-
BMJ Clinical Evidence Aug 2013Amoebic dysentery is caused by the protozoan parasite Entamoeba histolytica. It is transmitted in areas where poor sanitation allows contamination of drinking water and... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Amoebic dysentery is caused by the protozoan parasite Entamoeba histolytica. It is transmitted in areas where poor sanitation allows contamination of drinking water and food with faeces. In these areas, up to 40% of people with diarrhoea may have amoebic dysentery.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of drug treatments for amoebic dysentery in endemic areas? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2013 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 6 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: diiodohydroxyquinoline (iodoquinol), diloxanide, emetine, metronidazole, nitazoxanide, ornidazole, paromomycin, secnidazole, and tinidazole.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Diarrhea; Dysentery, Amebic; Entamoeba histolytica; Feces; Humans; Metronidazole; Paromomycin; Tinidazole
PubMed: 23991750
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2011Amoebic dysentery is caused by the protozoan parasite Entamoeba histolytica. It is transmitted in areas where poor sanitation allows contamination of drinking water and... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Amoebic dysentery is caused by the protozoan parasite Entamoeba histolytica. It is transmitted in areas where poor sanitation allows contamination of drinking water and food with faeces. In these areas, up to 40% of people with diarrhoea may have amoebic dysentery.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of drug treatments for amoebic dysentery in endemic areas? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 6 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: diiodohydroxyquinoline (iodoquinol), diloxanide, emetine, metronidazole, nitazoxanide, ornidazole, paromomycin, secnidazole, and tinidazole.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Diarrhea; Dysentery, Amebic; Entamoeba histolytica; Humans; Incidence; Iodoquinol; Metronidazole; Paromomycin; Tinidazole
PubMed: 21477391
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2007Amoebic dysentery is caused by the protozoan parasite Entamoeba histolytica. It is transmitted in areas where poor sanitation allows contamination of drinking water and... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Amoebic dysentery is caused by the protozoan parasite Entamoeba histolytica. It is transmitted in areas where poor sanitation allows contamination of drinking water and food with faeces. In these areas, up to 40% of people with diarrhoea may have amoebic dysentery.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of drug treatments for amoebic dysentery in endemic areas? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to July 2006 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 11 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: emetine, metronidazole, ornidazole, paromomycin, secnidazole, and tinidazole.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Antibodies, Protozoan; Diarrhea; Dysentery, Amebic; Entamoeba histolytica; Feces; Gene Library; Humans; Metronidazole; Tinidazole
PubMed: 19454043
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Tropical Medicine 2021Visceral leishmaniasis, also known as kala-azar is one of the most commonly neglected tropical diseases affecting a large number of rural and resource-limited people in... (Review)
Review
Visceral leishmaniasis, also known as kala-azar is one of the most commonly neglected tropical diseases affecting a large number of rural and resource-limited people in South Asia, Africa, and South America. Paromomycin, an aminoglycoside drug, is frequently used for the treatment of visceral leishmaniasis. Despite limited therapies for visceral leishmaniasis and emerging drug resistance, a proper review on the action of paromomycin for kala-azar is lacking. This systematic review aims to look for the efficacy and safety aspects of paromomycin for the treatment of visceral leishmaniasis.
PubMed: 34349806
DOI: 10.1155/2021/8629039 -
Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences May 2019Some treatment reported for cutaneous leishmaniasis. The studies examined the impact of the paromomycin has different characteristics and results. The aim of the present... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Some treatment reported for cutaneous leishmaniasis. The studies examined the impact of the paromomycin has different characteristics and results. The aim of the present study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of paromomycin in the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Iran.
METHODS
Literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, Scientific Information Database, IranMedex, Magiran, Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (from February 2000 to May 2016), and references cited in the text of selected studies. Search terms used were "paromomycin", "cutaneous leishmaniasis", "randomized"," aminosidine", "controlled trial", and "clinical trial". Random effects models were used to calculate the measure of association, with 95% confidence intervals, to analyze the efficacy of paromomycin in the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis.
RESULTS
Initial search yielded 76 citations. Of these original results, 9 met our specific selection criteria. Four of the randomized controlled trials compared the efficacy of paromomycin in the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis with that of a placebo; they were included in the meta-analysis. The success rate of treatment with paromomycin was higher than that with the placebo (pooled RR=4.50, 95% CI: 2.54 to 8.02; P=0.001 and I=26.7%), whereas the difference with the non-placebo treatments was nonsignificant (pooled RR=0.79, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.073; P=0.131 and I=83.3%).
