Search

Background There is limited data on antibiotic treatment in hospitalized neonates in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We aimed to describe patterns of antibiotic use, pathogens, and clinical outcomes, and to develop a severity score predicting mortality in neonatal sepsis to inform future clinical trial design. Methods and findings Hospitalized infants Conclusion Antibiotic regimens used in neonatal sepsis commonly diverge from WHO guidelines, and trials of novel empiric regimens are urgently needed in the context of increasing antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The baseline NeoSep Severity Score identifies high mortality risk criteria for trial entry, while the NeoSep Recovery Score can help guide decisions on regimen change. NeoOBS data informed the NeoSep1 antibiotic trial (ISRCTN48721236), which aims to identify novel first- and second-line empiric antibiotic regimens for neonatal sepsis. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, (NCT03721302). James Neal Russell and colleagues report a global neonatal sepsis observational cohort study (NeoOBS) exploring patterns of antibiotic use, pathogens and prediction of mortality in hospitalised neonates and young infants with sepsis. Author summary Why was this study done? Increasing trends in antimicrobial resistance (AMR) disproportionately affect neonates and young infants with sepsis in LMIC settings and undermine the effectiveness of WHO-recommended antibiotics. Despite this, longitudinal data on antibiotic management strategies and outcomes of hospitalized neonates and young infants with sepsis in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings are extremely limited, impeding the design of robust antibiotic trials. There is limited data to define risk stratification, inclusion, and escalation criteria in trials of sepsis in hospitalized neonates and young infants. What did the researchers do and find? In this large global, prospective, hospital-based observational study across 4 continents, including LMIC settings, there was a high mortality among infants with culture positive sepsis (almost 1 in 5), and a significant burden of antibiotic resistance. This study highlights wide variations in standard of care (SOC) for sepsis in neonates and young infants, with more than 200 different antibiotic combinations, significant divergence from WHO-recommended regimens, and frequent switching of antibiotics. A NeoSep Severity Score that defined patterns of mortality risk at baseline was developed from 4 non-modifiable and 6 modifiable factors that are feasible to measure across a range of LMIC hospital contexts. A NeoSep Recovery Score including the same modifiable factors (with the addition of cyanosis) predicted mortality on the following day during treatment. What do these findings mean? These data demonstrate that patterns of routine antibiotic use are now markedly divergent from global guidance. There is an urgent need for large pragmatic randomized controlled trials to address optimal empiric first- and second-line antibiotic treatment strategies in LMIC hospital settings with a significant AMR burden. The wide range of multiple antibiotic regimens routinely used as SOC suggests the need for novel trial designs. The NeoSep Severity Score and NeoSep Recovery Score informed inclusion and escalation criteria in the NeoSep1 antibiotic trial (ISRCTN48721236) that aims to identify novel first- and second-line empiric antibiotic regimens for neonatal sepsis.

The COVID-19 epidemic has once again highlighted the challenges to achieve equitable access to critical antimicrobials and vaccines. The problem is particularly acute for antimicrobials.Despite recent investments improving the pipeline for new treatments, most new treatments are not available to populations most in need, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Once a drug is approved a range of factors may hinder access, from lack incentives to register and commercialize products due to unattractive market potential to unfunded national action plans that can help improve the uptake and appropriate use of new tools to combat antibiotic resistance. Previous studies have shown that the majority of the 18 new antibacterials approved and launched between 2010-2020 were accessible in only 3 out of 14 high-income countries (Sweden, UK, and US). In low- and middle-income countries, the problem is even worse, with only 10 of the 25 new antibiotics that entered the market between 1999 and 2014 registered in more than ten countries.While lack of equitable access to life-saving medicines, diagnostics, and vaccines is not a new problem for infectious diseases, emerging opportunities and innovative approaches can help improve access globally. This talk will review promising recent developments in governance and collaborations, policies, economic models and initiatives that may help correct deadly inequities.For example, the objectives of the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator may serve as model that convenes diverse actors to mount a coordinated access response which may be applied to access to other antimicrobials and vaccines. In addition, novel licensing agreements for access and stewardship to cefiderocol, an antimicrobial that is on the WHO Essential Medicines List can help serve as a pathfinder to accelerate equitable access to novel antimicrobials. The talk will also surface critiques of ongoing initiatives and raise questions for further study and discussion.

