Search

Background Objectives: A 2.5-year placebo controlled double blind trial was conducted to investigate the safety and efficacy of AYUSH- SL, a poly- herbal Ayurvedic formulation on filarial lymphedema in different endemic areas of India. Lymphatic filariasis (LF) is caused by parasitic nematodes from Wuchereria bancrofti, Brugia malayi, or B. timori that are transmitted through mosquitoes. In Ayurveda, LF has been elaborately narrated under the heading Shlipada, and the literature also includes detailed therapeutic measures., Methods: The multicenter, prospective, parallel group interventional study of a total of 180 participants were recruited within the duration through competitive enrollment. Diagnosed cases of grade I and grade II filarial lymphedema of Grade I and Grade II (lower extremities) were included in the trial. The study group was treated with MDA and AYUSH-SL or its placebo tablet., Results: The control group had received MDA and a matching placebo. The primary outcome measure was the reduction in edema calculated for analysis by percentage reduction from baseline at the 4th, 12th and 24th week. Secondary outcome measures included improved quality of life (QoL), which was assessed using the Lymphatic Filariasis Specific QoL Questionnaire, and prevention of recurrence of acute episodes, which was evaluated by investigating the presence and severity of episodes in the past 4 weeks. The water displacement method for the evaluation of the efficacy of the intervention was shown to be highly significant compared to the baseline value (right leg; 3071.60 ± 970.482, 2828.40±829.339, p<0.001and Left leg; 3158.69 ± 1136.391, 2890.73 ±1077.475, p<0.001)., Interpretation Conclusion: There was significant improvement of Quality of Life in the LF QoL Questionnaire (p <0.001) at each follow-up visit in both groups. Safety estimations on hematologic and biochemical parameters were within limits and or changes were not significant. The results revealed that AYUSH- SL is safe and effective for FL due to its comprehensive anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, and anti-allergic activities., (Copyright © 2024 Journal of Vector Borne Diseases.)

Background & objectives Although multi-drug therapy has decreased the burden of disease, leprosy is yet to be eliminated. Accelerating progress requires optimal use of existing tools, advanced diagnostic tests, newer drugs, and vaccines. The search for a vaccine with therapeutic and preventive potential is ongoing, but evidence on effectiveness and safety is lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis will evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of leprosy vaccines in humans. Methods In June 2024, three databases were systematically searched with updated search keywords. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) pertaining to leprosy vaccines for humans which evaluated either therapeutic or prophylactic vaccines in leprosy with a placebo or active comparator arm, with full-text access, were included in the study. There were no restrictions on language, country or date. For the risk of bias assessment in the studies included, the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 tool for RCTs was used. A P value (two-sided) of <0.05 was considered as significant for all tests; however for heterogeneity, a one-sided P value of <0.1 was considered as statistically significant. The quality of generated evidence specific to the desired outcomes were assessed using the GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024561651). Results A total of 2163 studies were retrieved from different databases. After removing duplicates and full text screening, 12 articles were finally selected. Out of these studies, eight used leprosy vaccines on prophylactic basis, while four used leprosy vaccines on therapeutic basis. In therapeutic use of leprosy vaccine, Ramu's score was found to be significantly protective [-3.06 (95% confidence interval (CI): -3.96 to -2.16)] among the recipients of the therapeutic leprosy vaccine. Bacterial index was found to be insignificant [-0.26 (95% CI: -1.54 to 1.03)] among the recipients of therapeutic leprosy vaccine. In subgroup analysis among the eight prophylactic vaccine studies, pooled relative risk was found to be 0.61 (95% CI: 0.41 - 0.91). Interpretation & conclusions The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that both prophylactic and therapeutic leprosy vaccines were significantly better compared to the placebo. Leprosy vaccine in the form of Mw/Mycobacterium welchii/MIP along with combination of World Health Organization (WHO) multi-drug therapy (MDT) or Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccine along with second line treatment with rifampicin were found to be protective among the recipients.