Topical 15% Paromomycin-Aquaphilic for Bolivian Leishmania braziliensis Cutaneous Leishmaniasis: A Randomized, Placebo-controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) presents as 1 or more skin lesions, which makes local therapy inherently attractive compared to systemic therapy that exposes the whole body to a drug. For 30 years, 15% paromomycin topical formulations have been in clinical experimentation. Recently, 15% paromomycin in Aquaphilic, a complex base to facilitate adsorption into the lesion, was found superior to aquaphilic vehicle for Old World Leishmania major disease. METHODS: We performed a randomized trial of 15% paromomycin in Aquaphilic (40 patients) vs Aquaphilic vehicle (20 patients) vs a positive control (intralesional pentamidine; 20 patients) against L. braziliensis CL in Bolivia. RESULTS: Cure rates after 6 months of follow-up were 31 of 40 (77.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 62.5-88%) for paromomycin-Aquaphilic, 2 of 20 (10%, 95% CI 3-30%) for Aquaphilic vehicle (P < .0001 vs paromomycin-Aquaphilic), and 14 of 20 (70%, 95% CI 48-85.5%) for intralesional pentamidine. Both paromomycin-Aquaphilic and the Aquaphilic vehicle were very well tolerated, with only grade 1 adverse reactions in 5-10% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Against L. braziliensis CL, a prevalent, aggressive form of New World CL, 15% paromomycin-aquaphilic was vastly superior to a negative vehicle control and was comparable in efficacy to a positive control. This study enlarges the potential use of 15% paromomycin-Aquaphilic from one form of Old World CL to CL more generally. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03096457.

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.