The lack of access to safe and effective antimicrobials for human populations is a threat to global health security and a contributor to the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The increasingly common shortages of antimicrobials are an additional threat to the emergence of AMR. While the threat of such drug shortages is most acutely experienced in low-income and middle-income settings, their consequences impact the quality and effectiveness of antimicrobials worldwide. Furthermore, there is a need for robustly conducted studies examining the impact of these increasingly prevalent shortages on patient outcomes and on the emergence and spread of AMR. In this review, we have mapped common drivers for antimicrobial shortages and propose strategies for rethinking the regulation, supply and pricing of antimicrobials to secure their sustainable access across diverse healthcare systems and to help minimise the unintended consequences of weak and ineffective supply chains. Greater government involvement in antimicrobial manufacture and supply is essential to ensure no one is left behind. Dedicated demand systems need to be developed for antimicrobials which take into consideration evolving AMR patterns, burden of diseases, pandemic events and supply and demand issues and facilitate implementation of strategies to address them. Interventions, ranging from advocacy and forecasting to public–private collaborations, new economic models and international consortia working across countries and supply chains, will help assure access to safe and effective antimicrobials to all populations around the globe and ensure that shortages no longer contribute to AMR.

Abstract Background When microorganisms (such as bacteria or viruses) are highly exposed to antimicrobial drugs, they can develop the capacity to defeat the drugs designed to eradicate them. Long-term accumulation of adaptations to survive drug exposure can lead to the development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The success of antibiotics has led to their widespread overuse and misuse in humans, animals and plants. Main text AMR is a global concern and solutions are not vertical actions in a single buy business model. Even if a transectoral approach is key, there is a lack of multi-disciplinary partnerships that allow for strategic cooperation between different sectors such as the pharmaceutical industry, agro-alimentary complex, patient care and education, NGOs and research and development. Global public health voices should lead this integration to align the progress of existing AMR successes. Maintaining the public’s trust in preventive medicine, health systems and food production safety, together with public health driven, non-profit drug development, is a key factor. In its “Call for integrated action on AMR”, signed by about 70 national and international organizations the World Federation of Public Health Associations (WFPHA) called “on all governments, the private sector, non-governmental organizations, health professionals, public and private research organizations, and all stakeholders to ensure that public health remains at the centre of all policy and scientific endeavours in the field of antimicrobial resistance”. Conclusions The “Global Charter for the Public’s Health”, developed by the WFPHA in association with WHO, is proposed in this article as a tool for implementation of complex public health actions such as AMR.

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. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinical trial is registered at Clinical trial registry of India (CTRI/2012/08/002891, Registered on 16/08/2012, Trial Registered Prospectively).

Emilie Alirol and colleagues discuss the development of new treatments for gonorrhea.