CONCLUSION
No significant difference was observed between paromomycin and the other treatments in their effectiveness in the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis. Because no single drug is effective against all the forms of leishmaniasis, we suggest multidrug therapy.
PubMed: 31182884
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2017Cutaneous leishmaniasis, caused by a parasitic infection, is considered one of the most serious skin diseases in many low- and middle-income countries. Old World... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cutaneous leishmaniasis, caused by a parasitic infection, is considered one of the most serious skin diseases in many low- and middle-income countries. Old World cutaneous leishmaniasis (OWCL) is caused by species found in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, the Mediterranean, and India. The most commonly prescribed treatments are antimonials, but other drugs have been used with varying success. As OWCL tends to heal spontaneously, it is necessary to justify the use of systemic and topical treatments. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2008.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of therapeutic interventions for the localised form of Old World cutaneous leishmaniasis.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to November 2016: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We wrote to national programme managers, general co-ordinators, directors, clinicians, WHO-EMRO regional officers of endemic countries, pharmaceutical companies, tropical medicine centres, and authors of relevant papers for further information about relevant unpublished and ongoing trials. We undertook a separate search for adverse effects of interventions for Old World cutaneous leishmaniasis in September 2015 using MEDLINE.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of either single or combination treatments in immunocompetent people with OWCL confirmed by smear, histology, culture, or polymerase chain reaction. The comparators were either no treatment, placebo/vehicle, and/or another active compound.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and extracted data. We only synthesised data when we were able to identify at least two studies investigating similar treatments and reporting data amenable to pooling. We also recorded data about adverse effects from the corresponding search.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 89 studies (of which 40 were new to this update) in 10,583 people with OWCL. The studies included were conducted mainly in the Far or Middle East at regional hospitals, local healthcare clinics, and skin disease research centres. Women accounted for 41.5% of the participants (range: 23% to 80%). The overall mean age of participants was 25 years (range 12 to 56). Most studies lasted between two to six months, with the longest lasting two years; average duration was four months. Most studies were at unclear or high risk for most bias domains. A lack of blinding and reporting bias were present in almost 40% of studies. Two trials were at low risk of bias for all domains. Trials reported the causative species poorly.Here we provide results for the two main comparisons identified: itraconazole (200 mg for six to eight weeks) versus placebo; and paromomycin ointment (15% plus 10% urea, twice daily for 14 days) versus vehicle.In the comparison of oral itraconazole versus placebo, at 2.5 months' follow up, 85/125 participants in the itraconazole group achieved complete cure compared to 54/119 in the placebo group (RR 3.70, 95% CI 0.35 to 38.99; 3 studies; 244 participants). In one study, microbiological or histopathological cure of skin lesions only occurred in the itraconazole group after a mean follow-up of 2.5 months (RR 17.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 612.21; 20 participants). However, although the analyses favour oral itraconazole for these outcomes, we cannot be confident in the results due to the very low certainty evidence. More side effects of mild abdominal pain and nausea (RR 2.36, 95% CI 0.74 to 7.47; 3 studies; 204 participants) and mild abnormal liver function (RR 3.08, 95% CI 0.53 to 17.98; 3 studies; 84 participants) occurred in the itraconazole group (as well as reports of headaches and dizziness), compared with the placebo group, but again we rated the certainty of evidence as very low so are unsure of the results.When comparing paromomycin with vehicle, there was no difference in the number of participants who achieved complete cure (RR of 1.00, 95% CI 0.86, 1.17; 383 participants, 2 studies) and microbiological or histopathological cure of skin lesions after a mean follow-up of 2.5 months (RR 1.03, CI 0.88 to 1.20; 383 participants, 2 studies), but the paromomycin group had more skin/local reactions (such as inflammation, vesiculation, pain, redness, or itch) (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.01; 4 studies; 713 participants). For all of these outcomes, the certainty of evidence was very low, meaning we are unsure about these results.Trial authors did not report the percentage of lesions cured after the end of treatment or speed of healing for either of these key comparisons.