Miltefosine Combined with Intralesional Pentamidine for Leishmania braziliensis Cutaneous Leishmaniasis in Bolivia.

Bolivian cutaneous leishmaniasis due to Leishmania braziliensis was treated with the combination of miltefosine (150 mg/day for 28 days) plus intralesional pentamidine (120 µg/mm2 lesion area on days 1, 3, and 5). Ninety-two per cent of 50 patients cured. Comparison to historic controls at our site suggests that the efficacy of the two drugs was additive. Adverse effects and cost were also additive. This combination may be attractive when a prime consideration is efficacy (e.g., in rescue therapy), avoidance of parenteral therapy, or the desire to treat locally and also provide systemic protection against parasite dissemination.

Cost-effectiveness of meglumine antimoniate versus miltefosine caregiver DOT for the treatment of pediatric cutaneous leishmaniasis.

BACKGROUND: Oral miltefosine has been shown to be non-inferior to first-line, injectable meglumine antimoniate (MA) for the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) in children. Miltefosine may be administered via in-home caregiver Directly Observed Therapy (cDOT), while patients must travel to clinics to receive MA. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing miltefosine by cDOT versus MA for pediatric CL in southwest Colombia. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPLE FINDINGS: We developed a Monte Carlo model comparing the cost-per-cure of miltefosine by cDOT compared to MA from patient, government payer, and societal perspectives (societal = sum of patient and government payer perspective costs). Drug effectiveness and adverse events were estimated from clinical trials. Healthcare utilization and costs of travel were obtained from surveys of providers and published sources. The primary outcome was cost-per-cure reported in 2015 USD. Treatment efficacy, costs, and adherence were varied in sensitivity analysis to assess robustness of results. Treatment with miltefosine resulted in substantially lower cost-per-cure from a societal and patient perspective, and slightly higher cost-per-cure from a government payer perspective compared to MA. Mean societal cost-per-cure were $531 (SD±$239) for MA and $188 (SD±$100) for miltefosine, a mean cost-per-cure difference of +$343. Mean cost-per-cure from a patient perspective were $442 (SD ±$233) for MA and $30 (SD±$16) for miltefosine, a mean difference of +$412. Mean cost-per-cure from a government perspective were $89 (SD±$55) for MA and $158 (SD±$98) for miltefosine, with a mean difference of -$69. Results were robust across a variety of assumptions in univariate and multi-way analysis. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Treatment of pediatric cutaneous leishmaniasis with miltefosine via cDOT is cost saving from patient and societal perspectives, and moderately more costly from the government payer perspective compared to treatment with MA. Results were robust over a range of sensitivity analyses. Lower drug price for miltefosine could result in cost saving from a government perspective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of combination therapies for visceral leishmaniasis in the Indian subcontinent.

BACKGROUND: Visceral leishmaniasis is a systemic parasitic disease that is fatal unless treated. We assessed the cost and cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies for the treatment of visceral leishmaniasis in the Indian subcontinent. In particular we examined whether combination therapies are a cost-effective alternative compared to monotherapies. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of all possible mono- and combination therapies for the treatment of visceral leishmaniasis in the Indian subcontinent (India, Nepal and Bangladesh) from a societal perspective using a decision analytical model based on a decision tree. Primary data collected in each country was combined with data from the literature and an expert poll (Delphi method). The cost per patient treated and average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios expressed as cost per death averted were calculated. Extensive sensitivity analysis was done to evaluate the robustness of our estimations and conclusions. With a cost of US$92 per death averted, the combination miltefosine-paromomycin was the most cost-effective treatment strategy. The next best alternative was a combination of liposomal amphotericin B with paromomycin with an incremental cost-effectiveness of $652 per death averted. All other strategies were dominated with the exception of a single dose of 10mg per kg of liposomal amphotericin B. While strategies based on liposomal amphotericin B (AmBisome) were found to be the most effective, its current drug cost of US$20 per vial resulted in a higher average cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analysis showed the conclusion to be robust to variations in the input parameters over their plausible range. CONCLUSIONS: Combination treatments are a cost-effective alternative to current monotherapy for VL. Given their expected impact on the emergence of drug resistance, a switch to combination therapy should be considered once final results from clinical trials are available.

Drug combinations for visceral leishmaniasis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Several attempts have been made to combine drugs for treating visceral leishmaniasis, but only recently have effective drugs become available and combinations been tested systematically. RECENT FINDINGS: Sequential treatments with liposomal amphotericin B followed by miltefosine or paromomycin (as short as 7 days), as well as the concomitant administration of miltefosine and paromomycin (for 10 days) are very effective in India (>95%). Sodium stibogluconate plus paromomycin for 17 days is more than 90% effective in East Africa. The shortened combination regimens are cost-effective in India. No combination has been tested so far in Brazil, Nepal and Bangladesh, although studies may be expected in the near future. No cost-effectiveness analysis has been done as yet outside India. SUMMARY: There is evidence of high efficacy and benefits with sequential and co-administration treatments in India. More studies are needed in other endemic areas. Introducing combinations and scaling up their use will be challenging. Experience acquired with malaria may be useful. Proper monitoring of use and effects (efficacy and safety) will be required. Currently there are no options for fixed-dose combination treatments for leishmaniasis.