AmBisome therapy for VL has an excellent efficacy and safety profile and has been adopted as a first-line regimen in Bangladesh. Second-line treatment options are limited and should preferably be given in short course combinations in order to prevent the development of resistant strains. Combination regimens including AmBisome, paromomycin and miltefosine have proved to be safe and effective in the treatment of VL in India. In the present study, the safety and efficacy of these same combinations were assessed in field conditions in Bangladesh.The safety and efficacy of three combination regimens: a 5 mg/kg single dose of AmBisome + 7 subsequent days of miltefosine (2.5 mg/kg/day), a 5 mg/kg single dose of AmBisome + 10 subsequent days of paromomycin (15 mg/kg/day) and 10 days of paromomycin (15 mg/kg/day) + miltefosine (2.5 mg/kg/day), were compared with a standard regimen of AmBisome 15 mg/kg given in 5 mg/kg doses on days 1, 3 and 5. This was a phase III open label, individually randomized clinical trial. Patients from 5 to 60 years with uncomplicated primary VL were recruited from the Community Based Medical College Bangladesh (CBMC,B) and the Upazila Health Complexes of Trishal, Bhaluka and Fulbaria (all located in Mymensingh district), and randomly assigned to one of the treatments. The objective was to assess safety and definitive cure at 6 months after treatment.601 patients recruited between July 2010 and September 2013 received either AmBisome monotherapy (n = 158), AmBisome + paromomycin (n = 159), AmBisome + miltefosine (n = 142) or paromomycin + miltefosine (n = 142). At 6 months post- treatment, final cure rates for the intention-to-treat population were 98.1% (95%CI 96.0-100) for AmBisome monotherapy, 99.4% (95%CI 98.2-100) for the AmBisome + paromomycin arm, 94.4% (95%CI 90.6-98.2) for the AmBisome + miltefosine arm, and 97.9% (95%CI 95.5-100) for paromomycin + miltefosine arm. There were 12 serious adverse events in the study in 11 patients that included 3 non-study drug related deaths. There were no relapses or PKDL up to 6 months follow-up. All treatments were well tolerated with no unexpected side effects. Adverse events were most frequent during treatment with miltefosine + paromomycin, three serious adverse events related to the treatment occurred in this arm, all of which resolved.None of the combinations were inferior to AmBisome in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. All the combinations demonstrated excellent overall efficacy, were well tolerated and safe, and could be deployed under field conditions in Bangladesh. The trial was conducted by the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research (ICDDR,B) and the Shaheed Suhrawardy Medical College (ShSMC), Dhaka, in collaboration with the trial sites and sponsored by the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi).ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01122771.

In an Essay, Matthew Todd and colleagues discuss an open source approach to drug development.

Fewer than 20% of patients with multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis are receiving treatment and there is an urgent need to scale up treatment programmes. One of the biggest barriers to scale-up is the treatment regimen, which is lengthy, complex, ineffective, poorly tolerated and expensive. For the first time in over 50 years, new drugs have been developed specifically to treat tuberculosis, with bedaquiline and potentially delamanid expected to be available soon for treatment of MDR cases. However, if the new drugs are merely added to the current treatment regimen, the new regimen will be at least as lengthy, cumbersome and toxic as the existing one. There is an urgent need for strategy and evidence on how to maximize the potential of the new drugs to improve outcomes and shorten treatment. We devised eight key principles for designing future treatment regimens to ensure that, once they are proven safe in clinical trials, they will be clinically effective and programmatically practicable. Regimens should contain at least one new class of drug; be broadly applicable for use against MDR and extensively drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex strains; contain three to five effective drugs, each from a different drug class; be delivered orally; have a simple dosing schedule; have a good side-effect profile that allows limited monitoring; last a maximum of 6 months; and have minimal interaction with antiretrovirals. Following these principles will maximize the potential of new compounds and help to overcome the clinical and programmatic disadvantages and scale-up constraints that plague the current regimen.

