Retrospective Long-Term Evaluation of Miltefosine-Allopurinol Treatment in Canine Leishmaniosis.

Miltefosine-Allopurinol (MIL-AL) combination is reported to be one of the most effective treatments for canine leishmaniosis, thanks to its oral administration and MIL-documented low impact on renal function. However, MIL-AL is considered a second-choice treatment when compared to meglumine-antimoniate-allopurinol combination, mainly due to the risk of earlier relapses. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the MIL-AL protocol during a long-term follow-up with an average duration of nine years. Dogs were living in Southern Italy (Puglia, Italy) in an area considered endemic for Canine leishmaniosis (CanL). Inclusion criteria were clinical and/or clinicopathological signs consistent with CanL; positive result to quantitative ELISA; and negativity to the most frequent canine vector-borne infections. All dogs received 2 mg/kg MIL for 28 days, and 10 mg/kg AL, BID, for a period varying between 2 and 12 months. Ancillary treatments were allowed according to the clinical condition of the dog. A total clinical score and a total clinicopathological score were calculated at each time point by attributing one point to each sign or alteration present and then by adding all points. Improvement after each treatment was defined by the reduction of at least 50% of the total score. A survival analysis (Kaplan-Meier curve) was performed for quantifying the probability of the events occurring during the study follow-up. The following events were considered: decreased and negative ELISA results; improvement/recovery of the clinical and clinicopathological alterations; and relapse of leishmaniasis. One hundred seventy-three dogs (75f and 98m) were retrospectively included in the study by examining their clinical records since the first diagnosis of CanL. One hundred forty-three (83%) dogs were under five years of age. The mean duration of the follow-up period was 5.4 (±1.1) years with a minimum of 3.2 years and a maximum of 9 years. All dogs received a first treatment of MIL-AL at inclusion; then, during the follow-up course, 30 dogs required a second treatment, 2 dogs required a third treatment and 1 dog required a fourth and a fifth treatment. The mean time interval between the first and the second treatment was 27.2 (±18.3) months. After the first treatment, all dogs had decreased ELISA levels, in an average interval of 2.6 (±1.6) months. One hundred seventy dogs (98%) experienced a clinical improvement (mean time 3.0 ± 4.9 months); 152 (88%) dogs were considered clinically recovered after a mean time of 16.7 ± 13.5 months. A similar trend was observed for clinicopathological alterations; interestingly, proteinuria decreased in most dogs ( < 0.0001-Chi-square for trends). Thirty dogs experienced relapses, the earliest after 4.8 months. The mean time without relapse was 90.4 (±2.5) months. In relapsed dogs, the mean time for clinical improvement after the second treatment was 8.6 (±12.6) months, whereas it was 11.0 (±15.4) months for clinicopathological alterations. Five dogs had limited gastrointestinal side effects associated with MIL treatment. The present study confirms that the MIL-AL protocol can be considered one of the most effective treatments for CanL therapy, mainly for its capacity to provide a long-time clinical improvement in a large majority of treated dogs. As reported in the literature, the clinical stabilization of dogs does not occur immediately after treatment, probably due to the particular pharmacokinetic properties of MIL. The efficacy of MIL-AL decreases in dogs that need more than one treatment, suggesting the necessity to alternate anti- drugs for the treatment of relapses. Side effects were transient and slight, even in dogs that required several treatments.