Search

Background: Human brucellosis is a neglected, re-emerging, and endemic zoonosis in many countries. The debilitating and disabling potential of the disease is a warning about its morbidity, generating socioeconomic impact. This review aims to update the current evidence on the efficacy and safety of therapeutic options for human brucellosis using the network meta-analysis (NMA). Methodology: A systematic search was conducted in four different databases by independent reviewers to assess overall therapy failure, adverse events, and time to defervescence associated with different therapies. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating any therapeutic drug intervention were selected, excluding non-original studies or studies related to localized forms of the disease or with less than 10 participants. Data were analyzed by frequentist statistics through NMA by random effects model. The risk of bias and certainty of evidence was assessed, this review was registered at PROSPERO. Results: Thirty-one (31) RCTs involving 4167 patients were included. Three networks of evidence were identified to evaluate the outcomes of interest. Triple therapy with doxycycline + streptomycin + hydroxychloroquine for 42 days (RR: 0.08; CI 95% 0.01–0.76) had a lower failure risk than the doxycycline + streptomycin regimen. Doxycycline + rifampicin had a higher risk of failure than doxycycline + streptomycin (RR: 1.96; CI 95% 1.27–3.01). No significant difference was observed between the regimens when analyzing the incidence of adverse events and time to defervescence. In general, most studies had a high risk of bias, and the results had a very low certainty of evidence. Conclusions: This review confirmed the superiority of drugs already indicated for treating human brucellosis, such as the combination of doxycycline and aminoglycosides. The association of hydroxychloroquine to the dual regimen was identified as a potential strategy to prevent overall therapy failure, which is subject to confirmation in future studies. Author summary: Human brucellosis it is a disease with transmission associated with the handling of animals and ingestion of contaminated products. The disease usually presents with a subacute to chronic febrile condition characterized by nonspecific symptoms such weight loss, and sudoresis. Therapeutic regimens combining two or more drugs have been shown to be superior to monotherapy. The debilitating and disabling potential of the disease is a warning about its morbidity, whose symptoms can persist for weeks or months, generating socioeconomic impact. So far, the accumulated evidence is based on clinical trials that compared the interventions of interest against different comparators. The authors this reviewed all published studies and performed an analysis was capable of comparing the effect of therapeutic regimens to identify the best combinations to treat human brucellosis. The combination of three medicines (doxycycline + streptomycin + hydroxychloroquine) showed the best results compared to the option previously identified as more effective (doxycycline + streptomycin), so this research points to new perspectives for the treatment of brucellosis. This result point that more studies dedicated to studying this combination must be developed to confirm this trend and enable the adoption of new practices in the treatment of this disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate the performance of the Cutaneous Leishmaniasis Impact Questionnaire (CLIQ) using the EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D-3L) as a reference standard (criterion validation); to evaluate the responsiveness of the instruments and estimate a cut-off point for the CLIQ to be able to discriminate between high and low impacts of cutaneous leishmaniasis on patients. Methods: Between 2020 and 2022, a longitudinal validation study was conducted at a reference centre for leishmaniasis in Brazil. The EQ-5D-3L and CLIQ questionnaires were administered before, during and after treatment for cutaneous leishmaniasis. The correlation between the instruments was assessed using Spearman's correlation coefficient, responsiveness was assessed using the Wilcoxon test, and CLIQ cut-off points were proposed based on results of the EQ-5Q-3L, dichotomized between patients reporting no problems' and 'some or extreme problems'. Results: There were satisfactory correlation coefficients between the two instruments before (-0.596) and during treatment (-0.551) and a low correlation between the instruments after the end of treatment (-0.389). In general, the responsiveness of the instruments was satisfactory. The CLIC scores that maximized sensitivity and specificity for recognizing impaired health status before and during treatment were 7 points and 17 points, respectively. However, at the end of treatment, based on the results for the EQ-5D-3L, the CLIC was not able to discriminate between individuals with high and low impacts of the disease. Conclusion: The