Laboratório de Pesquisa Clínica e Vigilância em Leishmanioses, Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Centro de Transplante de Medula Óssea, Instituto Nacional de Câncer José Alencar Gomes da Silva, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021 Sep 23;15(9):e0009734. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009734. eCollection 2021 Sep.
Treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) remains challenging since the drugs currently used are quite toxic, thus contributing to lethality unrelated to the disease itself but to adverse events (AE). The main objective was to evaluate different treatment regimens with meglumine antimoniate (MA), in a reference center in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
A historical cohort of 592 patients that underwent physical and laboratory examination were enrolled between 2000 and 2017. The outcome measures of effectiveness were epithelialization and complete healing of cutaneous lesions. AE were graded using a standardized scale. Three groups were evaluated: Standard regimen (SR): intramuscular (IM) MA 10-20 mg Sb5+/kg/day during 20 days (n = 46); Alternative regimen (AR): IM MA 5 mg Sb5+/kg/day during 30 days (n = 456); Intralesional route (IL): MA infiltration in the lesion(s) through subcutaneous injections (n = 90). Statistical analysis was performed through Fisher exact and Pearson Chi-square tests, Kruskal-Wallis, Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests.
SR, AR and IL showed efficacy of 95.3%, 84.3% and 75.9%, with abandonment rate of 6.5%, 2.4% and 3.4%, respectively. IL patients had more comorbidities (58.9%; p = 0.001), were mostly over 50 years of age (55.6%), and had an evolution time longer than 2 months (65.6%; p = 0.02). Time for epithelialization and complete healing were similar in IL and IM MA groups (p = 0.9 and p = 0.5; respectively). Total AE and moderate to severe AE that frequently led to treatment interruption were more common in SR group, while AR and IL showed less toxicity.
CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: AR and IL showed less toxicity and may be good options especially in CL cases with comorbidities, although SR treatment was more effective. IL treatment was an effective and safe strategy, and it may be used as first therapy option as well as a rescue scheme in patients initially treated with other drugs.
由于目前使用的药物毒性相当大,治疗皮肤利什曼病(CL)仍然具有挑战性,这导致了与疾病本身无关但与不良反应(AE)有关的死亡率。主要目的是在巴西里约热内卢的一个参考中心评估不同的葡甲胺锑治疗方案。
在 2000 年至 2017 年间,共招募了 592 名接受体格检查和实验室检查的患者进行了一项历史性队列研究。有效性的结果衡量标准是上皮化和皮肤病变的完全愈合。AE 使用标准化量表进行分级。评估了三组:标准方案(SR):肌肉内(IM)葡甲胺锑 10-20mg Sb5+/kg/天,共 20 天(n = 46);替代方案(AR):IM 葡甲胺锑 5mg Sb5+/kg/天,共 30 天(n = 456);皮损内途径(IL):通过皮下注射在病变部位(多个)内注射葡甲胺锑(n = 90)。通过 Fisher 确切检验和 Pearson Chi-square 检验、Kruskal-Wallis、Kaplan-Meier 和对数秩检验进行统计分析。
SR、AR 和 IL 的有效率分别为 95.3%、84.3%和 75.9%,放弃率分别为 6.5%、2.4%和 3.4%。IL 患者合并症更多(58.9%;p = 0.001),大多数年龄超过 50 岁(55.6%),且病程超过 2 个月(65.6%;p = 0.02)。IL 和 IM 葡甲胺锑组的上皮化和完全愈合时间相似(p = 0.9 和 p = 0.5;分别)。SR 组总 AE 和常导致治疗中断的中重度 AE 更为常见,而 AR 和 IL 组毒性较小。
结论/意义:AR 和 IL 的毒性较小,特别是在合并症的 CL 病例中可能是较好的选择,尽管 SR 治疗更有效。IL 治疗是一种有效且安全的策略,可作为最初用其他药物治疗的患者的一线治疗方案或抢救方案。