aimed to evaluate the impact on long-term survival.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study at Lira Regional Referral Hospital in Uganda evaluating long-term survival (≥1 year) of CM patients diagnosed after CM-DTP initiation (February 2017-September 2021). We compared with a baseline historical group of CM patients before CM-DTP implementation (January 2015-February 2017). Using Cox proportional hazards models, we assessed time-to-death in these groups, adjusting for confounders.

Results

We identified 318 CM patients, 105 in the Historical Group, and 213 in the CM-DTP Group. The Historical Group had a higher 30-day mortality of 78.5% compared to 42.2% in the CM-DTP Group. The overall survival rate for the CM-DTP group at three years was 25.6%. Attendance at follow-up visits (HR:0.13, 95% CI: [0.03–0.53], p <0.001), ART adherence (HR:0.27, 95% CI: [0.10–0.71], p = 0.008), and fluconazole adherence: (HR:0.03, 95% CI: [0.01–0.13], p <0.001), weight >50kg (HR:0.54, 95% CI: [0.35–0.84], p = 0.006), and performance of therapeutic lumbar punctures (HR:0.42, 95% CI: [0.24–0.71], p = 0.001), were associated with lower risk of death. Altered mentation was associated with increased death risk (HR: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.10–2.42, p = 0.016).

Conclusion

Long-term survival of CM patients improved after the initiation of the CM-DTP. Despite this improved survival, long-term outcomes remained sub-optimal, suggesting that further work is needed to enhance long-term survival.

Introduction

Cryptococcal meningitis (CM) is a leading cause of death among people living with HIV, accounting for 15% of all AIDS-related deaths globally and 181,100 deaths in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) in 2014 [1]. In 2020, the estimated global burden of HIV-associated cryptococcal infection accounted for 19% (13–24%) of AIDS-related mortality [2]. Despite increased antiretroviral therapy (ART) use during the “test and treat” era [3], the burden of CM remains unacceptably high in SSA [4, 5]. and accounts for 60% of all meningitis cases in Uganda [6]. Long-term survival of CM patients has been under-studied in routine care settings despite the high burden of CM in SSA [6].

Despite decreased CM prevalence globally, high mortality persists [6, 7]. In rural, northern Uganda, we reported high mortality, with 90.9% of CM patients being ART-experienced at admission [8]. Therefore, it is important to determine why high mortality persists among CM patients despite the improved availability of ART [9, 10]. During the pre-ART era few patients survived long-term [10, 11], as the median survival for CM was 26 days, and 14-day survival was 47% [12]. Currently, the long-term mortality of CM ranges from 13% to 78% globally [13], primarily reported from studies involving routine care or randomized control trials [6].

Risk factors associated with long-term survival from CM after hospital discharge remain largely uncharacterized outside of research settings. Previous studies identified factors linked to short-term survival, and these same factors were found to be predictive of long-term survival outcomes [1315]. Those factors associated with improved long-term survival of CM patients include effective antifungal therapy use in the induction phase [14] and ART use [13, 14, 15]. Additionally, the performance of therapeutic lumbar punctures (LPs) during hospitalization was also associated with improved long-term survival [16]. Fluconazole as prophylaxis to prevent CM relapse is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Ugandan Clinical Guidelines [17, 18] although, when to stop fluconazole in the long term remains unclear. Conversely, factors associated with poor long-term survival of CM patients include high cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) antigen titers, immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS) [1921], altered mental status, and seizures [22], all of which largely occur during hospitalization. Despite several efforts to improve hospitalization outcomes among CM patients, less effort has been made toward improving outcomes following hospital discharge.

In February of 2017, a standard of care CM diagnosis and treatment program (CM-DTP) began at Lira Regional Referral Hospital (LRRH) in rural, northern Uganda (9) based on the WHO and Uganda Clinical Guidelines [17, 18]. Prior to initiation of the CM-DTP at LRRH, diagnosis, and treatment of CM patients was based on the clinicians’ judgment due to a lack of laboratory diagnostic and monitoring capabilities as well as the unavailability of antifungal agents such as Amphotericin B, all of which are common challenges to CM care in non-research centers in SSA [23]. Because of the inaccessibility and high cost of Amphotericin B, implementation of CM treatment guidelines at LRRH was challenging prior to initiation of the CM-DTP, and outcomes for CM patients were poor with >75% of deaths occurring during hospitalization. This information was the impetus for the CM-DTP at LRRH. Although the current study is focused on rural, northern Uganda, this project provides a true representation of many other rural settings in SSA where resources are limited, to determine if following standard-of-care protocols could lead to improved outcomes. We found that the CM-DTP led to increased diagnosis of CM, improved treatment, and improved hospital outcomes for patients with CM and other forms of meningitis [9]. Here, we report on the impact of this standard-of-care program on the long-term survival of CM patients and the factors associated with long-term survival.

Methods

Design, study population, and setting

To assess long-term survival, we conducted a retrospective review of two groups of CM patients. One group included 213 CM patients living with HIV who were hospitalized at LRRH from February 2017 through September 2021 and enrolled in the CM-DTP (CM-DTP Group). This is part of an ongoing Meningitis Treatment Program we previously reported (May 2022) to have improved hospital outcomes [9]. Between September 2022 to January 2023, we accessed the data to evaluate the long-term survival of CM patients [data] [24]. To provide a historical context on CM care prior to the initiation of the CM-DTP, we also evaluated a historical group of 105 CM patients treated at LRRH between February 2015 and February 2017 (Historical Group). In the Historical Group, doctors relied on clinical judgment, and available tests including rapid lateral flow assays for CM diagnosis, gram stain and culture, and blood chemistry for monitoring CM patients were usually not performed because they were unavailable in the hospital or were too expensive at outside commercial laboratories for patients to afford. We included all adult CM patients (aged ≥18 years) with hospital records, within the study periods. We excluded patients without complete hospital records or known hospital dispositions. Patients were considered to have confirmed CM if they had laboratory-confirmed diagnoses of CM. We identified 176 of 213 patients with confirmed CM and 37 patients were presumed CM in the CM-DTP Group. In the Historical Group, 48 out of 105 patients were confirmed to have CM. Additionally, patients were considered to have presumed CM if they were treated for CM based on clinical judgment by the treating doctors. Long-term survival was defined as survival of 12 months or longer from the first day of hospitalization. The CM-DTP Group underwent follow-up throughout hospitalization, with additional data subsequently collected from medical records during scheduled clinic visits at LRRH. Post-discharge follow-up was based on records from follow-up appointments at LRRH and phone calls to patients, family members, and/or other health centers.

This study was conducted at LRRH in northern Uganda, a 350-bed government-owned public hospital located 340 kilometers from Uganda’s capital, Kampala [25]. This hospital serves a population of 2.2 million Ugandans and is a high-volume hospital with 232,014 outpatient visits and 12,203 inpatient admissions yearly (as of 2022) [25].

