Efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis to preventing brucellosis in accidental exposure: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent brucellosis after accidental exposure to Brucella is an important topic in public health. This study aimed to systematically review the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis following accidental exposure to Brucella in preventing human brucellosis disease. METHODS: The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023456812). The outcomes included the incidence of brucellosis disease, adverse events rate, and antibiotic prophylaxis adherence. A comprehensive literature search, conducted until 20 November, 2023, involved Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and LILACS databases. Descriptive analysis and meta-analysis using R software were performed, risk of bias was assessed using JBI Critical appraisal tools, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE tool. RESULTS: Among 3102 initially identified records, eight studies involving 97 individuals accidentally exposed, all focused on high-risk accidental exposure to Brucella in laboratory settings, were included in the review. All studies reported the prophylactic treatment comprising doxycycline at a dosage of 100 mg twice daily, combined with rifampicin at 600 mg, both administered over 21 days. Prophylaxis adherence was reported in 86% of cases, and incidence of brucellosis post-treatment was 0.01. Adverse events, mainly gastrointestinal, occurred in 26% of cases. Critical appraisal revealed limitations in reporting demographics and clinical information. The certainty of evidence was rated as 'very low,' emphasising the need for caution in interpreting the observed outcomes due to study design constraints and the absence of comparative groups. CONCLUSIONS: PEP is an alternative practice reported in the literature, used in accidents with high-risk exposure to Brucella. The currently available evidence of the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis is insufficient to support a recommendation for or against the widespread use of antibiotic prophylaxis, so caution is needed in interpreting results due to the very low certainty of evidence, primarily stemming from case series and lack of comparative groups.

The cure rate after different treatments for mucosal leishmaniasis in the Americas: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Mucosal or mucocutaneous leishmaniasis is the most severe form of tegumentary leishmaniasis due to its destructive character and potential damage to respiratory and digestive tracts. The current treatment recommendations are based on low or very low-quality evidence, and pentavalent antimonial derivatives remain strongly recommended. The aim of this review was to update the evidence and estimate the cure rate and safety profile of the therapeutic options available for mucosal leishmaniasis (ML) in the Americas. METHODOLOGY: A systematic review was conducted in four different databases and by different reviewers, independently, to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy and toxicity associated with different treatments for ML. All original studies reporting cure rates in more than 10 patients from American regions were included, without restriction of design, language, or publication date. The risk of bias was assessed by two reviewers, using different tools according to the study design. The pooled cure rate based on the latest cure assessment reported in the original studies was calculated grouping all study arms addressing the same intervention. The protocol for this review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO: CRD42019130708. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Twenty-seven original studies from four databases fulfilled the selection criteria. A total of 1,666 patients with ML were treated predominantly with pentavalent antimonials in Brazil. Other interventions, such as pentamidine, miltefosine, imidazoles, aminosidine sulfate, deoxycholate and lipidic formulations of amphotericin B (liposomal, lipid complex, colloidal dispersion), in addition to combinations with pentoxifylline, allopurinol or sulfa were also considered. In general, at least one domain with a high risk of bias was identified in the included studies, suggesting low methodological quality. The pooled cure rate based on the latest cure assessment reported in the original studies was calculated grouping all study arms addressing the same intervention. It was confirmed that antimony is still the most used treatment for ML, with only moderate efficacy (possibly increased by combining with pentoxifylline). There is already evidence for the use of miltefosine for ML, with a cure rate similar to antimony, as observed in the only direct meta-analysis including 57 patients (OR: 1.2; 0.43-3.49, I2 = 0). It was possible to gather all descriptions available about adverse events reported during ML treatment, and the toxicity reflected the pattern informed in the manufacturers' technical information. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an overview of the clinical experience in the Americas related to ML treatment and points out interventions and possible combinations that are eligible to be explored in future well-designed studies.

Cost-effectiveness of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody diagnostic tests in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Although serologic tests for COVID-19 diagnosis are rarely indicated nowadays, they remain commercially available and widely used in Brazil. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of anti-SARS-CoV-2antibody diagnostic tests for COVID-19 in Brazil. METHODS: Eleven commercially available diagnostic tests, comprising five lateral-flow immunochromatographic assays (LFAs) and six immunoenzymatic assays (ELISA) were analyzed from the perspective of the Brazilian Unified Health System. RESULTS: The direct costs of LFAs ranged from US$ 11.42 to US$ 17.41and of ELISAs, from US$ 6.59 to US$ 10.31. Considering an estimated disease prevalence between 5% and 10%, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA (IgG) was the most cost-effective test, followed by the rapid One Step COVID-19 Test, at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$ 2.52 and US$ 1.26 per properly diagnosed case, respectively. Considering only the LFAs, at the same prevalence estimates, two tests, the COVID-19 IgG/IgM and the One Step COVID-19 Test, showed high effectiveness at similar costs. For situations where the estimated probability of disease is 50%, the LFAs are more costly and less effective alternatives. CONCLUSIONS: Nowadays there are few indications for the use of serologic tests in the diagnosis of COVID-19 and numerous commercially available tests, with marked differences are observed among them. In general, LFA tests are more cost-effective for estimated low-COVID-19-prevalences, while ELISAs are more cost-effective for high-pretest-probability scenarios.