BACKGROUND:SSG&PM over 17 days is recommended as first line treatment for visceral leishmaniasis in eastern Africa, but is painful and requires hospitalization. Combination regimens including AmBisome and miltefosine are safe and effective in India, but there are no published data from trials of combination therapies including these drugs from Africa. METHODS:A phase II open-label, non-comparative randomized trial was conducted in Sudan and Kenya to evaluate the efficacy and safety of three treatment regimens: 10 mg/kg single dose AmBisome plus 10 days of SSG (20 mg/kg/day), 10 mg/kg single dose AmBisome plus 10 days of miltefosine (2.5mg/kg/day) and miltefosine alone (2.5 mg/kg/day for 28 days). The primary endpoint was initial parasitological cure at Day 28, and secondary endpoints included definitive cure at Day 210, and pharmacokinetic (miltefosine) and pharmacodynamic assessments. RESULTS:In sequential analyses with 49-51 patients per arm, initial cure was 85% (95% CI: 73-92) in all arms. At D210, definitive cure was 87% (95% CI: 77-97) for AmBisome + SSG, 77% (95% CI 64-90) for AmBisome + miltefosine and 72% (95% CI 60-85) for miltefosine alone, with lower efficacy in younger patients, who weigh less. Miltefosine pharmacokinetic data indicated under-exposure in children compared to adults. CONCLUSION:No major safety concerns were identified, but point estimates of definitive cure were less than 90% for each regimen so none will be evaluated in Phase III trials in their current form. Allometric dosing of miltefosine in children needs to be evaluated. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01067443.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of melarsoprol and eflornithine in treating late-stage Gambian trypanosomiasis in the Republic of the Congo. METHODS: We analysed the outcomes of death during treatment and relapse within 1 year of discharge for 288 patients treated with eflornithine, 311 patients treated with the standard melarsoprol regimen and 62 patients treated with a short-course (10-day) melarsoprol regimen between April 2001 and April 2005. FINDINGS: A total of 1.7% (5/288) of patients treated with eflornithine died compared with 4.8% (15/311) of those treated with standard melarsoprol and 6.5% (4/62) of those treated with short-course melarsoprol. Patients treated with eflornithine tended to be younger and were more likely to have trypanosomes or higher white blood cell counts in their cerebrospinal fluid. The cumulated incidence of relapse among patients who attended at least one follow-up visit 1 year after discharge was 8.1% (11/136) for those treated with eflornithine, 14% (36/258) for those treated with standard melarsoprol and 15.5% (9/58) for those treated with shortcourse melarsoprol. In a multivariate analysis, when compared with eflornithine, standard melarsoprol was found to be a risk factor for both death (odds ratio (OR) = 2.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.03-8.00) and relapse (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.47; 95% CI = 1.22-5.03); when compared with eflornithine, short-course melarsoprol was also found to be a risk factor for death (OR = 3.90; 95% CI = 1.02-14.98) and relapse (HR = 6.65; 95% CI = 2.61-16.94). CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of melarsoprol treatment appears to have diminished. Eflornithine seems to be a better first-line therapy for treating late-stage Gambian trypanosomiasis in the Republic of the Congo.

OBJECTIVE: In 2002-03, the Republic of the Congo increased the threshold separating stage 1 and 2 cases of human African trypanosomiasis (HAT) from a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) white cell count of 5 cells/mm³ to 10 cells/mm³. We aimed to assess whether the increased threshold of 10 cells/mm³ is a safe indicator of stage 2 disease. METHODS: We assessed patients treated for stage 1 HAT caused by Trypanosoma brucei gambiense in the Republic of the Congo between April 2001 and April 2005. Patients with 0-10 cells/mm³ in CSF were classed as stage 1 and treated with pentamidine. Patients with CSF of > 10 cells/mm³ were classed as stage 2 and treated with either melarsoprol or eflornithine. We did a retrospective analysis of all patients treated after the September 2002 increase in threshold for classification of HAT disease stage 2, and who were eligible for at least 1 year of follow-up. Primary outcome was survival without death or relapse within 1 year of discharge. Risk factors for treatment failure, in particular CSF white cell count on diagnosis, were assessed. FINDINGS: Between September 2002 to April 2004, 692 patients eligible for our analysis were treated with pentamidine. All were discharged alive. Relapse rate was 5% (n = 33). The only identified risk factor for relapse was a CSF white cell count of 6-10 cells/mm³ rather than 0-5 cells/mm³ (adjusted hazard ratio 3.27 (95% confidence interval, 1.52-7.01); P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: A threshold of 5 white cells/mm³ in CSF is safer than 10 cells/mm³ to determine stage 2 HAT and reduce risk of relapse.