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was very low-certainty evidence to support the effectiveness of itraconazole and paromomycin ointment for OWCL in terms of cure (i.e. microbiological or histopathological cure and percentage of participants completely cured). Both of these interventions incited more adverse effects, which were mild in nature, than their comparisons, but we could draw no conclusions regarding safety due to the very low certainty of the evidence for this outcome.We downgraded the key outcomes in these two comparisons due to high risk of bias, inconsistency between the results, and imprecision. There is a need for large, well-designed international studies that evaluate long-term effects of current therapies and enable a reliable conclusion about treatments. Future trials should specify the species of leishmaniasis; trials on types caused by Leishmania infantum, L aethiopica, andL donovani are lacking. Research into the effects of treating women of childbearing age, children, people with comorbid conditions, and those who are immunocompromised would also be helpful.It was difficult to evaluate the overall efficacy of any of the numerous treatments due to the variable treatment regimens examined and because RCTs evaluated different Leishmania species and took place in different geographical areas. Some outcomes we looked for but did not find were degree of functional and aesthetic impairment, change in ability to detect Leishmania, quality of life, and emergence of resistance. There were only limited data on prevention of scarring.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Infective Agents; Antiprotozoal Agents; Complementary Therapies; Cryotherapy; Hot Temperature; Humans; Itraconazole; Laser Therapy; Leishmania major; Leishmania tropica; Leishmaniasis, Cutaneous; Paromomycin; Photochemotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29149474
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005067.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2017Cutaneous leishmaniasis, caused by a parasitic infection, is considered one of the most serious skin diseases in many low- and middle-income countries. Old World... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cutaneous leishmaniasis, caused by a parasitic infection, is considered one of the most serious skin diseases in many low- and middle-income countries. Old World cutaneous leishmaniasis (OWCL) is caused by species found in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, the Mediterranean, and India. The most commonly prescribed treatments are antimonials, but other drugs have been used with varying success. As OWCL tends to heal spontaneously, it is necessary to justify the use of systemic and topical treatments. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2008.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of therapeutic interventions for the localised form of Old World cutaneous leishmaniasis.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to November 2016: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We wrote to national programme managers, general co-ordinators, directors, clinicians, WHO-EMRO regional officers of endemic countries, pharmaceutical companies, tropical medicine centres, and authors of relevant papers for further information about relevant unpublished and ongoing trials. We undertook a separate search for adverse effects of interventions for Old World cutaneous leishmaniasis in September 2015 using MEDLINE.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of either single or combination treatments in immunocompetent people with OWCL confirmed by smear, histology, culture, or polymerase chain reaction. The comparators were either no treatment, placebo/vehicle, and/or another active compound.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and extracted data. We only synthesised data when we were able to identify at least two studies investigating similar treatments and reporting data amenable to pooling. We also recorded data about adverse effects from the corresponding search.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 89 studies (of which 40 were new to this update) in 10,583 people with OWCL. The studies included were conducted mainly in the Far or Middle East at regional hospitals, local healthcare clinics, and skin disease research centres. Women accounted for 41.5% of the participants (range: 23% to 80%). The overall mean age of participants was 25 years (range 12 to 56). Most studies lasted between two to six months, with the longest lasting two years; average duration was four months. Most studies were at unclear or high risk for most bias domains. A lack of blinding and reporting bias were present in almost 40% of studies. Two trials were at low risk of bias for all domains. Trials reported the causative species poorly.Here we provide results for the two main comparisons identified: itraconazole (200 mg for six to eight weeks) versus placebo; and paromomycin ointment (15% plus 10% urea, twice daily for 14 days) versus vehicle.In the comparison of oral itraconazole versus placebo, at 2.5 months' follow up, 85/125 participants in the itraconazole group achieved complete cure compared to 54/119 in the placebo group (RR 3.70, 95% CI 0.35 to 38.99; 3 studies; 244 participants). In one study, microbiological or histopathological cure of skin lesions only occurred in the itraconazole group after a mean follow-up of 2.5 months (RR 17.