Estimating direct costs of the treatment for mucosal leishmaniasis in Brazil.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to estimate the direct medical costs of the treatment for mucosal leishmaniasis (ML) using three therapeutic approaches in the Brazilian context. METHODS: We performed this economic assessment from the perspective of the Brazilian public healthcare system. The following therapeutic approaches were evaluated: meglumine antimoniate, liposomal amphotericin B, and miltefosine. Direct medical costs were estimated considering four treatment components: a) drug, b) combined medical products, c) procedures, and d) complementary tests. RESULTS: Treatment with meglumine antimoniate had the lowest average cost per patient (US$ 167.66), followed by miltefosine (US$ 259.92) in the outpatient treatment regimen. The average cost of treatment with liposomal amphotericin B was US$ 715.35 both in inpatient regimen. In all estimates, the drugs accounted for more than 60% of the total cost for each treatment approach. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the marked differences in costs between the therapeutic alternatives for ML. In addition to efficacy rates and costs related to adverse events, our data have the potential to support a complete cost-effectiveness study in the future. Complete analyses comparing costs and benefits for interventions will assist health managers in choosing drugs for ML treatment in Brazil as well as in establishing effective public health policies.

Estimating direct costs of the treatment for mucosal leishmaniasis in Brazil

Abstract INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to estimate the direct medical costs of the treatment for mucosal leishmaniasis (ML) using three therapeutic approaches in the Brazilian context. METHODS: We performed this economic assessment from the perspective of the Brazilian public healthcare system. The following therapeutic approaches were evaluated: meglumine antimoniate, liposomal amphotericin B, and miltefosine. Direct medical costs were estimated considering four treatment components: a) drug, b) combined medical products, c) procedures, and d) complementary tests. RESULTS: Treatment with meglumine antimoniate had the lowest average cost per patient (US$ 167.66), followed by miltefosine (US$ 259.92) in the outpatient treatment regimen. The average cost of treatment with liposomal amphotericin B was US$ 715.35 both in inpatient regimen. In all estimates, the drugs accounted for more than 60% of the total cost for each treatment approach. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the marked differences in costs between the therapeutic alternatives for ML. In addition to efficacy rates and costs related to adverse events, our data have the potential to support a complete cost-effectiveness study in the future. Complete analyses comparing costs and benefits for interventions will assist health managers in choosing drugs for ML treatment in Brazil as well as in establishing effective public health policies.

Mucosal leishmaniasis: the experience of a Brazilian referral center.

INTRODUCTION: Pentavalent antimonials (Sbv) are the most commonly used drugs for the treatment of mucosal leishmaniasis (ML), despite their high toxicity and only moderate efficacy. The aim of this study was to report therapeutic responses with different available options for ML. METHODS: This study was based on a review of clinical records of 35 patients (24 men and 11 women) treated between 2009 and 2015. RESULTS: The median age of patients was 63 years, and the median duration of the disease was 24 months. Seventeen patients received Sbv, while nine patients were treated with liposomal amphotericin B (AmB), and another nine patients were treated with fluconazole. Patients treated with AmB received a total median accumulated dose of 2550mg. The mean duration of azole use was 120 days, and the daily dose ranged from 450 to 900mg. At the three-month follow-up visit, the cure rate was 35%, 67%, and 22% for Sbv, AmB, and azole groups, respectively. At the six-month follow-up visit, the cure rates for Sbv, AmB, and azole groups were 71%, 78%, and 33%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There is a scarcity of effective ML treatment alternatives, and based on our observations, fluconazole is not a valid treatment option.

Mucosal leishmaniasis: the experience of a Brazilian referral center

Abstract INTRODUCTION Pentavalent antimonials (Sbv) are the most commonly used drugs for the treatment of mucosal leishmaniasis (ML), despite their high toxicity and only moderate efficacy. The aim of this study was to report therapeutic responses with different available options for ML. METHODS This study was based on a review of clinical records of 35 patients (24 men and 11 women) treated between 2009 and 2015. RESULTS The median age of patients was 63 years, and the median duration of the disease was 24 months. Seventeen patients received Sbv, while nine patients were treated with liposomal amphotericin B (AmB), and another nine patients were treated with fluconazole. Patients treated with AmB received a total median accumulated dose of 2550mg. The mean duration of azole use was 120 days, and the daily dose ranged from 450 to 900mg. At the three-month follow-up visit, the cure rate was 35%, 67%, and 22% for Sbv, AmB, and azole groups, respectively. At the six-month follow-up visit, the cure rates for Sbv, AmB, and azole groups were 71%, 78%, and 33%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS There is a scarcity of effective ML treatment alternatives, and based on our observations, fluconazole is not a valid treatment option.