CM care in the CM-DTP group

Confirmed CM was diagnosed using a cryptococcal antigen (CrAg) lateral flow assay (IMMY, Norman, Oklahoma) on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) after a lumbar puncture, a CrAg latex agglutination assay, India ink, CSF culture, positive Biofire (PCR-based test) or CSF gram stain showing yeast as previously reported [9].

Patients enrolled in the CM-DTP received standard-of-care CM treatment based on WHO and Ugandan guidelines [17, 18], using deoxycholate amphotericin B and oral fluconazole as described previously [9]. Flucytosine was not used because it was unavailable during this study period [26]. The CM-DTP protocol included: Amphotericin B deoxycholate (0.7–1.0 mg/kg/day) which was administered for 7–10 days, and extended to 14 days for inadequate response. Fluconazole was initiated at 800–1200 mg/day during induction, tapered to 400 mg/day in consolidation, and maintained at 200 mg/day. Each Amphotericin B dose was flanked by 1.5 L normal saline infusions. Magnesium and potassium chloride supplementation were routine components of the CM treatment regimen. The specific doses depended on the severity of the deficiency and other factors like renal function. In addition, pre-, intra-, and post-treatment monitoring included: creatinine, electrolytes, and hemoglobin levels, detailed HIV and ART status at CM diagnosis (CD4 count, viral load, and ART use and adherence, prior CM history). ART adherence was assessed using standard pill counts, patient self-reported adherence, or information from ART cards issued by HIV clinics which also included duration, and type of ART. CM-DTP patients had follow-up at LRRH after discharge where active assessments could be performed during their monthly return visits for drug refills (ART and Fluconazole).

CM care in the Historical Group (prior CM-DTP)

Patients with CM in the Historical Group received treatment based on the clinician’s judgment at the time they presented to the hospital. Supportive treatment was often inadequately provided or in some cases not available. Medical supplies were often lacking, with delays in diagnosis and initiation of treatment being a challenge [23, 27]. In addition, a majority of medical workers had insufficient competence to handle CM patients. These challenges are a common situation in a majority of health centers in Uganda [23, 27]. Antifungal therapy given to patients was not uniform, and induction antifungal therapy was comprised of Amphotericin B, intravenous fluconazole, or oral fluconazole depending on availability and patient’s ability to pay. Supplementation with magnesium and potassium chloride was not a routine part of the CM therapy due to the lack of access and availability in this rural resource-poor setting. Patients were sent back to their primary HIV clinics after hospital discharge, although a subset was followed in the HIV Clinic at LRRH.

Outcomes: All-cause mortality among CM patients (CM-DTP)

The primary outcome in this study was all-cause mortality among CM patients who were treated using standard-of-care (CM-DTP Group). We also assessed the factors associated with long-term survival among CM patients who participated in the CM-DTP, including the impact of adherence to ART and the maintenance phase of fluconazole therapy (secondary prophylaxis). Records of CM deaths were from patient files and the follow-up registry. We also made phone calls to patients, next of kin, and/or their primary HIV clinics if the patients were unreachable. At the analysis time, we inquired if the patient was alive or deceased, physical status, comorbidities, and complications (including neurological deficits such as blindness). If the patient died, we recorded details surrounding their death such as date of death, location of death, and cause.

Study data and covariates

Covariate data were extracted from hospital records and clinical record forms (CRFs) and included: age, sex, clinical presentations, category of CM diagnoses (new, relapse, or Immune reconstitution Syndrome, symptom duration, CD4, HIV viral load, lumbar punctures, medicines utilized, ART history, ART and fluconazole adherence, laboratory results, diagnoses, CM management, and outcomes. After hospital discharge, information was obtained from outpatient and follow-up records. Lastly, routine clinic review notes in the patient’s medical record notebooks provided additional information on adherence.

Patient consent statement

This study protocol was approved by the Gulu University Research Ethics Committee (GUREC-066-19), the Mbarara University of Science and Technology Research Ethics Committee (MUSTREC—Reference Number: 1/7), the Uganda National Council of Science and Technology (UNCST: HS 2675), and the University of Minnesota IRB (STUDY00011386). The study met the international human subject protection standards. We sought written informed consent from the patients and no information used could identify them.

Statistical analyses

Descriptive statistics utilized univariate analysis; categorical variables were compared using the Chi-Square test or Fisher’s Exact test. Continuous variables were reported as means (standard deviation), medians (interquartile ranges), and proportions or percentages. We performed Chi-Square tests to describe mortality in the CM-DTP group. We performed multivariate regression analysis using the Cox Proportional Hazard regression model. The outcome variable was survival time ("time-to-death") for the survival status. Missing data on outcome (missing at random, 6.6%) were not included in the analyses. We conducted unadjusted and adjusted Cox regression analyses, modeling the survival time with the covariates. We regressed secondary exposures (Fluconazole adherence, ART status, and follow-up adherence) with the outcome. We accounted for both time-varying factors (such as weight) and time-fixed variables (such as sex) in our regression models. We adjusted for confounding variables using regression models based on the directed acyclic graph (DAG) and compared CM mortality outcomes between groups using Kaplan-Meier analyses. Historical data limitations (non-comparative treatment, poor 60-day survival [<15%], low long-term survival, and poor follow-up information) restricted analyses to descriptive statistics for the Historical Group. We reported effect estimates and risk (hazard ratio) with 95% CI at 0.05 two-sided alpha level of significance. We used Stata version 17 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA), and R statistical software (Version 4.2.3, Vienna, Austria, The R Foundation of Statistical Computing) for data analyses.

Results

Characteristics of the study population

We identified 318 CM patients: 105 patients in the Historical Group, and 213 patients in the CM-DTP Group. The majority were male (54.7%) with a median age of 35 years (IQR: 30–44), and the median weight was 53 Kg (IQR: 46–58.0). (Table 1). All patients had confirmed HIV infection, 31 (11%) were ART naïve, and 217 (77.2%) patients were on ART and considered to be adherent. We found a significant difference in the proportion of ART experience between Historical Group (22.3% were ART naïve) and the CM-DTP Group (4.5% were ART naïve). Most patients, 247/291 (84.9%) presented with an index episode of CM. The median CD4 count was 63 cells/mm3 (IQR: 22–149) and the median HIV viral load was 3.9 x 104 copies/mL (IQR: 0.4–15.5). CD4 counts were performed in only 104 of 318 (32.7%) patients and viral loads were performed in 28 of 318 (8.8%) patients, primarily because of lack of availability. Most CM-DTP Group patients, 181 of 213 (85%) underwent LP compared to 43 of 105 (41%) patients in the Historical Group.

Table 1. Characteristics of the study population.