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 612.21; 20 participants). However, although the analyses favour oral itraconazole for these outcomes, we cannot be confident in the results due to the very low certainty evidence. More side effects of mild abdominal pain and nausea (RR 2.36, 95% CI 0.74 to 7.47; 3 studies; 204 participants) and mild abnormal liver function (RR 3.08, 95% CI 0.53 to 17.98; 3 studies; 84 participants) occurred in the itraconazole group (as well as reports of headaches and dizziness), compared with the placebo group, but again we rated the certainty of evidence as very low so are unsure of the results.When comparing paromomycin with vehicle, there was no difference in the number of participants who achieved complete cure (RR of 1.00, 95% CI 0.86, 1.17; 383 participants, 2 studies) and microbiological or histopathological cure of skin lesions after a mean follow-up of 2.5 months (RR 1.03, CI 0.88 to 1.20; 383 participants, 2 studies), but the paromomycin group had more skin/local reactions (such as inflammation, vesiculation, pain, redness, or itch) (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.01; 4 studies; 713 participants). For all of these outcomes, the certainty of evidence was very low, meaning we are unsure about these results.Trial authors did not report the percentage of lesions cured after the end of treatment or speed of healing for either of these key comparisons.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was very low-certainty evidence to support the effectiveness of itraconazole and paromomycin ointment for OWCL in terms of cure (i.e. microbiological or histopathological cure and percentage of participants completely cured). Both of these interventions incited more adverse effects, which were mild in nature, than their comparisons, but we could draw no conclusions regarding safety due to the very low certainty of the evidence for this outcome.We downgraded the key outcomes in these two comparisons due to high risk of bias, inconsistency between the results, and imprecision. There is a need for large, well-designed international studies that evaluate long-term effects of current therapies and enable a reliable conclusion about treatments. Future trials should specify the species of leishmaniasis; trials on types caused by Leishmania infantum, L aethiopica, andL donovani are lacking. Research into the effects of treating women of childbearing age, children, people with comorbid conditions, and those who are immunocompromised would also be helpful.It was difficult to evaluate the overall efficacy of any of the numerous treatments due to the variable treatment regimens examined and because RCTs evaluated different Leishmania species and took place in different geographical areas. Some outcomes we looked for but did not find were degree of functional and aesthetic impairment, change in ability to detect Leishmania, quality of life, and emergence of resistance. There were only limited data on prevention of scarring.
Topics: Adult; Animals; Anti-Infective Agents; Antiprotozoal Agents; Complementary Therapies; Cryotherapy; Asia, Eastern; Female; Hot Temperature; Humans; Itraconazole; Laser Therapy; Leishmania major; Leishmania tropica; Leishmaniasis, Cutaneous; Male; Middle Aged; Middle East; Ointment Bases; Paromomycin; Photochemotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29192424
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005067.pub5 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Jun 2018To evaluate the evidence for use of different formulations of amphotericin B (AmB), minimum effective dose for each formulation and its comparative efficacy against... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the evidence for use of different formulations of amphotericin B (AmB), minimum effective dose for each formulation and its comparative efficacy against other drugs in achieving definitive cure of visceral leishmaniasis.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis included following data sources: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL. Controlled prospective clinical trials (randomized or nonrandomized, including dose-ranging studies) conducted between 1996 and 2017 with at least one treatment group receiving AmB were included (published data only). The primary outcome was definitive cure at 6 months. Adverse events and mortality were assessed as secondary outcomes. The PROSPERO registration number for this review is CRD42017067488.
RESULTS
Thirty-one studies (26 from India) that enrolled 6903 patients into 84 study groups met the selection criteria. In India, liposomal AmB was not inferior to AmB deoxycholate (relative risk 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96-1.03, two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 514 participants, high-quality evidence), and a single dose of the earlier formulation as low as 3.75 mg/kg achieved a cure rate of over 89% (95% CI 70.6-97.2). AmB deoxycholate was as effective as miltefosine (relative risk 0.99, 95% CI 0.95-1.03, two trials, 523 participants, high-quality evidence) and may be better than paromomycin (relative risk 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.07, one trial, 667 participants, low-quality evidence) in achieving definitive cure.
CONCLUSIONS
AmB is an efficacious drug in the Indian subcontinent. Further evidence is needed from prospective clinical trials in other endemic geographical regions.
