| Literature DB >> 22174993 |
Pouran Layegh1, Omid Rajabi, Mahmoud Reza Jafari, Parisa Emamgholi Tabar Malekshah, Toktam Moghiman, Hami Ashraf, Roshanak Salari.
Abstract
Background. Topical treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis is an attractive alternative avoiding toxicities of parenteral therapy while being administered through a simple painless route. Recently liposomal formulations of amphotericin B have been increasingly used in the treatment of several types of leishmaniasis. Aims. The efficacy of a topical liposomal amphotericin B formulation was compared with intralesional glucantime in the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis. Methods. From 110 patients, the randomly selected 50 received a topical liposomal formulation of amphotericin B into each lesion, 3-7 drops twice daily, according to the lesion's size and for 8 weeks. The other group of 60 patients received intralesional glucantime injection of 1-2 mL once a week for the same period. The clinical responses and side effects of both groups were evaluated weekly during the treatment course. Results. Per-protocol analysis showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.317, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.610 (0.632-4.101)). Moreover, after intention-to-treat analysis, the same results were seen (P = 0.650, 95% CI = 0.1.91 (0.560-2.530)). Serious post treatment side effects were not observed in either group. Conclusions. Topical liposomal amphotericin B has the same efficacy as intralesional glucantime in the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22174993 PMCID: PMC3228299 DOI: 10.1155/2011/656523
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Parasitol Res ISSN: 2090-0023
Figure 1The flow of participants through each stage of our study.
Demographic and cutaneous leishmaniasis characteristics of the studied population.
| Intralesional glucantime | Liposomal amphotericin B |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. of patients | 60 | 50 | |
|
| |||
| Male | 21 | 23 | 0.241 |
| Female | 39 | 27 | |
|
| |||
| (mean ± SD) | 25.30 ± 15.70 | 20.54 ± 18.72 | 0.150 |
| No. of lesions | 1.4 ± 0.76 | 1.91 ± 1.02 | <0.05 |
| (mean ± SD) | |||
|
| 3.84 ± 1.75 | 4.24 ± 1.24 | 0.166 |
|
| |||
| Papuloplaque | 53 | 33 | 0.011 |
| Nodule | 5 | 8 | |
| Ulcer | 2 | 9 | |
|
| |||
| Head and neck | 22 | 26 | 0.185 |
| Hand | 32 | 18 | |
| Leg and trunk | 6 | 6 |
Figure 2Improvement rate of the two groups based on change in induration size of lesions.
Comparison of therapeutic response rates in the studied groups using the intention-to-treat approach and per-protocol analysis.
| Proportion (%) of patients with cure at 8 weeks | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analytical assumptiona | AmB group | GL group | OR (95% CI) |
|
| (AmB versus GL) | ||||
| Per protocol | 22/39 (56.4) | 25/37 (67.6) | 1.610 (0.632, 4.101) | 0.317 |
| ITT | 22/50 (44.0) | 29/60 (48.3) | 1.91 (0.560, 2.530) | 0.650 |
GL: glucantime; AmB: liposomal amphotericin B; ITT: intention-to-treat; OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval.
aPer protocol: analysis excluding patients that were lost to follow up, ITT: analysis including patients lost to follow up throughout the study, who were considered to have experienced treatment failure.