Treatment of mucocutaneous leishmaniasis - A systematic review.

Mucocutaneous leishmaniasis is a severe infectious disease, predominantly endemic in Central and South America and is characterized by granulomatous, destructive mucosal lesions in the oral, nasal, and pharyngeal cavities. It is caused by protozoa of the genus Leishmania spp. transmitted to humans by sandflies. Mucocutaneous leishmaniasis occurs after untreated or inadequately treated cutaneous leishmaniasis and is more common in immunocompromised patients. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize all reported treatment options for mucocutaneous leishmaniasis. This review is based on all English, German, French, Spanish and Portuguese articles published in the databases "PubMed" and "Lilacs" from 1995 to 2020. Most of the medical literature is limited to case reports, small case series, retrospective studies, and a few randomized controlled trials. Various treatment options include pentavalent antimonates such as meglumine antimonate or sodium stibogluconate, amphotericin B (liposomal, deoxycholate, lipid complex, colloidal dispersion), miltefosine, and pentamidine. Other therapeutic options include itraconazole, fluconazole, ketoconazole, aminosidine sulfate, and azithromycin. The choice of drug depends primarily on its availability in the endemic area and the patient's comorbidities.

Case Report: In Situ and Systemic Immune Response to Mucosal Leishmaniasis in an HIV-Infected Patient.

In situ and systemic evaluations of the immune responses of HIV-infected patients to mucosal leishmaniasis have been poorly described. We describe a recently diagnosed HIV-infected patient with mucosal leishmaniasis who was characterized by a CD4 count of 85 cells/mm3 and nasal septum destruction resulting from pruritic and ulcerated nasal mucosa with crust formation and progression over 2 years. In situ and systemic immune evaluations of T cell activation, memory, and exhaustion were conducted using cytofluorometric assays, and sequencing of the Leishmania species was performed. The immune profile of HIV-infected patient with mucosal leishmaniasis shows a mixed Th1/Th2 pattern and an activated and exhausted status.

Clinicopathological characteristics of cutaneous and mucocutaneous leishmaniasis in patients treated with TNF-α inhibitors.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The increasing use of biologics in the treatment of inflammatory diseases has led to more cases of leishmaniasis in patients subjected to iatrogenic immunosuppression. The main objective was to describe the characteristics of the patients with cutaneous (CL) or mucocutaneous (MCL) leishmaniasis who were receiving a biological therapy at the time of diagnosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study was design based on a cohort of patients diagnosed with CL or MCL. All patients who were being treated with biologicals were included. For each case, two matched non-exposed patients were included for comparison. RESULTS: 38 patients were diagnosed with CL or MCL while being treated with tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) inhibitors. Leishmaniasis presented more frequently as a plaque (58.3%) with a larger median lesion size (2.5 cm), ulceration (92.1%), and required a greater median number of intralesional meglumine antimoniate infiltrations (3 doses) (P < 0.05) than in non-exposed patients. We found no systemic involvement in patients being treated with anti-TNF-α. We did not find differences regarding the treatment characteristics whether biologic therapy was modified or not. CONCLUSIONS: Although management should be individualized, maintenance of biologic therapy does not seem to interfere with treatment of CL or MCL.

Mucosal Leishmaniasis of the lip: Report of an Exuberant case in a Young man.

BACKGROUND: Leishmaniasis is a tropical disease caused by protozoan parasites of the genus Leishmania. Mucosal leishmaniasis has been described as secondary to the cutaneous form; however, isolated mucosal involvement can also occur. Specifically, mucosal leishmaniasis of the lip is poorly described and its diagnosis challenges clinicians. METHODS: We herein report a case of mucosal leishmaniasis affecting the lower lip without cutaneous involvement in a 20-year-old Venezuelan man. The patient had no relevant past medical history. Clinically, a mass-like lesion with ulcerations and crusts was observed. RESULTS: Microscopically, the lesion was composed of granulomatous inflammation along with macrophages containing intracytoplasmic inclusions similar to round-shaped Leishmania. The species Leishmania (Viannia) braziliensis was confirmed. Treatment with meglumine antimonate was effective. The lesion healed satisfactorily, and no side effects or recurrences were observed. CONCLUSION: Clinicians should be aware of isolated forms of mucosal leishmaniasis of the lip, even in cases where the cutaneous lesion is undetected or clinically manifests as self-limiting. Knowing the endemic areas in the scenario of the dynamics of the ecoepidemiology of leishmaniasis is also essential for surveillance and counselling of the population.

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.

Directrices para el tratamiento de las leishmaniasis en la región de las américas - 2 ed / Guidelines for the treatment of leishmaniasis in the region of the Americas - 2 ed