Topics: Amphotericin B; Antiprotozoal Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Deoxycholic Acid; Drug Combinations; Drug Compounding; Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Humans; Leishmaniasis, Visceral; Male; Paromomycin; Phosphorylcholine; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29138100
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2017.11.008 -
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases Mar 2016Leishmania aethiopica is the etiological agent of cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) in Ethiopia and can cause severe and complicated cases such as diffuse CL (DCL),... (Review)
Review
Leishmania aethiopica is the etiological agent of cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) in Ethiopia and can cause severe and complicated cases such as diffuse CL (DCL), mucocutaneous leishmaniasis or extensive CL, requiring systemic treatment. Despite the substantial burden, evidence-based treatment guidelines are lacking. We conducted a systematic review of clinical studies reporting on treatment outcomes of CL due to L aethiopica in order to help identify potentially efficacious medications on CL that can be taken forward for clinical trials. We identified a total of 24 records reporting on 506 treatment episodes of CL presumably due to L aethiopica. The most commonly used drugs were antimonials (n = 201), pentamidine (n = 150) and cryotherapy (n = 103). There were 20 case reports/series, with an overall poor study quality. We only identified two small and/or poor quality randomized controlled trials conducted a long time ago. There were two prospective non-randomized studies reporting on cryotherapy, antimonials and pentamidine. With cryotherapy, cure rates were 60-80%, and 69-85% with antimonials. Pentamidine appeared effective against complicated CL, also in cases non-responsive to antimonials. However, all studies suffered from methodological limitations. Data on miltefosine, paromomycin and liposomal amphotericin B are extremely scarce. Only a few studies are available on DCL. The only potentially effective treatment options for DCL seem to be antimonials with paromomycin in combination or pentamidine, but none have been properly evaluated. In conclusion, the evidence-base for treatment of complicated CL due to L aethiopica is extremely limited. While antimonials remain the most available CL treatment in Ethiopia, their efficacy and safety in CL should be better defined. Most importantly, alternative first line treatments (such as miltefosine or paromomycin) should be explored. High quality trials on CL due to L aethiopica are urgently needed, exploring group sequential methods to evaluate several options in parallel.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Antiprotozoal Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Cryotherapy; Ethiopia; Female; Humans; Leishmania; Leishmaniasis, Cutaneous; Male; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 26938448
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004495 -
PloS One 2017The mainstays of cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) treatment, in several world regions, are pentavalent antimony (Sbv) compounds administered parenterally, despite their... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The mainstays of cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) treatment, in several world regions, are pentavalent antimony (Sbv) compounds administered parenterally, despite their recognized toxicity, which requires frequent laboratory monitoring and complicates their use in areas with scarce infrastructure. As result of these drawbacks, the WHO Expert Committee on leishmaniasis has expanded the recommendations for the use of local therapies, including Sbv intralesional infiltration (IL-Sbv), as CL therapy alternatives even in the New World. However, the efficacy of these approaches has never been compiled. The aim of this study was to critically and systematically assess the efficacy of IL-Sbv for CL treatment.
METHODOLOGY
The PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews and the Cochrane manual were followed. The sources used were the MEDLINE and LILACS databases and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform of the World Health Organization. The outcome of interest was a clinical cure, defined as complete re-epithelialization of all lesions. The IL-Sbv pooled cure rate was estimated for several subgroups and direct comparisons were performed when possible.
RESULTS
Thirty nine articles (40 studies) involving 5679 patients treated with IL-Sbv infiltration were included. In direct comparison, only three studies involving 229 patients compared IL-Sbv infiltration versus placebo and no difference was observed (OR: 1,9; 95%IC 0,93 to 3,82) based on cure rate 69.6% (95%CI 17.6-96.1%) and 83,2% (95%CI 66-92.7%) for placebo and IL-Sbv, respectively. In an alternative and non-comparative analysis, gathering all study arms using the intervention, the pooled IL-Sbv efficacy rate was 75% (95%CI 68-81%). In the Old World, the observed overall IL-Sbv efficacy rate was 75% (95%CI 66-82%), and the cure rates were significantly higher with sodium stibogluconate (SSG) than with meglumine antimoniate (MA): 83% (95%CI 75-90%) versus 68% (95%CI 54-79%), p = 0.03. Studies directly comparing IL-Sbv with topical 15% paromomycin ointment, IL hypertonic saline, radiofrequency-induced heat therapy, topical trichloroacetic acid and cryotherapy showed no significant difference in efficacy between the interventions. The analyses suggested a higher efficacy of IL-Sbv combined with cryotherapy (81.8%, 95%IC 62.4-92.4%) when compared with IL-Sbv alone (53.3%, 95%IC 46.1-66%), OR: 3.14 (95%CI 1.1-8.9), p = 0.03. In the New World, the global IL-Sbv efficacy was 77%(95%CI 66-85%). In contrast with the Old World, a significant difference favoring MA in relation to SSG was observed: 61% (95%CI 49-73%) versus 82% (95%CI 70-89%).By comparing IL infiltration schedules, it was determined that patients submitted to IL-Sbv treatments longer than 14 days had higher cure rates.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the high heterogeneity and low methodological quality of studies, an indirect comparison shows that the antimony infiltration efficacy rate is similar to that reported for antimony systemic use. The evidence gathered thus far is insufficient to identify the ideal IL therapeutic regime or estimate the rates of adverse events and mucosal late complications.
Topics: Antimony; Antimony Sodium Gluconate; Antiprotozoal Agents; Cryotherapy; Databases, Factual; Humans; Injections, Intralesional; Leishmaniasis, Cutaneous; Meglumine; Meglumine Antimoniate; Organometallic Compounds; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28926630
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184777