BACKGROUND: Visceral Leishmaniasis (VL; also known as Kala-azar) is an ultimately fatal disease endemic in Bihar. A 2007 observational cohort study in Bihar of 251 patients with VL treated with 20 mg/Kg intravenous liposomal amphotericin B (Ambisome) demonstrated a 98% cure rate at 6-months. Between July 2007 and August 2012, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and the Rajendra Memorial Research Institute (RMRI) implemented a VL treatment project in Bihar, India-an area highly endemic for Leishmania donovani-using this regimen as first-line treatment. METHODS AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Intravenous Ambisome 20 mg/kg was administered in four doses of 5 mg/kg over 4-10 days, depending on the severity of disease. Initial clinical cure at discharge was defined as improved symptoms, cessation of fever, and recession of spleen enlargement. This observational retrospective cohort study describes 8749 patients with laboratory-confirmed primary VL treated over a 5-year period: 1396 at primary healthcare centers, 7189 at hospital, and 164 at treatment camps. Initial clinical cure was achieved in 99.3% of patients (8692/8749); 0.3% of patients (26/8749) defaulted from treatment and 0.4% (31/8749) died. Overall, 1.8% of patients (161/8749) were co-infected with HIV and 0.6% (51/8749) with tuberculosis. Treatment was discontinued because of severe allergic reactions in 0.1% of patients (7/8749). Overall, 27 patients (0.3%) were readmitted with post Kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis (PKDL). Risk factors for late presentation included female sex, age >15 years and being from a scheduled caste. In 2012, a long-term efficacy survey in the same area of Bihar determined relapse rates of VL after 5 years' intervention with Ambisome. Of 984 immunocompetent patients discharged between September 2010 and December 2011, 827 (84.0%) were traced in order to determine their long-term outcomes. Of these, 20 patients (2.4%) had relapsed or received further treatment for VL. Of those completing 6, 12, and 15 month follow-up, 0.3% (2/767), 3.7% (14/383), and 2.4% (4/164), respectively, had relapsed. The mean ±SD time-to-relapse was 9.6±3.0 months. SIGNIFICANCE: This is the largest cohort of VL patients treated with 20 mg/kg Ambisome worldwide. The drug has high initial and long-term efficacy, and a low rate of adverse reactions when administered under field conditions in Bihar, India. Although challenging, its use as first line treatment in rural settings in Bihar is safe and feasible.

BACKGROUND: A proportion of all immunocompetent patients treated for visceral leishmaniasis (VL) are known to relapse; however, the risk factors for relapse are not well understood. With the support of the Rajendra Memorial Research Institute (RMRI), Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) implemented a program in Bihar, India, using intravenous liposomal amphotericin B (Ambisome) as a first-line treatment for VL. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for VL relapse by examining the characteristics of immunocompetent patients who relapsed following this regimen. METHODS AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: This is an observational retrospective cohort study of all VL patients treated by the MSF program from July 2007 to August 2012. Intravenous Ambisome was administered to 8749 patients with VL in four doses of 5 mg/kg (for a total dose of 20 mg/kg) over 4-10 days, depending on the severity of disease. Out of 8588 patients not known to be HIV-positive, 8537 (99.4%) were discharged as initial cures, 24 (0.3%) defaulted, and 27 (0.3%) died during or immediately after treatment. In total, 1.4% (n = 119) of the initial cured patients re-attended the programme with parasitologically confirmed VL relapse, with a median time to relapse of 10.1 months. Male sex, age

Anti-leishmanial drug regimens that include a single dose AmBisome could be suitable for eastern African patients with symptomatic visceral leishmaniasis (VL) but the appropriate single dose is unknown.A multi-centre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial with an adaptive design, was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of a single dose and multiple doses of AmBisome for the treatment of VL in eastern Africa. The primary efficacy endpoint was definitive cure (DC) at 6 months. Symptomatic patients with parasitologically-confirmed, non-severe VL, received a single dose of AmBisome 7.5 mg/kg body weight or multiple doses, 7 times 3 mg/kg on days 1-5, 14, and 21. If interim analyses, evaluated 30 days after the start of treatment following 40 or 80 patients, showed the single dose gave significantly poorer parasite clearance than multiple doses at the 5% significance level, the single dose was increased by 2·5 mg/kg. In a sub-set of patients, parasite clearance was measured by quantitative reverse transcriptase (qRT) PCR.The trial was terminated after the third interim analysis because of low efficacy of both regimens. Based on the intention-to-treat population, DC was 85% (95%CI 73-93%), 40% (95%CI 19-64%), and 58% (95%CI 41-73%) in patients treated with multiple doses (n = 63), and single doses of 7·5 (n = 21) or 10 mg/kg (n = 40), respectively. qRT-PCR suggested superior parasite clearance with multiple doses as early as day 3. Safety data accorded with the drug label.The tested AmBisome regimens would not be suitable for VL treatment across eastern Africa. An optimal single dose regimen was not identified.www.clinicaltrials.govNCT00832208.