Las leishmaniasis son enfermedades infecciosas desatendidas de gran importancia en la Región de las Américas debido a su morbilidad, mortalidad y amplia distribución geográfica. De las tres formas clínicas principales, la cutánea es la más común y la visceral es la forma más grave, ya que puede causar la muerte de hasta 90% de las personas que no reciban tratamiento. En el 2013, la Organización Panamericana de la Salud (OPS) elaboró recomendaciones para el tratamiento de las leishmaniasis en la Región de las Américas utilizando la metodología de clasificación de la valoración, la elaboración y la evaluación de las recomendaciones (GRADE, por su sigla en inglés). No obstante, dada la evidencia acumulada desde entonces, se hizo necesario revisar esas recomendaciones. En esta segunda edición se presentan las recomendaciones actualizadas sobre el tratamiento de las leishmaniasis, y se detallan los esquemas y los criterios de indicación del tratamiento en el contexto regional. Estas directrices presentan modificaciones sustanciales con respecto a la primera edición. En el caso de la leishmaniasis cutánea, se ha eliminado el ketoconazol de las opciones terapéuticas, el número de especies de Leishmania para las que hay evidencia sólida de la eficacia de la miltefosina ha aumentado de dos a cuatro y la recomendación de administrar antimoniales intralesionales ahora es fuerte. Con respecto a la leishmaniasis mucosa, se incluye una recomendación fuerte sobre el uso de antimoniales pentavalentes con o sin pentoxifilina oral. Por lo que respecta a la leishmaniasis visceral, la recomendación fuerte sobre el uso de antimoniales pentavalentes y desoxicolato de anfotericina B ahora es condicional. También hay evidencia contundente en contra del uso de miltefosina en pacientes con leishmaniasis causada por Leishmania infantum. Otros cambios importantes son el desglose de las recomendaciones según si se trata de pacientes adultos o pediátricos, la inclusión de las especies de Leishmania y, en el caso de los pacientes inmunocomprometidos, la introducción de una recomendación fuerte contra el uso de antimoniales pentavalentes. Esta segunda edición es una versión revisada de la publicación Leishmaniasis en las Américas: recomendaciones para el tratamiento: https://iris.paho.org/handle/10665.2/7704

Treatment of Bolivian Leishmania braziliensis Cutaneous and Mucosal Leishmaniasis.

Although infection with Leishmania braziliensis is perhaps the key reason to treat New World cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) and mucosal leishmaniasis (ML), the total literature contains relatively few reported cases. With the aim of supplementing the meager clinical information available, we searched the records of Jorochito (Dermatology) Hospital, Bolivia, for the years 1999-2020 and identified treatment records for 1,696 naive CL patients and 355 naive ML patients. Because follow-up was poor for this real-world treatment experience in the developing world, only 255 CL patients (15%) and 114 ML patients (32%) attended follow-up at Hospital. We therefore engaged in an Active Search for "lost" patients, located a further 542 CL patients (32%) and 142 ML patients (44%), thus eventually accomplished follow up on 697 CL patients (41%) and 256 ML patients (72%). Granular adverse event data derived from hospital records is listed for the 902 CL and 86 ML patients administered Glucantime intramuscularly, the 401 CL and 202 ML patients administered Glucantime intravenously, and the 163 CL and 89 ML patients administered miltefosine orally. Efficacy was obtained from hospital records for patients seen at hospital and from patient recall communicated by telephone for the patients found in the Active Search. The overall CL cure rate was 508 of 697 CL patients (73%) with follow-up: intramuscular Glucantime-196/293 (67%); intravenous Glucantime-90/126 (71%); intralesional Glucantime-34/54 (63%); oral miltefosine-52/69 (75%). The overall ML cure rate was 161 of 256 ML patients (63%) with follow-up: intramuscular Glucantime-26/48 (54%); intravenous Glucantime-66/104 (63%); intravenous amphotericin B deoxycholate-19/35 (54%); oral miltefosine-50/71 (70%). We offer this extensive adverse event and efficacy experience as useful guides for clinicians presented with a L. braziliensis infection. The cure rates also illustrate the quandary of New World CL and ML chemotherapy: sufficiently high to be useful but nevertheless needing augmentation with new agents.

A trespasser from a foreign land? A case report of primary mucosal leishmaniasis.

BACKGROUND: We report a clinically challenging and unusual case of L. donovani oral mucosal leishmaniasis. CASE PRESENTATION: Israeli resident with a former travel to central and North Africa, with no documented or prior cutaneous lesions presented with oral lesions of the maxillary gingiva and the upper lip. A delay in diagnosis and treatment have led to progression of the maxillary gingival lesions towards the hard palatal and the soft palate that could have potentially compromised the upper airway. CONCLUSIONS: This case highlights the importance of early diagnosis of leishmaniasis in patients with oral lesions and the laboratory workup necessary to appropriately characterize and treat the disease.

Safety and efficacy of allylamines in the treatment of cutaneous and mucocutaneous leishmaniasis: A systematic review.

Cutaneous and mucocutaneous leishmaniasis affect a million people yearly, leading to skin lesions and potentially disfiguring mucosal disease. Current treatments can have severe side effects. Allylamine drugs, like terbinafine, are safe, including during pregnancy. This review assesses efficacy and safety of allylamines for the treatment of cutaneous and mucocutaneous leishmaniasis. It followed the PRISMA statement for reporting and was preregistered in PROSPERO(CRD4201809068). MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Global Health Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and clinical trial registers were searched from their creation to May 24th, 2020. All original human, animal, and in vitro studies concerning allylamines and cutaneous or mucocutaneous leishmaniasis were eligible for inclusion. Comparators-if any-included both placebo or alternative cutaneous or mucocutaneous leishmaniasis treatments. Complete cure, growth inhibition, or adverse events served as outcomes. The search identified 312 publications, of which 22 were included in this systematic review. There were one uncontrolled and two randomised controlled trials. The only well-designed randomised controlled trial that compared the treatment efficacy of oral terbinafine versus intramuscular meglumine antimoniate in 80 Leismania tropica infected patients showed a non-significant lower cure rate for terbinafine vs meglumine antimoniate (38% vs 53%). A meta-analysis could not be performed due to the small number of studies, their heterogeneity, and low quality. This systematic review shows that there is no evidence of efficacy of allylamine monotherapy against cutaneous and mucocutaneous leishmaniasis. Further trials of allylamines should be carefully considered as the outcomes of an adequately designed trial were disappointing and in vitro studies indicate minimal effective concentrations that are not achieved in the skin during standard doses. However, the in vitro synergistic effects of allylamines combined with triazole drugs warrant further exploration.

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.