Department of Clinical Medicine, Rajendra Memorial Research Institute of Medical Sciences (Indian Council of Medical Research), Patna, Bihar, India.
Department of Pharmacology, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab.
Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2021 Jan-Feb;87(1):34-41. doi: 10.25259/IJDVL_410_19.
Treatment of post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis cases is of paramount importance for kala-azar elimination; however, limited treatment regimens are available as of now.
To compare the effectiveness of liposomal amphotericin B vs miltefosine in post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis patients.
This was a randomized, open-label, parallel-group study. A total of 100 patients of post kala azar dermal leishmaniasis, aged between 5 and 65 years were recruited, 50 patients in each group A (liposomal amphotericin B) and B (miltefosine). Patients were randomized to receive either liposomal amphotericin B (30 mg/kg), six doses each 5 mg/kg, biweekly for 3 weeks or miltefosine 2.5 mg/kg or 100 mg/day for 12 weeks. All the patients were followed at 3rd, 6th and 12th months after the end of the treatment.
In the liposomal amphotericin B group, two patients were lost to follow-up, whereas four patients were lost to follow-up in the miltefosine group. The initial cure rate by "intention to treat analysis" was 98% and 100% in liposomal amphotericin B and miltefosine group, respectively. The final cure rate by "per protocol analysis" was 74.5% and 86.9% in liposomal amphotericin B and miltefosine, respectively. Twelve patients (25.5%) in the liposomal amphotericin B group and six patients (13%) in the miltefosine group relapsed. None of the patients in either group developed any serious adverse events.
Quantitative polymerase chain reaction was not performed at all the follow-up visits and sample sizes.
Efficacy of miltefosine was found to be better than liposomal amphotericin B, hence, the use of miltefosine as first-line therapy for post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis needs to be continued. However, liposomal amphotericin B could be considered as one of the treatment options for the elimination of kala-azar from the Indian subcontinent.
治疗内脏利什曼病后皮肤利什曼病病例对于消除内脏利什曼病至关重要;然而,目前可用的治疗方案有限。
比较两性霉素 B 脂质体与米替福新治疗内脏利什曼病后皮肤利什曼病患者的疗效。
这是一项随机、开放标签、平行组研究。共招募了 100 例年龄在 5 至 65 岁之间的内脏利什曼病后皮肤利什曼病患者,每组 50 例,A 组(两性霉素 B 脂质体)和 B 组(米替福新)。患者随机接受两性霉素 B 脂质体(30 mg/kg),每 5 mg/kg 剂量 6 次,每 2 周一次,共 3 周,或米替福新 2.5 mg/kg 或 100 mg/天,共 12 周。所有患者在治疗结束后第 3、6 和 12 个月进行随访。
在两性霉素 B 脂质体组中,有 2 例患者失访,而米替福新组有 4 例患者失访。“意向治疗分析”的初始治愈率分别为两性霉素 B 脂质体组 98%和米替福新组 100%。“按方案分析”的最终治愈率分别为两性霉素 B 脂质体组 74.5%和米替福新组 86.9%。两性霉素 B 脂质体组有 12 例(25.5%)患者复发,米替福新组有 6 例(13%)患者复发。两组均无患者发生任何严重不良事件。
并非在所有随访时都进行定量聚合酶链反应,且样本量较小。
米替福新的疗效优于两性霉素 B 脂质体,因此需要继续将米替福新作为治疗内脏利什曼病后皮肤利什曼病的一线药物。然而,两性霉素 B 脂质体可以被视为消除印度次大陆内脏利什曼病的治疗选择之一。