Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 22 October 2018; Volume 12 (Issue 10); e0006830.; DOI:10.1371/journal.pntd.0006830
Goyal V, Mahajan R, Pandey K, Singh SN, Singh RS, et al.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 22 October 2018; Volume 12 (Issue 10); e0006830.; DOI:10.1371/journal.pntd.0006830
BACKGROUND
In 2010, WHO recommended the use of new short-course treatment regimens in kala-azar elimination efforts for the Indian subcontinent. Although phase 3 studies have shown excellent results, there remains a lack of evidence on a wider treatment population and the safety and effectiveness of these regimens under field conditions.
METHODS
This was an open label, prospective, non-randomized, non-comparative, multi-centric trial conducted within public health facilities in two highly endemic districts and a specialist referral centre in Bihar, India. Three treatment regimens were tested: single dose AmBisome (SDA), concomitant miltefosine and paromomycin (Milt+PM), and concomitant AmBisome and miltefosine (AmB+Milt). Patients with complicated disease or significant co-morbidities were treated in the SDA arm. Sample sizes were set at a minimum of 300 per arm, taking into account inter-site variation and an estimated failure risk of 5% with 5% precision. Outcomes of drug effectiveness and safety were measured at 6 months. The trial was prospectively registered with the Clinical Trials Registry India: CTRI/2012/08/002891.
RESULTS
Out of 1,761 patients recruited, 50.6% (n = 891) received SDA, 20.3% (n = 358) AmB+Milt and 29.1% (n = 512) Milt+PM. In the ITT analysis, the final cure rates were SDA 91.4% (95% CI 89.3-93.1), AmB+Milt 88.8% (95% CI 85.1-91.9) and Milt+PM 96.9% (95% CI 95.0-98.2). In the complete case analysis, cure rates were SDA 95.5% (95% CI 93.9-96.8), AmB+Milt 95.5% (95% CI 92.7-97.5) and Milt+PM 99.6% (95% CI 98.6-99.9). All three regimens were safe, with 5 severe adverse events in the SDA arm, two of which were considered to be drug related.
CONCLUSION
All regimens showed acceptable outcomes and safety profiles in a range of patients under field conditions. Phase IV field-based studies, although extremely rare for neglected tropical diseases, are good practice and an important step in validating the results of more restrictive hospital-based studies before widespread implementation, and in this case contributed to national level policy change in India.
In 2010, WHO recommended the use of new short-course treatment regimens in kala-azar elimination efforts for the Indian subcontinent. Although phase 3 studies have shown excellent results, there remains a lack of evidence on a wider treatment population and the safety and effectiveness of these regimens under field conditions.
METHODS
This was an open label, prospective, non-randomized, non-comparative, multi-centric trial conducted within public health facilities in two highly endemic districts and a specialist referral centre in Bihar, India. Three treatment regimens were tested: single dose AmBisome (SDA), concomitant miltefosine and paromomycin (Milt+PM), and concomitant AmBisome and miltefosine (AmB+Milt). Patients with complicated disease or significant co-morbidities were treated in the SDA arm. Sample sizes were set at a minimum of 300 per arm, taking into account inter-site variation and an estimated failure risk of 5% with 5% precision. Outcomes of drug effectiveness and safety were measured at 6 months. The trial was prospectively registered with the Clinical Trials Registry India: CTRI/2012/08/002891.
RESULTS
Out of 1,761 patients recruited, 50.6% (n = 891) received SDA, 20.3% (n = 358) AmB+Milt and 29.1% (n = 512) Milt+PM. In the ITT analysis, the final cure rates were SDA 91.4% (95% CI 89.3-93.1), AmB+Milt 88.8% (95% CI 85.1-91.9) and Milt+PM 96.9% (95% CI 95.0-98.2). In the complete case analysis, cure rates were SDA 95.5% (95% CI 93.9-96.8), AmB+Milt 95.5% (95% CI 92.7-97.5) and Milt+PM 99.6% (95% CI 98.6-99.9). All three regimens were safe, with 5 severe adverse events in the SDA arm, two of which were considered to be drug related.
CONCLUSION
All regimens showed acceptable outcomes and safety profiles in a range of patients under field conditions. Phase IV field-based studies, although extremely rare for neglected tropical diseases, are good practice and an important step in validating the results of more restrictive hospital-based studies before widespread implementation, and in this case contributed to national level policy change in India.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1 August 2010; Volume 83 (Issue 2); 357-364.; DOI:10.4269/ajtmh.2010.10-0156
Sinha PK, Roddy P, Palma PP, Kociejowski A, Lima MA, et al.
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1 August 2010; Volume 83 (Issue 2); 357-364.; DOI:10.4269/ajtmh.2010.10-0156
We evaluated, through the prospective monitoring of 251 patients at Sadar Hospital in Bihar, India, the effectiveness and safety of 20 mg/kg body weight of liposomal amphotericin B for the treatment of visceral leishmaniasis. The treatment success rates for the intention-to-treat, per protocol, and intention-to-treat worse-case scenario analyses were 98.8%, 99.6%, and 81.3%, respectively. Nearly one-half of patients experienced mild adverse events, but only 1% developed serious but non–life-threatening lips swelling. The lost to follow-up rate was 17.5%. Our findings indicate that the 20 mg/kg body weight treatment dosage is effective and safe under routine program conditions. Given that the exorbitant cost of liposomal amphotericin B is a barrier to its widespread use, we recommend further study to monitor and evaluate a lowered dosage and a shorter treatment course.