The pharmacokinetics of miltefosine in leishmaniasis patients are, to a great extent, unknown. We examined and characterized the pharmacokinetics of miltefosine in a group of patients with Old World (Leishmania major) cutaneous leishmaniasis. Miltefosine plasma concentrations were determined in samples taken during and up to 5 months after the end of treatment from 31 Dutch military personnel who contracted cutaneous leishmaniasis in Afghanistan and were treated with 150 mg miltefosine/day for 28 days. Samples were analyzed with a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assay with a lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) of 4 ng/ml. Population pharmacokinetic modeling was performed with nonlinear mixed-effect modeling, using NONMEM. The pharmacokinetics of miltefosine could best be described by an open two-compartment disposition model, with a first elimination half-life of 7.05 days and a terminal elimination half-life of 30.9 days. The median concentration in the last week of treatment (days 22 to 28) was 30,800 ng/ml. The maximum duration of follow-up was 202 days after the start of treatment. All analyzed samples contained a concentration above the LLOQ. Miltefosine is eliminated from the body much slower than previously thought and is therefore still detectable in human plasma samples taken 5 to 6 months after the end of treatment. The presence of subtherapeutic miltefosine concentrations in the blood beyond 5 months after treatment might contribute to the selection of resistant parasites, and moreover, the measures for preventing the teratogenic risks of miltefosine treatment should be reconsidered.

In this article, the authors provide practical treatment recommendations for imported CL and ML in Europe, drawn up from the review by the European experts.

This review addresses the question of whether the risk of developing mucosal leishmaniasis (ML) warrants systemic treatment in all patients with New World cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) or whether local treatment might be an acceptable alternative. The risk of patients with New World CL developing ML after the initial infection has been the main argument for systemic treatment. However, this statement needs re-evaluation and consideration of all the available data. The putative benefit of preventing ML should outweigh the toxicity of systemic antileishmanial therapy. To assess the need for and risk of systemic treatment the following factors were reviewed: the incidence and prevalence of ML in endemic populations and in travellers; the severity of mucosal lesions; the efficacy of current options to treat ML; the toxicity and, to a lesser extent, the costs of systemic treatment; the risk of developing ML after local treatment; and the strengths and limitations of current estimates of the risk of developing ML in different situations. Local treatment might be considered as a valuable treatment option for travellers suffering from New World CL, provided that there are no risk factors for developing ML such as multiple lesions, big lesions (>4 cm(2)), localisation of the lesion on the head or neck, immunosuppression or acquisition of infection in the high Andean countries, notably Bolivia.

BackgroundLeishmaniasis is increasingly reported among travellers. Leishmania species vary in sensitivity to available therapies. Fast and reliable molecular techniques have made species-directed treatment feasible. Many treatment trials have been designed poorly, thus developing evidence-based guidelines for species-directed treatment is difficult. Published guidelines on leishmaniasis in travellers do not aim to be comprehensive or do not quantify overall treatment success for available therapies. We aimed at providing comprehensive species-directed treatment guidelines.Methodology/Principal FindingsEnglish literature was searched using PubMed. Trials and observational studies were included if all cases were parasitologically confirmed, the Leishmania species was known, clear clinical end-points and time points for evaluation of treatment success were defined, duration of follow-up was adequate and loss to follow-up was acceptable. The proportion of successful treatment responses was pooled using mixed effects methods to estimate the efficacy of specific therapies. Final ranking of treatment options was done by an expert panel based on pooled efficacy estimates and practical considerations. 168 studies were included, with 287 treatment arms. Based on Leishmania species, symptoms and geography, 25 clinical categories were defined and therapy options ranked. In 12/25 categories, proposed treatment agreed with highest efficacy data from literature. For 5/25 categories no literature was found, and in 8/25 categories treatment advise differed from literature evidence. For uncomplicated cutaneous leishmaniasis, combination of intralesional antimony with cryotherapy is advised, except for L. guyanensis and L. braziliensis infections, for which systemic treatment is preferred. Treatment of complicated (muco)cutaneous leishmaniasis differs per species. For visceral leishmaniasis, liposomal amphotericin B is treatment of choice.Conclusions/SignificanceOur study highlights current knowledge about species-directed therapy of leishmaniasis in returning travellers and also demonstrates lack of evidence for treatment of several clinical categories. New data can easily be incorporated in the presented overview. Updates will be of use for clinical decision making and for defining further research.