ALL Patients Historical Group CM-DTP Group
N = 318 n = 105 n = 213
Clinical Characteristics
Gender, females, n (%) 144 (45.3) 40 (38.1) 104 (48.8)
Median age (IQR) b, years 35 (30–44) 35 (29–44) 36 (30–44)
Median weight (IQR) b, Kg 53 (46–58) 49 (29–58) 53 (46–58)
CM Diagnosis category, n (%) 291 (91.5) b 90 (30.9) 201 (69.1)
New, n (%) 247 (84.9) 83 (92.2) 164 (81.6)
IRIS, n (%) 23 (7.9) 7 (7.8) 16 (8.0)
Relapse, n (%) 21 (7.2) 0 21 (10.4)
TB treatment current, yes, n (%) b 34 (37.0) 2 (18.2) 32 (39.5)
History of TB, yes, n (%) b 23 (34.3) 3 (42.9) 20 (33.3)
CM Symptom duration, n (%) 280 (88.1) b 89 (31.8) 191 (68.2)
Median (IQR) days 14 (7–28) 7 (5–21) 14 (7–29)
<14 days, n (%) 105 (37.5) 46 (51.7) 59 (30.9)
≥14 days, n (%) 175 (62.5) 43 (48.3) 132 (69.1)
Altered mentation, yes, n (%) 119 (48.8) 46 (38.7) 73 (61.3)
Laboratory Characteristics
CD4 cell count, n (%) 104 (32.7) b 41 (39.4) 63 (60.6)
Median CD4 (IQR) cells/mm3 63 (22,149) 56 (15–98) 74 (31–193)
<200 cells/mm3 86 (82.7) 39 (95.1) 47 (74.6)
≥200 cells/mm3 18 (17.3) 2 (4.9) 16 (25.4)
HIV Viral Load, n (%) 28 (8.8) 5 (17.9) 23 (82.1)
Median VL (IQR) X104 copies/mL 3.9 (0.4–15.5) 3.2 (0.2–50) 4.2 (0.5–11.7)
Lumbar punctures done, n (%) 224 (70.4) b 43 (41.0) 181 (85.0)
0–1, n (%) 92 (41.1) 35(81.4) 57 (31.5)
2–3, n (%) 100 (44.6) 7 (16.3) 93 (51.4)
≥4, n (%) 32 (14.3) 1 (2.3) 31 (17.1)
Average (Min, Max) 2.1 (0,5) 1.2 (0,5) 2.4 (0,5)
ART status, n (%) 281 (88.4) b 103 (36.7) 178 (63.3)
ART Naive 31 (11.0) 23 (22.3) 8 (4.5)
ART uninterrupted 217 (77.2) 77 (74.8) 140 (78.7)
Defaulted 12 (4.3) 2 (1.9) 10 (5.6)
Stopped but restarted 21 (7.5) 1 (1.0) 20 (11.2)
Mortality, n (%) 250 (78.6) 65 185
At 30 days 129 (51.6) 51(78.5) 78(42.2)
≤ 60 days 156 (62.4) 56 (86.2) 100 (54.1)
Unable to be traced, n (%) 54 (16.9) 40 (38.1) 14 (6.6)

SD—Standard Deviation, CD—cluster of differentiation, IQR -Interquartile Range, CSF–Cerebrospinal

fluid, TB—Tuberculosis, IRIS—immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome, VL—Viral Load.

() b the number of patients with outcomes, is different from the total number of patients due to missing data.

We assessed how often fluconazole was taken by patients following hospital discharge. Although fluconazole treatment was recommended for all patients after hospital discharge, the majority in the Historical Group, 49/54 (90.7%) had no record of continued fluconazole use following discharge compared to 94/207 (45.4%) in the CM-DTP Group.

Survival of CM patients in the Historical Group was poor

Patients in the Historical Group did not receive uniform CM care before the CM-DTP implementation and, most (78.5%) died within 30 days of hospitalization. (Table 1). The 60-day survival rate remained poor at 13.8%. Further long-term survival analyses for this Historical Group were not feasible because 60-day survival was less than 15%, non-comparable treatments were given, and lack of long-term follow-up information, with 38.1% of patients not traceable. Nevertheless, the poor 60-day survival in the Historical Group provided background information to suggest that the CM-DTP did improve long-term survival as described below.

Long-term survival improved in the CM-DTP group

We assessed the long-term survival of patients in the CM-DTP Group using univariate Chi-Square tests and Kaplan-Meier survival curves (Table 2 and Fig 1). Survival status was available for 199 of 213 patients (93.4%) from hospitalization through the follow-up period after hospital discharge. Patients who could not be traced were lost to follow-up and were not included in survival analyses (14/213, 6.6% of CM patients). Overall, the follow-up person-days contributed by 199 patients was 37,876 days (103.8-person years), and a mortality rate of 143 deaths/100-person years. The proportion of CM deaths at 3 years was 148/199 (74.4%). (Table 2). More females (80.2%) died compared to males (69.4%), but no age differences were found in the proportion of CM deaths. The overall long-term survival among all patients was poor, with of 25.6% survival rate at three years. The mean survival time was 256 days (SD: 401) and the median was 39 days (IQR: 11–367). Thus, although in-hospital mortality improved after initiation of the CM-DTP, [9] long-term survival remained poor.

Table 2. Mortality of CM patients in the CM-DTP group.

ALL CM patients Numbers N = 213 n d Deaths n (%) Chi-Squared, X2 P-value
Gender 199 148 (74.4) 0.083
Female 91 73 (80.2)
Male 108 75 (69.4)
Age, years 199 148 (74.4) 0.632
≤35 years 86 62 (72.1)
>35 years 113 86 (76.1)
Altered mentation 166
No 104 75 (72.1) 0.420
Yes 62 49 (79.0)
ART status 160 116 (72.5) 0.281
ART Naïve 6 6 (100)
Adherent 125 89 (71.2)
Defaulted 9 5 (55.6)
Restarted 20 16 (80.0)
Weight, kgs 128 98 (76.6) 0.011
< = 50 kg 51 45 (88.2)
>50 kg 77 53 (68.8)
Fluconazole adherence 192 144 (73.4) <0.001
Not used 92 92 (100)
Adhered 51 9 (17.7)
Defaulted 49 40 (81.6)
History of CM 181 136(75.1) 0.216
Index 146 113(77.4)
IRIS 14 8(57.1)
Relapse 21 15(71.4)
Follow-up adherence 197 148 (74.4) <0.001
No follow-up returns 92 92 (100)
Adhered 51 9 (17.6)
Defaulted 49 40 (81.6)
CD4 Category 58 41 (70.7) 0.944
<200 cells/mm3 44 31 (70.5)
≥200 cells/mm3 14 10 (71.4)
Lumbar Punctures 168 126 (75.0) 0.080
0–1 49 42 (85.7)
2–3 88 64 (72.7)
≥4 31 20 (64.5)

d Numbers of patients with outcomes excluding missing values,

IRIS–Immune Reconstitution Inflammatory Syndrome, Kg–Kilogram(s), X2 –Chi-Squared

Fig 1. Survival probability over time (days) and number at risk for CM-DTP group.