CLIQ corresponds well with the EQ-5D-3L when applied before and during treatment but does not seem to be appropriate for follow-up evaluations after the end of treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to identify the regulatory framework and federal guidelines that support the process of implementing health technologies in the Unified Health System (SUS) through analysis of documents and legislation related to the National Health Technology Management Policy, published between 2009 and 2021. The search and selection of documents and subsequent data extraction were carried out. The documents were grouped into three categories: structural regulatory documents, recommendations on evaluation of technologies, and recommendations on clinical guidelines. In 38.8% of the regulatory documents, citations to implementation related mainly to SUS clinical guidelines were identified; however, no document dedicated to guiding implementation actions was identified. Recommendations related to implementations were identified in 27.1% of the reports and 66.1% of the guidelines, although without standardization and, in general, in little detail, focusing on resources and actions needed for making technology available rather than on methods and interventions for its implementation. The results evidence a gap in formal guidelines to guide the implementation process in Brazil, representing an opportunity for the development of models aligned with the reality of the SUS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Meglumine antimoniate (MA) remains the main treatment for cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL). Uncontrolled studies suggest that intralesional MA (IL-MA) may be noninferior and safer than systemic MA (S-MA). Methods Multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label, phase 3 clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of IL-MA in 3 infiltrations at 14-day intervals compared with S-MA (10–20 mg Sb5+/kg/day, 20 days) for CL, with noninferiority margin of 20%. Primary and secondary outcomes were definitive cure at day 180 and epithelialization rate at day 90 of treatment, respectively. A 2-year follow-up was performed to assess relapses and emergence of mucosal lesions. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored according to the Division of AIDS AE grading system. Results We evaluated 135 patients. The cure rates (95% confidence interval) for IL-MA and S-MA treatment were, respectively, 82.8% (70.5–91.4) and 67.8% (53.3–78.3) per protocol (PP) and 70.6% (58.3–81.0) and 59.7% (47.0–71.5) per intention to treat (ITT). The epithelialization rates of the IL-MA and S-MA treatment were, respectively, 79.3% (66.6–88 + 8) and 71.2% (57.9–82.2) PP and 69.1% (55.2–78.5) and 64.2% (50.0–74.2) ITT. AEs in the IL-MA and S-MA groups were, respectively, clinical, 45.6% and 80.6%; laboratory, 26.5% and 73.1%; and electrocardiogram, 8.8% and 25.4%. Ten participants in the S-MA group and 1 in the IL-MA group were discontinued due to severe or persistent AEs. Conclusions IL-MA provides a similar cure rate and results in less toxicity compared with S-MA and may be used as first-line therapy for CL patients. Clinical Trials Registration REBEC: RBR-6mk5n4. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of four therapeutic approaches available for mucosal leishmaniasis in Brazil: miltefosine, meglumine antimoniate, combined with and without pentoxifylline, and liposomal amphotericin B. The perspective adopted was that of the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS). The outcome of interest was "cured patient", which was analyzed using a decision tree model. Estimates of direct costs and effectiveness were obtained from the scientific literature. Meglumine antimoniate alone was the base comparator strategy; liposomal amphotericin B showed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD 7,409.13 per cured patient, and the combination of meglumine antimoniate with pentoxifylline presented an ICER of USD 85.13. Miltefosine was absolutely dominated, with higher cost and similar effectiveness when compared to meglumine antimoniate. Sensitivity analyses, varying the cost by ±25%, did not change the results. However, when the cost of miltefosine was estimated at less than USD 171.23, this strategy was dominant over meglumine antimoniate alone. The results confirm that treatment with liposomal amphotericin B remains the option with the highest ICER among the approaches analyzed. Miltefosine may be cost-effective based on the variation in the acquisition price, which deserves attention because it is the only available oral option. The non-accounting of other aspects prevent the use of these results immediately to support decision-making, but they point out the need to negotiate the prices of drugs available for mucosal leishmaniasis and indicates the need of encouraging technology transfer or other actions aimed at expanding the performance of the Brazilian national industrial complex.