BackgroundCase management in children with cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is mainly based on studies performed in adults. We aimed to determine the efficacy and harms of interventions to treat CL in children.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of clinical trials and cohort studies, assessing treatments of CL in children (≤12 years old). We performed structured searches in PubMed, CENTRAL, LILACS, SciELO, Scopus, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), clinicaltrials.gov and Google Scholar. No restrictions regarding ethnicity, country, sex or year of publication were applied. Languages were limited to English, Spanish and Portuguese. Two reviewers screened articles, completed the data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. A qualitative summary of the included studies was performed.ResultsWe identified 1092 records, and included 8 manuscripts (6 Randomized Clinical Trials [RCT] and 2 non-randomized studies). Most of the articles excluded in full-text review did not report outcomes separately for children. In American CL (ACL), 5 studies evaluated miltefosine and/or meglumine antimoniate (MA). Their efficacy varied from 68–83% and 17–69%, respectively. In Old-World CL (OWCL), two studies evaluated systemic therapies: rifampicin and MA; and one study assessed efficacy of cryotherapy (42%, Per Protocol [PP]) vs intralesional MA (72%, PP). Few studies (4) provided information on adverse events (AEs) for children, and no serious AEs were reported in participants. Risk of bias was generally low to unclear in ACL studies, and unclear to high in OWCL studies.ConclusionInformation on efficacy of treatment for CL in children is scarce. There is an unmet need to develop specific formulations, surveillance of AEs, and guidelines both for the management of CL and clinical trials involving the pediatric population.RegistrationThe protocol of this review was registered in the PROSPERO International register of systematic reviews, number CRD42017062164.

Chronic skin lesions constitute a clinical diagnostic challenge. We report the case of a patient whose facial lesion was histopathologically compatible with squamous cell carcinoma and hence programmed for Mohs surgery. However, review of the clinical and epidemiological history led to laboratory diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis, treatment with miltefosine, and complete resolution of the lesion.

Local therapies have been proposed as safe and effective alternatives to systemic drugs in cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL), especially among less severe cases. However, they are not widely available and used in endemic places, including Colombia, which has a high burden of disease. Further complicating the uptake of local therapies is that different treatment guidelines have been established by the World Health Organization (WHO) and Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). Using data from a large referral center in Colombia, we determined the proportion of patients who would be eligible for and potentially benefit from local therapies according to both international guidelines. The sample included 1,891 confirmed cases of CL aged ³ 12 years, mostly infected with Leishmania Viannia panamensis (91%, n = 601/660), between 2004 and 2014. Overall, 57% of the sample had one lesion, whereas another 31% had two to three lesions. For 74% of patients, all lesions were in an area other than head or neck. The maximum lesion size was £ 3 cm for 58% and < 5 cm for 88% of the sample. Based on our data, up to 56% of patients could have been eligible for local therapies according to the WHO criteria. By contrast, only 23% were eligible according to the more restrictive PAHO criteria. Regardless, these data suggest that a substantial proportion of CL patients in Colombia may benefit from local therapies given their relatively mild presentation of disease and low risk of complications. Individualized risk-benefit assessment and guideline adjustments may increase local therapy eligibility and benefit a large number of patients.