Treatment regimens for post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis (PKDL) are usually extrapolated from those for visceral leishmaniasis (VL), but drug pharmacokinetics (PK) can differ due to disease-specific variations in absorption, distribution, and elimination. This study characterized PK differences in paromomycin and miltefosine between 109 PKDL and 264 VL patients from eastern Africa. VL patients showed 0.55-fold (95%CI: 0.41-0.74) lower capacity for paromomycin saturable reabsorption in renal tubules, and required a 1.44-fold (1.23-1.71) adjustment when relating renal clearance to creatinine-based eGFR. Miltefosine bioavailability in VL patients was lowered by 69% (62-76) at treatment start. Comparing PKDL to VL patients on the same regimen, paromomycin plasma exposures were 0.74-0.87-fold, while miltefosine exposure until the end of treatment day was 1.4-fold. These pronounced PK differences between PKDL and VL patients in eastern Africa highlight the challenges of directly extrapolating dosing regimens from one leishmaniasis presentation to another.
To improve visceral leishmaniasis (VL) treatment in Eastern Africa, 14- and 28-day combination regimens of paromomycin plus allometrically dosed miltefosine were evaluated. As the majority of patients affected by VL are children, adequate paediatric exposure to miltefosine and paromomycin is key to ensuring good treatment response.
METHODS
Pharmacokinetic data were collected in a multicentre randomized controlled trial in VL patients from Kenya, Sudan, Ethiopia and Uganda. Patients received paromomycin (20 mg/kg/day for 14 days) plus miltefosine (allometric dose for 14 or 28 days). Population pharmacokinetic models were developed. Adequacy of exposure and target attainment of paromomycin and miltefosine were evaluated in children and adults.
RESULTS
Data from 265 patients (59% =12 years) were available for this pharmacokinetic analysis. Paromomycin exposure was lower in paediatric patients compared with adults [median (IQR) end-of-treatment AUC0–24h 187 (162–203) and 242 (217–328) µg·h/mL, respectively], but were both within the IQR of end-of-treatment exposure in Kenyan and Sudanese adult patients from a previous study. Cumulative miltefosine end-of-treatment exposure in paediatric patients and adults [AUCD0–28 517 (464–552) and 524 (456–567) µg·day/mL, respectively] and target attainment [time above the in vitro susceptibility value EC90 27 (25–28) and 30 (28–32) days, respectively] were comparable to previously observed values in adults.
CONCLUSIONS
Paromomycin and miltefosine exposure in this new combination regimen corresponded to the desirable levels of exposure, supporting the implementation of the shortened 14 day combination regimen. Moreover, the lack of a clear exposure–response and exposure–toxicity relationship indicated adequate exposure within the therapeutic range in the studied population, including paediatric patients.