Towards a standard protocol for antimony intralesional infiltration technique for cutaneous leishmaniasis treatment

BACKGROUND Despite its recognised toxicity, antimonial therapy continues to be the first-line drug for cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) treatment. Intralesional administration of meglumine antimoniate (MA) represents an alternative that could reduce the systemic absorption of the drug and its side effects. OBJECTIVES This study aims to validate the standard operational procedure (SOP) for the intralesional infiltration of MA for CL therapy as the first step before the assessment of efficacy and safety related to the procedure. METHODS The SOP was created based on 21 trials retrieved from the literature, direct monitoring of the procedure and consultation with experts. This script was submitted to a formal computer-aided inspection to identify readability, clarity, omission, redundancy and unnecessary information (content validation). For criterion and construct validations, the influence of critical condition changes (compliance with the instructions and professional experience) on outcome conformity (saturation status achievement), tolerability (pain referred) and safety (bleeding) were assessed. FINDINGS The median procedure length was 12 minutes and in 72% of them, patients classified the pain as mild. The bleeding was also classified as mild in 96.6% of the procedures. Full compliance with the SOP was observed in 66% of infiltrations. Despite this, in 100% of the inspected procedures, lesion saturation was observed at the end of infiltration, which means that it tolerates some degree of modification in its execution (robustness) without prejudice to the result. CONCLUSIONS The procedure is reproducible and can be used by professionals without previous training with high success and safety rates.

Towards a standard protocol for antimony intralesional infiltration technique for cutaneous leishmaniasis treatment.

BACKGROUND Despite its recognised toxicity, antimonial therapy continues to be the first-line drug for cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) treatment. Intralesional administration of meglumine antimoniate (MA) represents an alternative that could reduce the systemic absorption of the drug and its side effects. OBJECTIVES This study aims to validate the standard operational procedure (SOP) for the intralesional infiltration of MA for CL therapy as the first step before the assessment of efficacy and safety related to the procedure. METHODS The SOP was created based on 21 trials retrieved from the literature, direct monitoring of the procedure and consultation with experts. This script was submitted to a formal computer-aided inspection to identify readability, clarity, omission, redundancy and unnecessary information (content validation). For criterion and construct validations, the influence of critical condition changes (compliance with the instructions and professional experience) on outcome conformity (saturation status achievement), tolerability (pain referred) and safety (bleeding) were assessed. FINDINGS The median procedure length was 12 minutes and in 72% of them, patients classified the pain as mild. The bleeding was also classified as mild in 96.6% of the procedures. Full compliance with the SOP was observed in 66% of infiltrations. Despite this, in 100% of the inspected procedures, lesion saturation was observed at the end of infiltration, which means that it tolerates some degree of modification in its execution (robustness) without prejudice to the result. CONCLUSIONS The procedure is reproducible and can be used by professionals without previous training with high success and safety rates.

Estratégias para a elaboração do plano de farmacovigilância considerando o conhecimento e opinião dos profissionais de uma indústria pública / Strategies for developing pharmacovigilance plan considering the knowledge and opinions of industry professionals in a public

A farmacovigilância é uma importante atividade na promoção do uso racional e seguro de medicamentos e foi iniciada em Farmanguinhos, laboratório farmacêutico oficial da Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, no ano de 2007. A Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária, por meio da Resolução RDC nº 4, de 10 de fevereiro de 2009, prevê que toda indústria farmacêutica apresente, dentre outros documentos, seu Plano de Farmacovigilância (PFV), contendo um sistema de gerenciamento de risco que descreva as ações de rotina e ações adicionais propostas para a vigilância dos medicamentos. Esta regulamentação e seus guias trouxeram para o Brasil o entendimento internacional de que a farmacovigilância e a preocupação com o perfil de segurança deve ser iniciada ainda durante o desenvolvimento do medicamento, antes do lançamento do produto no mercado. O principal objetivo deste trabalho foi propor estratégias para construção do PFV,considerando os conhecimentos, atitudes e sugestões dos profissionais de Farmanguinhos sobre a farmacovigilância e as normas a ela referentes. Para tanto, foi realizado estudo transversal por meio de questionário semi estruturado, junto a87 profissionais selecionados de Farmanguinhos. A proposição de estratégias para a Farmacovigilância e para a construção do PFV, em Farmanguinhos, foi sistematizada utilizando-se as 5 (cinco) fases do processo de criação do conhecimento.