BackgroundAlternative treatments for visceral leishmaniasis (VL) are required in East Africa. Paromomycin sulphate (PM) has been shown to be efficacious for VL treatment in India.MethodsA multi-centre randomized-controlled trial (RCT) to compare efficacy and safety of PM (20 mg/kg/day for 21 days) and PM plus sodium stibogluconate (SSG) combination (PM, 15 mg/kg/day and SSG, 20 mg/kg/day for 17 days) with SSG (20 mg/kg/day for 30 days) for treatment of VL in East Africa. Patients aged 4–60 years with parasitologically confirmed VL were enrolled, excluding patients with contraindications. Primary and secondary efficacy outcomes were parasite clearance at 6-months follow-up and end of treatment, respectively. Safety was assessed mainly using adverse event (AE) data.FindingsThe PM versus SSG comparison enrolled 205 patients per arm with primary efficacy data available for 198 and 200 patients respectively. The SSG & PM versus SSG comparison enrolled 381 and 386 patients per arm respectively, with primary efficacy data available for 359 patients per arm. In Intention-to-Treat complete-case analyses, the efficacy of PM was significantly lower than SSG (84.3% versus 94.1%, difference = 9.7%, 95% confidence interval, CI: 3.6 to 15.7%, p = 0.002). The efficacy of SSG & PM was comparable to SSG (91.4% versus 93.9%, difference = 2.5%, 95% CI: −1.3 to 6.3%, p = 0.198). End of treatment efficacy results were very similar. There were no apparent differences in the safety profile of the three treatment regimens.ConclusionThe 17 day SSG & PM combination treatment had a good safety profile and was similar in efficacy to the standard 30 day SSG treatment, suggesting suitability for VL treatment in East Africa.Clinical Trials Registration www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00255567
BackgroundVisceral leishmaniasis (VL) is a major health problem in developing countries. The untreated disease is fatal, available treatment is expensive and often toxic, and drug resistance is increasing. Improved treatment options are needed. Paromomycin was shown to be an efficacious first-line treatment with low toxicity in India.MethodsThis was a 3-arm multicentre, open-label, randomized, controlled clinical trial to compare three treatment regimens for VL in East Africa: paromomycin sulphate (PM) at 15 mg/kg/day for 21 days versus sodium stibogluconate (SSG) at 20 mg/kg/day for 30 days; and the combination of both dose regimens for 17 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was cure based on parasite-free tissue aspirates taken 6 months after treatment.FindingsOverall, 135 patients per arm were enrolled at five centres in Sudan (2 sites), Kenya (1) and Ethiopia (2), when the PM arm had to be discontinued due to poor efficacy. The trial has continued with the higher dose of PM as well as the combination of PM and SSG arms. These results will be reported later. Baseline patient characteristics were similar among treatment arms. The overall cure with PM was significantly inferior to that with SSG (63.8% versus 92.2%; difference 28.5%, 95%CI 18.8% to 38.8%, p<0.001). The efficacy of PM varied among centres and was significantly lower in Sudan (14.3% and 46.7%) than in Kenya (80.0%) and Ethiopia (75.0% and 96.6%). No major safety issues with PM were identified.ConclusionThe efficacy of PM at 15 mg/kg/day for 21 days was inadequate, particularly in Sudan. The efficacy of higher doses and the combination treatment warrant further studies.