Cost-effectiveness projections of single and combination therapies for visceral leishmaniasis in Bihar, India.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of current monotherapies and prospective combinations for treating visceral leishmaniasis (VL) in Bihar, India in terms of years of life lost (YLL) averted as well as deaths averted. METHODS: We employed two methods to estimate the number of avertable deaths in our analysis: one using estimated mortality, the other using direct incidence estimates for VL. Costs of care are based on an average private hospital in Bihar, and data on drug costs were obtained both locally and from the World Health Organization. RESULTS: The cost of monotherapies per averted YLL ranged from US$2 for paromomycin in an outpatient setting to US$20-22 for AmBisome at 20 mg/kg. The corresponding costs per death averted ranged from US$53-54 to US$523-527. Combinations ranged US$5-8 per YLL averted and US$124-213 per death averted. CONCLUSION: The available treatments for VL are cost-effective, and our mortality and incidence-based methods produce consistent estimates. The combinations considered here were more cost-effective than most monotherapies. Having multiple treatment options and combining drugs are also likely to reduce drug pressure and prolong the drugs' life-span of effective use.

Anthropometrically derived dosing and drug costing calculations for treating visceral leishmaniasis in Bihar, India.

OBJECTIVE AND METHOD: To estimate drug costs of treating visceral leishmaniasis (VL) based on data on the VL population structure from the high-burden, antimony-resistant area of Northern Bihar, India. RESULTS: Paromomycin is the cheapest option ($7450 to treat 1000 patients). Treating 1000 patients with oral miltefosine would cost $119,250 at the current private market price or $64,383-$75,129 at preferential public sector price depending on the size of the order. With AmBisome it would be $163,600 or $229,500 depending on the dose (10 or 15 mg/kg total). These costs are without considering other direct costs (daily intramuscular injections for 3 weeks for paromomycin; intravenous devices and hospitalization for AmBisome; directly observed treatment if applied for miltefosine) and indirect costs. CONCLUSION: These calculations provide useful basic information for projections.

Drug policy for visceral leishmaniasis: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To facilitate the choice of the best visceral leishmaniasis (VL) treatment strategy for first-line health services in (VL)-endemic areas, we compared in a formal decision analysis the cost and the cost-effectiveness of the different available options. METHODS: We selected four drug regimens for VL on the basis of frequency of use, feasibility and reported efficacy studies. The point estimates and the range of plausible values of effectiveness and cost were retrieved from a literature review. A decision tree was constructed and the strategy minimizing the cost per death averted was selected. RESULTS: Treatment with amphotericin B deoxycholate was the most effective approach in the baseline analysis and averted 87.2% of all deaths attributable to VL. The least expensive and the most cost-effective treatment was the miltefosine regimen, and the most expensive and the least cost-effective was AmBisome treatment. The cost of drug and medical care are the main determinants of the cost-effectiveness ranking of the alternative schemes. Sensitivity analysis showed that antimonial was competitive with miltefosine in the low-resistance regions. CONCLUSION: In areas with >94% response rates to antimonials, generic sodium stibogluconate remains the most cost-effective option for VL treatment, mainly due to low drug cost. In other regions, miltefosine is the most cost-effective option of treatment, but its use as a first-line drug is limited by its teratogenicity and rapid resistance development. AmBisome in mono- or combination therapy is too expensive to compete in cost-effectiveness with the other regimens.

Progress in the treatment of a neglected infectious disease: visceral leishmaniasis.

Visceral leishmaniasis (kala-azar) is a disseminated intracellular protozoal infection. Most cases (90%) occur in the rural regions of five countries: India, Sudan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Brazil. As with other infectious diseases embedded in high-level poverty, developing and/or delivering new treatments for visceral leishmaniasis had been painfully slow or nonexistent. However, despite persistent unresolved obstacles (e.g., drug affordability), renewed interest in visceral leishmaniasis and numerous successful treatment trials have combined to turn a therapeutic corner in the past 5 years, yielding new alternatives to conventional pentavalent antimony. Advances include the use of low-cost generic pentavalent antimony, rediscovery of amphotericin B, short-course regimens via lipid formulations of amphotericin B, retesting injectible paromyomycin and, of clear-cut importance, identifying miltefosine (Impavido, Zentaris) as the first effective oral therapy for this neglected disease.