Fig 1

The cumulative survival probability curve for patients in the CM-DTP group expressed as a ratio (y-axis) from admission (day 0) is shown over time in days (x-axis).

ART Adherence and prolonged fluconazole use improved long-term survival

Follow-up care and adherence to fluconazole, ART, and follow-up clinic attendance were evaluated to determine the association with the long-term survival of patients (Table 3). We found that patients who adhered to treatment guidelines had better survival compared to those who did not. Those who adhered to fluconazole after hospital discharge had a 98% decreased hazard of mortality compared to those who did not continue fluconazole (HR: 0.02, 95% CI: (0.01, 0.04), p-value <0.001). (Table 3). In addition, patients who adhered to ART as per the Ugandan guidelines prior to hospital admission had better survival than those who did not. Patients who adhered to ART had a 65% lower relative hazard of mortality compared to ART naïve patients, (HR: 0.35, 95% CI: (0.21, 0.59) p-value <0.001). This beneficial effect of ART adherence remained at 41% in the adjusted analyses (HR: 0.59, 95% CI: (0.34, 1.01), p-value 0.054). (Table 3). Patients who adhered to routine outpatient follow-up visits had a 0.02 relative hazard of mortality compared to those who had no follow-up, (HR: 0.02, 95% CI: (0.01, 0.05), p-value <0.001). Survival benefits were observed, even among those with incomplete follow-up, compared to those who never participated in follow-up, (HR: 0.12, 95% CI: (0.08, 0.18), p-value <0.001). (Table 3).

Table 3. Crude and an adjusted Hazard Ratios (HR) for association between long-term survival of CM patients and exposures at Cox proportional hazard regression.

Crude Hazard Ratios Adjusted Hazard Ratios
Variable CM Total (Deaths) HR 95% CI P-value HRv 95% CI P-value
Primary Exposure
Overall Group w
CM-DTP 199 (148) 0.36 (0.26, 0.48) <0.001 0.35 (0.24, 0.49) <0.001
Secondary Exposures
Fluconazole Adherence x
Not Used 139 (139) 1.00 1.00
Adhered 52 (10) 0.02 (0.01, 0.04) <0.001 0.02 (0.01, 0.04) <0.001
Defaulted 52 (42) 0.13 (0.09, 0.20) <0.001 0.13 (0.08, 0.20) <0.001
ART Status y
Naïve 17 (17) 1.00 1.00
Adhered 174 (137) 0.35 (0.21, 0.59) <0.001 0.59 (0.34, 1.01) 0.054
Defaulted 10 (6) 0.25 (0.10, 0.64) 0.004 0.59 (0.22, 1.58) 0.291
Restarted 21 (17) 0.27 (0.14, 0.54) <0.001 0.50 (0.25, 1.03) 0.061
Follow-up Adherence z
No follow-up returns 146 (146) 1.00 1.00
Adhered 53 (13) 0.02 (0.01, 0.04) <0.001 0.02 (0.01, 0.05) <0.001
Defaulted 62 (50) 0.12 (0.08, 0.17) <0.001 0.12 (0.08, 0.18) <0.001

v Adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR), Confidence Interval (CI); Lumbar puncture (LP); P value level of significance <0.05 (indicating significant p values.

w Treatment Group adjusted for Age, Sex, and Antiretroviral use status

x Fluconazole adherence adjusted for Age, Sex, and Treatment Group

y Antiretroviral use status adjusted for Age, Sex, and Treatment Group

z Follow-up adherence adjusted for Age, Sex, and Treatment Group

Predictors of long-term survival for the CM-DTP group

We conducted a subgroup analysis of patients to identify additional predictors of long-term survival in those who participated in the CM-DTP. Adherence to fluconazole predicted favorable long-term survival among patients (Table 4). Those who adhered had a 97% decreased risk of mortality compared to those who did not take maintenance fluconazole (HR: 0.03, 95% CI: (0.01, 0.13), p-value <0.001). In addition, patients who adhered to ART before hospitalization had a 73% reduced risk of mortality compared to ART-naïve CM patients, (HR: 0.27, 95% CI: (0.10, 0.71), p-value 0.008). Patients who attended follow-up return visits had an 87% reduced risk of mortality compared to those who did not attend, (HR: 0.13, 95% CI: (0.03–0.53), p-value <0.001). Patients who had a weight greater than 50 kgs had a 46% decreased risk of death compared to those less than 50 kgs, (HR: 0.54, 95% CI: (0.38, 0.86), p-value 0.006) suggesting survival benefits in those with better nutritional status. When we evaluated the long-term survival benefits of in-hospital therapeutic LPs among patients, reduced long-term mortality was observed in those who had 4 or more therapeutic LPs (HR: 0.23, 95% CI: (0.09, 0.60), p-value of 0.003) or those who had 2 to 3 therapeutic LPs (HR: 0.46, 95% CI: (0.24–0.88), p-value 0.020) compared to those who had less than 2 LPs. Lastly, CM patients who experienced altered mentation during their initial hospitalization had 1.63 times the risk of long-term mortality compared to those without altered mentation (HR: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.10–2.42, p-value = 0.016). This suggests that CM patients who had altered mentation possibly had more severe disease which increased the risk of subsequent death post-hospitalization.

Table 4. Predictors of long-term survival of CM-DTP group patients at Cox proportional hazard regression at 3 years.

Adjusted Hazard Ratios
Variable Category CM Total (Deaths) HR f 95% CI P-Value
Sex Males 91 (73) 1.00
Females 108 (75) 1.15 (0.67, 1.95) 0.617
Age < = 35 years 86 (62) 1.00
> 35 years 113 (86) 1.02 (0.63, 1.65) 0.926
Fluconazole Adherence g Not Used 92 (92) 1.00
Adhered 51 (51) 0.03 (0.01, 0.13) <0.001
Defaulted 49 (40) 0.68 (0.18, 2.55) 0.565
ART Status h Naïve 6 (6) 1.00
Adhered 125 (89) 0.27 (0.10, 0.71) 0.008
Defaulted 9 (5) 0.41 (0.09, 1.78) 0.233
Restarted 20 (16) 0.44 (0.15, 1.36) 0.155
Follow-up Adherence k No follow-up return 92 (92) 1.00
Adhered 51 (9) 0.13 (0.03, 0.53) <0.001
Defaulted 49 (40) 0.05 (0.01, 0.19) <0.001
Weight Category m < = 50Kgs 51 (45) 1.00
> 50Kgs 77 (53) 0.54 (0.35, 0.84) 0.006
Altered mentation p No 104 (75) 1.00
Yes 62 (49) 1.63 (1.10, 2.42) 0.016
Lumbar Punctures m 0–1 LP 49 (42) 1.00
2–3 LPs 88 (64) 0.65 (0.44, 0.97) 0.033
> = 4 LPs 31 (20) 0.42 (0.24, 0.71) 0.001

