Moore E M, Lockwood D N
Hospital for Tropical Diseases, University College London Hospital.
J Glob Infect Dis. 2010 May;2(2):151-8. doi: 10.4103/0974-777X.62883.
The available treatment options for visceral leishmaniasis (VL) have problems relating to efficacy, adverse effects and cost, making treatment a complex issue. We review the evidence relating to the different methods of treatment in relation to - efficacy and toxicity of the drugs in different areas of the world; ability to monitor side effects, length of treatment; ability of patients to pay for and stay safe during treatment, ability of the healthcare services to give intramuscular, intravenous or oral therapy; the sex and child-bearing potential of the patient and the immune status of the patient. The high mortality of untreated/ poorly treated VL infection makes the decisions paramount, but a unified and coordinated response by each area is likely to be more effective and informative to future policies than an ad hoc response. For patients in resource-rich countries, liposomal amphotericin B appears to be the optimal treatment. In South Asia, miltefosine is being used; the combination of single dose liposomal amphotericin B and short course miltefosine looks encouraging but has the problem of potential reproductive toxicities in females. In Africa, the evidence to switch from SSG is not yet compelling. The need to monitor and plan for evolving drug failure, secondary to leishmania parasite resistance, is paramount. With a few drugs the options may be limited; however, we await key ongoing trials in both Africa and India to explore the effects of combination treatment. If safe and reliable combinations are revealed by the ongoing studies, it is far from clear as to whether this will avoid leishmania parasite resistance. The development of new drugs to add to the armamentarium is paramount. Lessons can be learnt from the management of diseases such as tuberculosis and malaria in terms of planning the switch to combination treatment. As important as establishing the best choice for specific antileishmanial agent is ensuring treatment centers, which can best manage the problems encountered during treatment, specifically malnutrition, bleeding, intercurrent infections, drug side effects and detecting and treating underlying immunosuppression.
内脏利什曼病(VL)现有的治疗方案在疗效、不良反应和成本方面存在问题,使得治疗成为一个复杂的问题。我们回顾了与不同治疗方法相关的证据,涉及以下方面:世界各地不同地区药物的疗效和毒性;监测副作用的能力、治疗时长;患者支付治疗费用并在治疗期间保持安全的能力;医疗服务机构提供肌肉注射、静脉注射或口服治疗的能力;患者的性别和生育潜力以及患者的免疫状态。未经治疗/治疗不当的VL感染导致的高死亡率使得这些决策至关重要,但与临时应对措施相比,各地区统一协调的应对措施可能对未来政策更有效且更具参考价值。对于资源丰富国家的患者,脂质体两性霉素B似乎是最佳治疗方法。在南亚,米替福新正在使用;单剂量脂质体两性霉素B和短疗程米替福新的联合使用看起来很有前景,但存在女性潜在生殖毒性的问题。在非洲,从戊烷脒改用其他药物的证据尚不充分。监测和规划因利什曼原虫耐药导致的药物失效演变至关重要。由于可用药物有限,选择可能受限;然而,我们正在等待非洲和印度正在进行的关键试验,以探索联合治疗的效果。如果正在进行的研究揭示了安全可靠的联合治疗方案,那么这是否能避免利什曼原虫耐药还远不清楚。开发新的药物以扩充治疗手段至关重要。在规划转向联合治疗方面,可以从结核病和疟疾等疾病的管理中吸取经验教训。与确定最佳抗利什曼病药物同样重要的是确保有能够妥善处理治疗期间遇到的问题(特别是营养不良、出血、并发感染、药物副作用以及检测和治疗潜在免疫抑制)的治疗中心。