BACKGROUND: Visceral leishmaniasis (VL) is a systemic parasitic disease that is fatal unless treated. In Kenya, national VL guidelines rely on microscopic examination of spleen aspirate to confirm diagnosis. As this procedure is invasive, it cannot be safely implemented in peripheral health structures, where non-invasive, accurate, easy to use diagnostic tests are needed. METHODOLOGY: We evaluated the sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of two rapid diagnostic tests (RDT), DiaMed IT LEISH and Signal-KA, among consecutive patients with clinical suspicion of VL in two treatment centres located in Baringo and North Pokot District, Rift Valley province, Kenya. Microscopic examination of spleen aspirate was the reference diagnostic standard. Patients were prospectively recruited between May 2010 and July 2011. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Of 251 eligible patients, 219 patients were analyzed, including 131 VL and 88 non-VL patients. The median age of VL patients was 16 years with predominance of males (66%). None of the tested VL patients were co-infected with HIV. Sensitivity and specificity of the DiaMed IT LEISH were 89.3% (95%CI: 82.7-94%) and 89.8% (95%CI: 81.5-95.2%), respectively. The Signal KA showed trends towards lower sensitivity (77.1%; 95%CI: 68.9-84%) and higher specificity (95.5%; 95%CI: 88.7-98.7%). Combining the tests did not improve the overall diagnostic performance, as all patients with a positive Signal KA were also positive with the DiaMed IT LEISH. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The DiaMed IT LEISH can be used to diagnose VL in Kenyan peripheral health facilities where microscopic examination of spleen aspirate or sophisticated serological techniques are not feasible. There is a crucial need for an improved RDT for VL diagnosis in East Africa.

Alternative treatments for visceral leishmaniasis (VL) are required in East Africa. Paromomycin sulphate (PM) has been shown to be efficacious for VL treatment in India.A multi-centre randomized-controlled trial (RCT) to compare efficacy and safety of PM (20 mg/kg/day for 21 days) and PM plus sodium stibogluconate (SSG) combination (PM, 15 mg/kg/day and SSG, 20 mg/kg/day for 17 days) with SSG (20 mg/kg/day for 30 days) for treatment of VL in East Africa. Patients aged 4-60 years with parasitologically confirmed VL were enrolled, excluding patients with contraindications. Primary and secondary efficacy outcomes were parasite clearance at 6-months follow-up and end of treatment, respectively. Safety was assessed mainly using adverse event (AE) data.The PM versus SSG comparison enrolled 205 patients per arm with primary efficacy data available for 198 and 200 patients respectively. The SSG & PM versus SSG comparison enrolled 381 and 386 patients per arm respectively, with primary efficacy data available for 359 patients per arm. In Intention-to-Treat complete-case analyses, the efficacy of PM was significantly lower than SSG (84.3% versus 94.1%, difference = 9.7%, 95% confidence interval, CI: 3.6 to 15.7%, p = 0.002). The efficacy of SSG & PM was comparable to SSG (91.4% versus 93.9%, difference = 2.5%, 95% CI: -1.3 to 6.3%, p = 0.198). End of treatment efficacy results were very similar. There were no apparent differences in the safety profile of the three treatment regimens.The 17 day SSG & PM combination treatment had a good safety profile and was similar in efficacy to the standard 30 day SSG treatment, suggesting suitability for VL treatment in East Africa.www.clinicaltrials.govNCT00255567.

