Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparative study on liposomal amphotericin B and other therapies in the treatment of mucosal leishmaniasis: A 15-year retrospective cohort study.
Santos, Carolina Rocio; Tuon, Felipe Francisco; Cieslinski, Juliette; de Souza, Regina Maia; Imamura, Rui; Amato, Valdir Sabbaga.
Afiliação
  • Santos CR; Departamento de Molestias Infecciosas e Parasitarias, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil.
  • Tuon FF; School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Parana, Curitiba, Parana, Brasil.
  • Cieslinski J; School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Parana, Curitiba, Parana, Brasil.
  • de Souza RM; Laboratório de Parasitologia LIM-46, Instituto de Medicina Tropical, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brasil.
  • Imamura R; Departamento de Otorrinolaringologia, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil.
  • Amato VS; Departamento de Molestias Infecciosas e Parasitarias, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil.
PLoS One ; 14(6): e0218786, 2019.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31242231
BACKGROUND: Liposomal amphotericin B (L-AMB) has been used for mucosal leishmaniasis (ML), but comparative studies on L-AMB and other drugs used for the treatment of ML have not been conducted. The present study aimed to evaluate the outcome of patients with ML who were treated with L-AMB. METHODS: This is a 15-year retrospective study of Brazilian patients with a confirmed diagnosis of ML. The therapeutic options for the treatment of ML consisted of L-AMB, amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC), deoxycholate amphotericin B (d-AMB), itraconazole, antimonial pentavalent, or pentamidine. Healing, cure rate and adverse effects (AEs) associated with the drugs used to treat this condition were analyzed. RESULTS: In 71 patients, a total of 105 treatments were evaluated. The outcome of the treatment with each drug was compared, and results showed that L-AMB was superior to other therapeutic regimens (P = 0.001; odds ratio [OR] = 4.84; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.78-13.17). d-AMB had worse AEs than other treatment regimens (P = 0.001, OR = 0.09; 95% CI = 0.09-0.43). Approximately 66% of the patients presented with AEs during ML treatment. Although L-AMB was less nephrotoxic than d-AMB, it was associated with acute kidney injury compared with other drugs (P <0.05). CONCLUSION: L-AMB was more effective than other therapies for the treatment of ML. However, a high incidence of toxicity was associated with its use. Therapeutic choices should be reassessed, and the development of new drugs is necessary for the treatment of ML.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Leishmania braziliensis / Leishmaniose Mucocutânea / Anfotericina B / Antiprotozoários Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Incidence_studies / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País/Região como assunto: America do sul / Brasil Idioma: En Revista: PLoS One Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Leishmania braziliensis / Leishmaniose Mucocutânea / Anfotericina B / Antiprotozoários Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Incidence_studies / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País/Região como assunto: America do sul / Brasil Idioma: En Revista: PLoS One Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article