HR f, Hazard Ratio

g Adjusted for sex, age, ART status, follow-up adherence, weight, and LP

h Adjusted for sex, age, fluconazole adherence, follow-up adherence, weight, and LP

k Adjusted for sex, age, ART status, fluconazole adherence, weight, and LP

p Adjusted for Sex, Age, and lumber punctures

m Adjusted for sex and Age

Discussion

We observed long-term survival of CM patients improved following the implementation of the standard-of-care (CM-DTP) for CM in rural Uganda. However, post-discharge care including attendance at follow-up visits and adherence to fluconazole prophylaxis and ART were often sub-optimal. Thus, implementation of this program during hospitalization had long-term benefits in a real-world resources-limited setting, but further work is needed to improve CM care after hospital discharge. Although we previously showed that implementation of this CM-DTP improved diagnosis, treatment, and in-hospital mortality among CM patients, [9] the current results show that long-term three-year survival remained poor at only 25.6%, suggesting that large numbers of patients die after hospital discharge. There was no difference in mortality between males and females, similar to an earlier study conducted in Uganda [28]. Even in the interventional CryptoDex trial in Uganda and Asia, a similar trend of sub-optimal long-term survival was observed, with mortality of 60% at 2 years among HIV patients with CM [29, 30]. Conversely, an earlier study in Uganda observed a 5-year survival rate of 42% among 189 CM patients which is higher compared to our study [11]. A systematic review report on HIV-associated meningitis in sub-Saharan Africa reported long-term mortality (6 months) among 614 cases of CM patients of 44% (95% CI: 36%, 52%, I2 = 71%) [6]. However, these studies were conducted in research settings, whereas our study was conducted in a real-world rural setting where healthcare resources are limited. Overall, our study and others suggest that long-term outcomes for CM remain sub-optimal.

Factors associated with improved long-term survival included adherence to fluconazole and ART, attendance at follow-up return visits after hospital discharge, weight above 50Kgs, and receiving >2 LPs during hospitalization, all of which are consistent with systematic review reports [7, 6]. Inadequate follow-up has been reported to be responsible for the sub-optimal long-term outcomes in similar studies in resource-limited settings [31, 32]. Our results suggest, however, that follow-up visit attendance and adherence to ART and fluconazole in the outpatient setting remained sub-optimal even after initiation of the CM-DTP, perhaps because the CM-DTP focused primarily on improving treatment in the inpatient setting. In addition, high fluconazole resistance (24.1%) in relapse isolates might contribute to long-term mortality, despite the absent of routine testing [33]. Further work needs to be done to improve care after hospital discharge.

The World Health Organization recommends that ART-experienced people who develop CM be evaluated for possible underlying ART treatment failure, potentially through HIV VL tests [26]. However, the challenge of accessing VL tests and ART resistance tests hampers the implementation of this recommendation in resource-limited settings [34], and most of the patients in this study did not receive testing because CD4 counts and viral load tests, which were not routinely available outside of centralized government laboratory processing available only at authorized HIV clinics. Increasing the utilization of these tests could identify patients with HIV treatment failure, and prompt reflex cryptococcal antigen screening for early diagnosis, intervention [34, 35], and possibly mortality benefits [36]. However, no overall survival benefits were observed through CrAg screening [37], except for patients with CrAg titers ≥1:160, who had 2.6-fold higher 6-month mortality compared to patients with titers <1:160 [35]. Other laboratory tests such as quantitative CSF yeast count and clearance, CSF cytokines, CSF white cell count, and antifungal susceptibility have been reported in several studies to affect hospital outcomes [3841]. These factors were not evaluated in this study because they were not routinely available for clinical care in this setting. Previously, a study from Uganda observed that therapeutic LPs were associated with a 69% relative improvement in survival, regardless of initial intracranial pressure among admitted CM patients [16]. Similarly, we observed long-term risk reduction of death in those who underwent more LPs among CM patients. This highlights the need for more frequent LPs during induction therapy, to optimize long-term survival.

Limitations to this study included the retrospective design and missing data because we were unable to contact some patients after discharge. Incomplete medication refill records and use of self-reported adherence likely resulted in inaccurate adherence evaluations and recall bias. This could have led to random misclassification of the exposure, biasing the effect estimates towards the null, causing an underestimation of the association. Also, VL testing could not be used to assess the validity of self-reported adherence because of the lack of availability. The Historical Group had a small sample size, and a greater number of patients without records because most of these patients were referred to their primary health units for follow-up care. Therefore, a complete assessment of post-hospitalization deaths was not feasible. Available outcome data for the Historical Group, however, demonstrated evidence of very high short-term mortality. Although the CM-DTP results clearly showed that attendance at clinic visits and medication adherence were factors associated with long-term survival, survivorship bias could have been possible because patients who had survived post-admission could have had factors (residual confounders) that made them survive up to the point in time where long-term follow-up was possible. Therefore, the survival benefits should be interpreted with caution and in the context of this resource-limited setting outside research centers. However, it is logical that attendance at follow-up visits and adherence to medications would be beneficial to survival.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that the long-term survival of CM patients is achievable and can be improved through appropriate standard-of-care treatment and follow-up, even in resource-limited settings. Routine follow-up of CM patients (like all other hospitalized medical patients) is often done passively based on the patient’s willingness to return, creating a situation that is sub-optimal for many CM patients because they do not return for follow-up care. We observed outpatient follow-up after hospital discharge and medication adherence are key components in CM care to improve long-term survival. During hospitalization, performing therapeutic LP improves long-term survival. In addition, identifying patients with risk factors such as altered mental status or low weight during hospitalization may allow closer monitoring or efforts to improve nutritional status, which could lead to improved outcomes. Our results highlight the need for improved follow-up care after hospital discharge to improve the long-term survival of patients with CM in rural SSA. Despite improved hospital survival, long-term outcomes remained sub-optimal, suggesting that further work is needed to improve follow-up care and enhance long-term survival.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the support received from various institutions in conducting this study. We are grateful to Lira Regional Referral Hospital and the Lira University Faculty of Medicine for their collaborative efforts. We also thank the Infectious Diseases Institute at Makerere University for administrative support and the Department of Public Health Sciences at the University of Rochester for technical support in the publication process.

Data Availability

https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25447570.v1.

Funding Statement

R.B; was supported by NIH grant R21TW012439, the Fulbright U.S. Scholars Program, the University of Minnesota Medical School, and the University of Rochester Medical Center. A.L.; was supported through the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Future of Nursing Scholars Fellowship; GO Health Travel Fellowship, University of Washington Department of Global Health; Boeing International Fellowship, University of Washington Graduate School; Hester McClaws Dissertation Fellowship; Fulbright Student Fellowship; NIH Fogarty Global Health Fellowship grant D43TW009345; NIH training grant T32AI055433; and NIH grant R21TW012439. M.O.; was supported by the Fulbright Foreign Scholars Program, the University of Rochester Department of Public Health Sciences, and NIH grant R21TW012439. The funding supported study design, implementation, data collection, analyses, and publication.