Visceral leishmaniasis (VL) is a major health problem in developing countries. The untreated disease is fatal, available treatment is expensive and often toxic, and drug resistance is increasing. Improved treatment options are needed. Paromomycin was shown to be an efficacious first-line treatment with low toxicity in India.This was a 3-arm multicentre, open-label, randomized, controlled clinical trial to compare three treatment regimens for VL in East Africa: paromomycin sulphate (PM) at 15 mg/kg/day for 21 days versus sodium stibogluconate (SSG) at 20 mg/kg/day for 30 days; and the combination of both dose regimens for 17 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was cure based on parasite-free tissue aspirates taken 6 months after treatment.Overall, 135 patients per arm were enrolled at five centres in Sudan (2 sites), Kenya (1) and Ethiopia (2), when the PM arm had to be discontinued due to poor efficacy. The trial has continued with the higher dose of PM as well as the combination of PM and SSG arms. These results will be reported later. Baseline patient characteristics were similar among treatment arms. The overall cure with PM was significantly inferior to that with SSG (63.8% versus 92.2%; difference 28.5%, 95%CI 18.8% to 38.8%, p

A recent study has shown that treatment of visceral leishmaniasis (VL) with the standard dose of 15 mg/kg/day of paromomycin sulphate (PM) for 21 days was not efficacious in patients in Sudan. We therefore decided to test the efficacy of paramomycin for a longer treatment duration (15 mg/kg/day for 28 days) and at the higher dose of 20 mg/kg/day for 21 days.This randomized, open-label, dose-finding, phase II study assessed the two above high-dose PM treatment regimens. Patients with clinical features and positive bone-marrow aspirates for VL were enrolled. All patients received their assigned courses of PM intramuscularly and adverse events were monitored. Parasite clearance in bone-marrow aspirates was tested by microscopy at end of treatment (EOT, primary efficacy endpoint), 3 months (in patients who were not clinically well) and 6 months after EOT (secondary efficacy endpoint). Pharmacokinetic data were obtained from a subset of patients weighing over 30 kg.42 patients (21 per group) aged between 4 and 60 years were enrolled. At EOT, 85% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI]: 63.7% to 97.0%) in the 20 mg/kg/day group and 90% of patients (95% CI: 69.6% to 98.8%) in the 15 mg/kg/day group had parasite clearance. Six months after treatment, efficacy was 80.0% (95% CI: 56.3% to 94.3%) and 81.0% (95% CI: 58.1% to 94.6%) in the 20 mg/kg/day and 15 mg/kg/day groups, respectively. There were no serious adverse events. Pharmacokinetic profiles suggested a difference between the two doses, although numbers of patients recruited were too few to make it significant (n = 3 and n = 6 in the 20 mg/kg/day and 15 mg/kg/day groups, respectively).Data suggest that both high dose regimens were more efficacious than the standard 15 mg/kg/day PM for 21 days and could be further evaluated in phase III studies in East Africa.

Visceral leishmaniasis is a systemic parasitic disease that is fatal unless treated. We assessed the cost and cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies for the treatment of visceral leishmaniasis in the Indian subcontinent. In particular we examined whether combination therapies are a cost-effective alternative compared to monotherapies.We assessed the cost-effectiveness of all possible mono- and combination therapies for the treatment of visceral leishmaniasis in the Indian subcontinent (India, Nepal and Bangladesh) from a societal perspective using a decision analytical model based on a decision tree. Primary data collected in each country was combined with data from the literature and an expert poll (Delphi method). The cost per patient treated and average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios expressed as cost per death averted were calculated. Extensive sensitivity analysis was done to evaluate the robustness of our estimations and conclusions. With a cost of US$92 per death averted, the combination miltefosine-paromomycin was the most cost-effective treatment strategy. The next best alternative was a combination of liposomal amphotericin B with paromomycin with an incremental cost-effectiveness of $652 per death averted. All other strategies were dominated with the exception of a single dose of 10mg per kg of liposomal amphotericin B. While strategies based on liposomal amphotericin B (AmBisome) were found to be the most effective, its current drug cost of US$20 per vial resulted in a higher average cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analysis showed the conclusion to be robust to variations in the input parameters over their plausible range.Combination treatments are a cost-effective alternative to current monotherapy for VL. Given their expected impact on the emergence of drug resistance, a switch to combination therapy should be considered once final results from clinical trials are available.