BackgroundSSG&PM over 17 days is recommended as first line treatment for visceral leishmaniasis in eastern Africa, but is painful and requires hospitalization. Combination regimens including AmBisome and miltefosine are safe and effective in India, but there are no published data from trials of combination therapies including these drugs from Africa.MethodsA phase II open-label, non-comparative randomized trial was conducted in Sudan and Kenya to evaluate the efficacy and safety of three treatment regimens: 10 mg/kg single dose AmBisome plus 10 days of SSG (20 mg/kg/day), 10 mg/kg single dose AmBisome plus 10 days of miltefosine (2.5mg/kg/day) and miltefosine alone (2.5 mg/kg/day for 28 days). The primary endpoint was initial parasitological cure at Day 28, and secondary endpoints included definitive cure at Day 210, and pharmacokinetic (miltefosine) and pharmacodynamic assessments.ResultsIn sequential analyses with 49–51 patients per arm, initial cure was 85% (95% CI: 73–92) in all arms. At D210, definitive cure was 87% (95% CI: 77–97) for AmBisome + SSG, 77% (95% CI 64–90) for AmBisome + miltefosine and 72% (95% CI 60–85) for miltefosine alone, with lower efficacy in younger patients, who weigh less. Miltefosine pharmacokinetic data indicated under-exposure in children compared to adults.ConclusionNo major safety concerns were identified, but point estimates of definitive cure were less than 90% for each regimen so none will be evaluated in Phase III trials in their current form. Allometric dosing of miltefosine in children needs to be evaluated.Trial RegistrationThe study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01067443
BackgroundThe prevalence of malaria parasites in adults in Africa is less well researched than in children. Therefore, a demographic surveillance site was used to conduct a household survey of adults in the malaria endemic area of Maseno division in Kisumu County near Lake Victoria.MethodsA random survey of 1,190 adults living in a demographic health surveillance site in a malaria endemic area of 70,805 population size was conducted, measuring presence of malaria parasites by slide microscopy. Data were analysed using STATA to calculate the prevalence of malaria and associated risk factors.ResultsThe adult prevalence of presence of malaria parasites in Maseno was 28% (95% CI: 25.4–31.0%). Gender was a significant sociodemographic risk factor in both univariate (OR 1.5, p = 0.005) and multivariate (OR 1.4, p = 0.019) analyses. Females were 50% more likely to have malaria than men.ConclusionsPresence of malaria parasites is common in the adult population of this endemic area, and the rate is greatly increased in women. The presence of such an adult pool of malaria parasites represents a key reservoir factor in transmission of parasites to children, and is relevant for plans to eradicate malaria.
BackgroundA recent study has shown that treatment of visceral leishmaniasis (VL) with the standard dose of 15 mg/kg/day of paromomycin sulphate (PM) for 21 days was not efficacious in patients in Sudan. We therefore decided to test the efficacy of paramomycin for a longer treatment duration (15 mg/kg/day for 28 days) and at the higher dose of 20 mg/kg/day for 21 days.MethodsThis randomized, open-label, dose-finding, phase II study assessed the two above high-dose PM treatment regimens. Patients with clinical features and positive bone-marrow aspirates for VL were enrolled. All patients received their assigned courses of PM intramuscularly and adverse events were monitored. Parasite clearance in bone-marrow aspirates was tested by microscopy at end of treatment (EOT, primary efficacy endpoint), 3 months (in patients who were not clinically well) and 6 months after EOT (secondary efficacy endpoint). Pharmacokinetic data were obtained from a subset of patients weighing over 30 kg.Findings42 patients (21 per group) aged between 4 and 60 years were enrolled. At EOT, 85% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI]: 63.7% to 97.0%) in the 20 mg/kg/day group and 90% of patients (95% CI: 69.6% to 98.8%) in the 15 mg/kg/day group had parasite clearance. Six months after treatment, efficacy was 80.0% (95% CI: 56.3% to 94.3%) and 81.0% (95% CI: 58.1% to 94.6%) in the 20 mg/kg/day and 15 mg/kg/day groups, respectively. There were no serious adverse events. Pharmacokinetic profiles suggested a difference between the two doses, although numbers of patients recruited were too few to make it significant (n = 3 and n = 6 in the 20 mg/kg/day and 15 mg/kg/day groups, respectively).ConclusionData suggest that both high dose regimens were more efficacious than the standard 15 mg/kg/day PM for 21 days and could be further evaluated in phase III studies in East Africa.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00255567
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.