References

  • 1.Rajasingham R, Smith RM, Park BJ, Jarvis JN, Govender NP, Chiller TM, et al. Global burden of disease of HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis: an updated analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017;17: 873–881. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30243-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rajasingham R, Govender NP, Jordan A, Loyse A, Shroufi A, Denning DW, et al. The global burden of HIV-associated cryptococcal infection in adults in 2020: a modelling analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2022;22: 1748–1755. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00499-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.World Health Organization. Progress report 2016: prevent HIV, test, and treat all: WHO support for country impact. World Health Organization; 2016. Report No.: WHO/HIV/2016.24. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/251713 [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Jarvis JN, Boulle A, Loyse A, Bicanic T, Rebe K, Williams A, et al. High ongoing burden of cryptococcal disease in Africa despite antiretroviral roll out. AIDS Lond Engl. 2009;23: 1182–1183. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e32832be0fc [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Beyene T, Woldeamanuel Y, Asrat D, Ayana G, Boulware DR. Comparison of Cryptococcal Antigenemia between Antiretroviral Naïve and Antiretroviral Experienced HIV Positive Patients at Two Hospitals in Ethiopia. PLoS ONE. 2013;8: e75585. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075585 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Tenforde MW, Gertz AM, Lawrence DS, Wills NK, Guthrie BL, Farquhar C, et al. Mortality from HIV-associated meningitis in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Int AIDS Soc. 2020;23: e25416. doi: 10.1002/jia2.25416 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Muzazu SGY, Assefa DG, Phiri C, Getinet T, Solomon S, Yismaw G, et al. Prevalence of cryptococcal meningitis among people living with human immuno-deficiency virus and predictors of mortality in adults on induction therapy in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Med. 2022;9. Available: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2022.989265 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Okwir M, Link A, Rhein J, Obbo JS, Okello J, Nabongo B, et al. High Burden of Cryptococcal Meningitis Among Antiretroviral Therapy-Experienced Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Infected Patients in Northern Uganda in the Era of “Test and Treat”: Implications for Cryptococcal Screening Programs. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2022;9: ofac004. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofac004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Link A, Okwir M, Meya D, Nabongo B, Okello J, Kasprzyk D, et al. Impact of a Cryptococcal meningitis diagnosis and treatment program at Lira Regional Referral Hospital in rural, Northern Uganda. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2022;2: e0000254. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000254 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kambugu A, Meya DB, Rhein J, O’Brien M, Janoff EN, Ronald AR, et al. Outcomes of cryptococcal meningitis in Uganda before and after the availability of HAART. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. 2008;46: 1694–1701. doi: 10.1086/587667 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Butler EK, Boulware DR, Bohjanen PR, Meya DB. Long Term 5-Year Survival of Persons with Cryptococcal Meningitis or Asymptomatic Subclinical Antigenemia in Uganda. PLoS ONE. 2012;7: e51291. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051291 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.French N, Gray K, Watera C, Nakiyingi J, Lugada E, Moore M, et al. Cryptococcal infection in a cohort of HIV-1-infected Ugandan adults. AIDS. 2002;16: 1031. doi: 10.1097/00002030-200205030-00009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Pasquier E, Kunda J, De Beaudrap P, Loyse A, Temfack E, Molloy SF, et al. Long-term Mortality and Disability in Cryptococcal Meningitis: A Systematic Literature Review. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. 2018;66: 1122–1132. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix870 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kanyama C, Molloy SF, Chan AK, Lupiya D, Chawinga C, Adams J, et al. One-year Mortality Outcomes from the Advancing Cryptococcal Meningitis Treatment for Africa Trial of Cryptococcal Meningitis Treatment in Malawi. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;70: 521–524. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz454 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Molloy SF, Kanyama C, Heyderman RS, Loyse A, Kouanfack C, Chanda D, et al. Antifungal Combinations for Treatment of Cryptococcal Meningitis in Africa. N Engl J Med. 2018;378: 1004–1017. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1710922 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Rolfes MA, Hullsiek KH, Rhein J, Nabeta HW, Taseera K, Schutz C, et al. The Effect of Therapeutic Lumbar Punctures on Acute Mortality from Cryptococcal Meningitis. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. 2014;59: 1607–1614. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciu596 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.World Health Organization 2018. Guidelines for the diagnosis, prevention, and management of cryptococcal disease in HIV-infected adults, adolescents, and children. [cited 16 May 2023]. https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789241550277 [PubMed]
  • 18.Uganda MOH. Consolidated Guidelines for Prevention and Treatment of HIV in Uganda | MOH Knowledge Management Portal. 20 Dec 2016 [cited 16 May 2023]. http://library.health.go.ug/communicable-disease/hivaids/consolidated-guidelines-prevention-and-treatment-hiv-uganda
  • 19.Tsai S-T, Lin F-Y, Chen P-S, Chiang H-Y, Kuo C-C. Three-year mortality in cryptococcal meningitis: Hyperglycemia predict unfavorable outcome. PLoS ONE. 2021;16: e0251749. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251749 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Boulware DR, Meya DB, Bergemann TL, Wiesner DL, Rhein J, Musubire A, et al. Clinical Features and Serum Biomarkers in HIV Immune Reconstitution Inflammatory Syndrome after Cryptococcal Meningitis: A Prospective Cohort Study. PLoS Med. 2010;7: e1000384. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000384 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Boulware DR, Meya DB, Muzoora C, Rolfes MA, Huppler Hullsiek K, Musubire A, et al. Timing of Antiretroviral Therapy after Diagnosis of Cryptococcal Meningitis. N Engl J Med. 2014;370: 2487–2498. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1312884 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Pastick KA, Bangdiwala AS, Abassi M, Flynn AG, Morawski BM, Musubire AK, et al. Seizures in Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Associated Cryptococcal Meningitis: Predictors and Outcomes. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019;6: ofz478. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofz478 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Link A, Okwir M, Iribarren S, Meya D, Bohjanen PR, Kasprzyk D. Lack of education, knowledge, and supplies are barriers to cryptococcal meningitis care among nurses and other healthcare providers in rural Uganda: A mixed methods study. Nurse Educ Today. 2023;128: 105873. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105873 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Long-Term Cryptococcal Meningitis Survival, Uganda (DATA). figshare; 2024. doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.25447570.v1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Lira Hospital.pdf. https://budget.finance.go.ug/sites/default/files/Sector%20Spending%20Agency%20Budgets%20and%20Performance/Lira%20Hospital.pdf
  • 26.WHO 2022: World Health Organization 2022. Guidelines for diagnosing, preventing, and managing cryptococcal disease among adults, adolescents and children living with HIV. [cited 17 May 2023]. https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240052178 [PubMed]
  • 27.Link A, Okwir M, Nabongo B, Meya DB, Iribarren S, Bohjanen P, et al. Delays in Cryptococcal Meningitis Diagnosis and Care: A Mixed Methods Study in Rural Uganda. Ann Glob Health. 2022;88. doi: 10.5334/aogh.3524 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Stadelman AM, Ssebambulidde K, Tugume L, Pastick KA, Hullsiek KH, Lofgren S, et al. Impact of biological sex on cryptococcal meningitis mortality in Uganda and South Africa. Med Mycol. 2021;59: 712–719. doi: 10.1093/mmy/myaa108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kitonsa J, Nsubuga R, Mayanja Y, Kiwanuka J, Nikweri Y, Onyango M, et al. Determinants of two-year mortality among HIV positive patients with Cryptococcal meningitis initiating standard antifungal treatment with or without adjunctive dexamethasone in Uganda. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020;14: e0008823. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008823 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kitonsa J, Mayanja Y, Aling E, Kiwanuka J, Namutundu J, Anywaine Z, et al. Factors affecting mortality among HIV positive patients two years after completing recommended therapy for Cryptococcal meningitis in Uganda. PLOS ONE. 2019;14: e0210287. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210287 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Lessells RJ, Mutevedzi PC, Heller T, Newell M-L. Poor long-term outcomes for cryptococcal meningitis in rural South Africa. South Afr Med J Suid-Afr Tydskr Vir Geneeskd. 2011;101: 251–252. doi: 10.7196/samj.4378 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Jarvis JN, Meintjes G, Williams Z, Rebe K, Harrison TS. Symptomatic relapse of HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis in South Africa: the role of inadequate secondary prophylaxis. South Afr Med J Suid-Afr Tydskr Vir Geneeskd. 2010;100: 378–382. doi: 10.7196/samj.3515 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Bongomin F, Oladele RO, Gago S, Moore CB, Richardson MD. A systematic review of fluconazole resistance in clinical isolates of Cryptococcus species. Mycoses. 2018;61: 290–297. doi: 10.1111/myc.12747 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Newman H, Hardie D. HIV-1 viral load testing in resource-limited settings: Challenges and solutions for specimen integrity. Rev Med Virol. 2021;31: e2165. doi: 10.1002/rmv.2165 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Meya DB, Kiragga AN, Nalintya E, Morawski BM, Rajasingham R, Park BJ, et al. Reflexive Laboratory-Based Cryptococcal Antigen Screening and Preemptive Fluconazole Therapy for Cryptococcal Antigenemia in HIV-Infected Individuals with CD4 <100 Cells/μL: A Stepped-Wedge, Cluster-Randomized Trial. JAIDS J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2019;80: 182. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000001894 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Rajasingham R, Meya DB, Greene GS, Jordan A, Nakawuka M, Chiller TM, et al. Evaluation of a national cryptococcal antigen screening program for HIV-infected patients in Uganda: A cost-effectiveness modeling analysis. PLOS ONE. 2019;14: e0210105. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Drain PK, Galagan SR, Govere S, Krows M, Thulare H, Wallis CL, et al. Laboratory Reflex and Clinic-based Point-of-care Cryptococcal Antigen Screening for Preventing Meningitis and Mortality among People Living with HIV. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1999. 2021;87: 1205–1213. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000002717 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.de Oliveira L, Melhem de MSC, Buccheri R, Chagas OJ, Vidal JE, Diaz-Quijano FA. Early clinical and microbiological predictors of outcome in hospitalized patients with cryptococcal meningitis. BMC Infect Dis. 2022;22: 138. doi: 10.1186/s12879-022-07118-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Mora DJ, Ferreira-Paim K, Andrade-Silva LE, Bragine T, Rocha IH, Ribeiro B de M, et al. Cytokine patterns in a prospective cohort of HIV-infected patients with cryptococcal meningitis following initiation of antifungal and antiretroviral therapy. PLOS ONE. 2017;12: e0176304. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176304 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Qu J, Jiang J, Lv X. The utility of cerebrospinal fluid white cell counts during the prognostic assessment for cryptococcal meningitis patients: a retrospective study. BMC Infect Dis. 2020;20: 571. doi: 10.1186/s12879-020-05287-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Vlasova-St Louis I, Musubire AK, Meya DB, Nabeta HW, Mohei H, Boulware DR, et al. Transcriptomic biomarker pathways associated with death in HIV-infected patients with cryptococcal meningitis. BMC Med Genomics. 2021;14: 108. doi: 10.1186/s12920-021-00914-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Felix Bongomin

23 Apr 2024

PONE-D-24-11811Poor Long-Term Outcomes Despite Improved Hospital Survival for Patients with Cryptococcal Meningitis in Rural, Northern UgandaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Okwir,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 07 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Felix Bongomin, MB ChB, MSc, MMed, FECMM

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Kindly address the reviewer's comments.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Introduction

1. Line 71: Please add references.

2. The statement is not clear; you mention short-term survival but all the factors mentioned following this are all talking about long-term survival.

3. Much as death and survival are two sides of the same coin, if you mention factors related to death then that’s what you should reference. Otherwise line 69 talks about risk factors of death but the paragraph then goes on to talk about survival. Clarify this.

4. Line 82: Clarify on what this standard of care program entails. It Is unclear in the entire paragraph

Methods

1. Line 108: You have mentioned the tests that were not routinely available, can you mention which tests were being used and the ones you are referring to in line 112? This is not clear in your text.

2. Line 106: You mention 103 patients in historical group but line 114 mentions 105??

Results

1. Verify number of patients in historical group

2. Line 211: Origin of this denominator 330 is not clear.

3. Table 1: The last row of patients who were untraceable; can you provide more information on these. Are they a part of the missing data for all the different variables?

4. Line 228: This is supposed to be reporting results from your study. Factors should be discussed in the discussion.

5. Table 2: Last row; what comparison is this p-value related to?

6. Table 3 results: Which is your outcome measure? Is it a risk or a rate? Results just mention hazard from lines 255-264.

7. Table 3: if you are looking at fluconazole adherence, shouldn’t the reference group be those who adhered? Same comment for follow-up adherence in both tables 3 and 4.

8. Table 3: Cox regression; which variables are being adjusted for? Separate variables are mentioned below the table which are not shown in the model

9. Is it possible that survival was impacted by other comorbidities in this patient group? These have not been mentioned. As you analyze the mortality data as all-cause, it might be better to actually categorize CM associated deaths compared to non-CM. Otherwise, improving outcomes with the suggested interventions would not help if cause of death is non-CM.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Sara Nsibirwa

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 May 21;19(5):e0303805. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303805.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


29 Apr 2024

PONE-D-24-11811

Poor Long-Term Outcomes Despite Improved Hospital Survival for Patients with Cryptococcal Meningitis in Rural, Northern Uganda

PLOS ONE

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

Response: Submission done in compliance to the above

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

Response: Resubmission has a MARKED copy

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Response: Clean Copy (Unmarked) attached

RESPONSE TO THE REVIEWERS

We thank the reviewers for the favorable review of our initial submission and their detailed critique. We have taken note of each concern raised by the reviewers and are submitting an improved manuscript. Here we give point by point rebuttal and clarifications. Technical recommendations that required our attention are all considered, and the changes were made in the resubmitted manuscript (Version, V3).

1. Line 71: Please add references.

Response: reference added

(page 3)

2. The statement is not clear; you mention short-term survival, but all the factors mentioned following this are all talking about long-term survival.

Response: Sentence in line 71 was paraphrased for clarity.

Previous sentence: Prior studies demonstrated factors associated with short term survival predicted long-term survival.

New Sentence: Previous studies identified factors linked to short-term survival, and these same factors were found to be predictive of long-term survival outcomes.

(page 3)

3. Much as death and survival are two sides of the same coin, if you mention factors related to death then that’s what you should reference. Otherwise, line 69 talks about risk factors of death but the paragraph then goes on to talk about survival. Clarify this.

Response:

This was corrected to match the sentence flow, clarity and context as mentioned in response 2 above.

(Page 3)

4. Line 82: Clarify on what this standard of care program entails. It Is unclear in the entire paragraph.

Response: The standard of care program, referred to as the cryptococcal meningitis diagnosis and treatment program (CM-DTP) is mentioned in the introduction in the last paragraph from line 84-96 to provide the background and context of this long-term study. Details of this published program are described in reference 9, which is now cited. (page 4)

Also, Also, we provide details for what the CM-DTP entails in the sub-heading (CM care in the CM-DTP Group) line 128. (Page 6)

5. Line 108: You have mentioned the tests that were not routinely available, can you mention which tests were being used and the ones you are referring to in line 112? This is not clear in your text.

Response:

To improve clarity, we changed this text to: “In the Historical Group, doctors relied on clinical judgment, and available tests including rapid lateral flow assays for CM diagnosis, gram stain and culture, and blood chemistry for monitoring CM patients were usually not performed because they were unavailable in the hospital or were too expensive at outside commercial laboratories for patients to afford.

6. Line 106: You mention 103 patients in historical group but line 114 mentions 105??

Response: This is corrected, the correct figure is 105, with 103 having data on ART use captured. We have clarified this in the re-submission which also matches what is in table 1. (line 108, Page 5)

7. Verify number of patients in historical group

Response: This has been corrected as above, 105 patients, (Page 5)

8. Line 211: Origin of this denominator 330 is not clear.

Response: This is denominator is changed to 318 to match the findings reported in table 1 and excludes 12 patients for whom no data was available. (Ref Table 1, line 212-214, and data line 107 page 5)

9. Table 1: The last row of patients who were untraceable; can you provide more information on these. Are they a part of the missing data for all the different variables?

Response: These CM patients were initially treated at the hospital, but no further information on their survival was not available, especially for the historical cohort at the time of evaluation because outpatient follow-up was not routine practice at the time. Subsequent analyses were not conducted on untraceable patients; therefore, they are not considered missing data for the historical group, as no further analyses were conducted for them. For the CM-DTP group, this were the missing data group (6.6%) which we mentioned in the statistical analysis reported in line 194.

(Ref: Line 228 – 237, page 12, and Line 194 page 9)

10. Line 228: This is supposed to be reporting results from your study. Factors should be discussed in the discussion.

Response: We concur with the reviewer's suggestion that this section should primarily report results. We removed the sentence regarding potential reasons for poor outcomes as previously described in reference 24.

11. Table 2: Last row; what comparison is this p-value related to?

Response: We meant the “overall group” or all patients (with available data on outcomes). However, we removed it from the table and retained the description in the text. Table. 2 (page 13)

12. Table 3 results: Which is your outcome measure? Is it a risk or a rate? Results just mention hazard from lines 255-264.

Response: Our outcome measure is Hazard in the context of Cox proportional hazards regression, (the regression model used here). The term "hazard" refers to the instantaneous risk of an event (death) occurring at a specific point in time. It represents the chance of experiencing the event of interest (i.e., death) at a particular time given the subject has survived up to that point. We described this in the sub-heading statistical analyses. We also used rates/proportions/percentages for descriptive statistics.

(Ref: page 9, line 192-203)

13. Table 3: if you are looking at fluconazole adherence, shouldn’t the reference group be those who adhered? Same comment for follow-up adherence in both tables 3 and 4.

Response: We agree that considering "fluconazole adherence" as the null group is a valid approach (one way) for analyzing and reporting this association. We considered fluconazole “not used” as the null group because it would provide a more nuanced way for comparing the baseline to all the adherence groups evaluated (adhered and defaulted). We also interpreted, presented, and discussed the results using this logical flow.

14. Table 3: Cox regression; which variables are being adjusted for? Separate variables are mentioned below the table which are not shown in the model.

Response: We acknowledge the reviewers' observation that we did not present results from a single model or provide estimates for the covariates from one output alone. Our approach was intentional to avoid committing a "table two fallacy," which could potentially arise from presenting the data in such a manner. This would be a misrepresentation of our results from the multivariable analyses.

15. Is it possible that survival was impacted by other comorbidities in this patient group? These have not been mentioned. As you analyze the mortality data as all-cause, it might be better to actually categorize CM associated deaths compared to non-CM. Otherwise, improving outcomes with the suggested interventions would not help if cause of death is non-CM.

Response: We agree that there are residual confounders that are possible, which could affect the observed results, and we mentioned this in the discussion (line 367) together with other limitations which are possible in the study. However, the observed estimates are strong and are unlikely to be solely due to residual confounders.

Also, we would like to clarify that we were unable to categorize the deaths, as CM associated versus non-CM because we did not have information to accurately differentiate between these possibilities and that is why our case definition defined all-cause mortality. Autopsy or other post-mortem investigation was not performed to conclude causes of death.

Attachment

Submitted filename: RESPONSES_Reviewer_Comments_FINAL 4-29-24.docx

pone.0303805.s001.docx (23.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Felix Bongomin

1 May 2024

Poor Long-Term Outcomes Despite Improved Hospital Survival for Patients with Cryptococcal Meningitis in Rural, Northern Uganda

PONE-D-24-11811R1

Dear Dr. Okwir,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Felix Bongomin, MB ChB, MSc, MMed, FECMM

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Felix Bongomin

9 May 2024

PONE-D-24-11811R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Okwir,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Felix Bongomin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: RESPONSES_Reviewer_Comments_FINAL 4-29-24.docx

    pone.0303805.s001.docx (23.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25447570.v1.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES