Topical treatment of New World cutaneous leishmaniasis in Belize: a clinical study

LeishMan recommendations for treatment of cutaneous and mucosal leishmaniasis in travelers, 2014

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) and mucosal leishmaniasis (ML) in travelers is still controversial. Over the last decade, national and international consortia have published recommendations for treating CL in travelers. These guidelines harmonize many issues, but there are some discrepancies.

METHODS

Leishmania parasites causing CL can now be genotyped by polymerase chain reaction techniques for detecting Leishmania DNA. Therefore, treatment recommendations can now be species based rather than based on geographical exposure. To review the evidence on which the recommendations were based, "LeishMan" (Leishmaniasis Management), a group of experts from 13 institutions in eight European countries, performed a PubMed MEDLINE) literature search and considered unpublished evidence and the experts' own personal experiences. The Oxford evidence grading system was used to evaluate the information.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

In this article, the authors provide practical treatment recommendations for imported CL and ML in Europe, drawn up from the review by the European experts.

Local or systemic treatment for New World cutaneous leishmaniasis? Re-evaluating the evidence for the risk of mucosal leishmaniasis

This review addresses the question of whether the risk of developing mucosal leishmaniasis (ML) warrants systemic treatment in all patients with New World cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) or whether local treatment might be an acceptable alternative. The risk of patients with New World CL developing ML after the initial infection has been the main argument for systemic treatment. However, this statement needs re-evaluation and consideration of all the available data. The putative benefit of preventing ML should outweigh the toxicity of systemic antileishmanial therapy. To assess the need for and risk of systemic treatment the following factors were reviewed: the incidence and prevalence of ML in endemic populations and in travellers; the severity of mucosal lesions; the efficacy of current options to treat ML; the toxicity and, to a lesser extent, the costs of systemic treatment; the risk of developing ML after local treatment; and the strengths and limitations of current estimates of the risk of developing ML in different situations. Local treatment might be considered as a valuable treatment option for travellers suffering from New World CL, provided that there are no risk factors for developing ML such as multiple lesions, big lesions (>4 cm(2)), localisation of the lesion on the head or neck, immunosuppression or acquisition of infection in the high Andean countries, notably Bolivia.

Polymerase chain reaction detection of Leishmania kDNA from the urine of Peruvian patients with cutaneous and mucocutaneous leishmaniasis

We hypothesized that Leishmania kDNA may be present in urine of patients with cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL). Urine samples and standard diagnostic specimens were collected from patients with skin lesions. kDNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed on samples from patients and 10 healthy volunteers from non-endemic areas. Eighty-six of 108 patients were diagnosed with CL and 18 (21%) had detectable Leishmania Viannia kDNA in the urine. Sensitivity and specificity were 20.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.3-29.5%) and 100%. Six of 8 patients with mucocutaneous involvement had detectable kDNA in urine versus 12 of 78 patients with isolated cutaneous disease (P < 0.001). L. (V.) braziliensis (N = 3), L. (V.) guyanensis (N = 6), and L. (V.) peruviana (N = 3) were identified from urine. No healthy volunteer or patient with an alternate diagnosis had detectable kDNA in urine. Sensitivity of urine PCR is sub-optimal for diagnosis. On the basis of these preliminary data in a small number of patients, detectable kDNA in urine may identify less localized forms of infection and inform treatment decisions.

Is paromomycin an effective and safe treatment against cutaneous leishmaniasis? A meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials

Background

High cost, poor compliance, and systemic toxicity have limited the use of pentavalent antimony compounds (SbV), the treatment of choice for cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL). Paromomycin (PR) has been developed as an alternative to SbV, but existing data are conflicting.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, without language restriction, through August 2007, to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy or safety between PR and placebo or SbV. Primary outcome was clinical cure, defined as complete healing, disappearance, or reepithelialization of all lesions. Data were extracted independently by two investigators, and pooled using a random-effects model. Fourteen trials including 1,221 patients were included. In placebo-controlled trials, topical PR appeared to have therapeutic activity against the old world and new world CL, with increased local reactions, when used with methylbenzethonium chloride (MBCL) compared to when used alone (risk ratio [RR] for clinical cure, 2.58 versus 1.01: RR for local reactions, 1.60 versus 1.07). In SbV-controlled trials, the efficacy of topical PR was not significantly different from that of intralesional SbV in the old world CL (RR, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.26–1.89), whereas topical PR was inferior to parenteral SbV in treating the new world CL (0.67; 0.54–0.82). No significant difference in efficacy was found between parenteral PR and parenteral SbV in the new world CL (0.88; 0.56–1.38). Systemic side effects were fewer with topical or parenteral PR than parenteral SbV.

Conclusions/Significance

Topical PR with MBCL could be a therapeutic alternative to SbV in selected cases of the old world CL. Development of new formulations with better efficacy and tolerability remains to be an area of future research.

Millions of people worldwide are suffering from cutaneous leishmaniasis that is caused by parasites of the genus Leishmania. Although pentavalent antimony compounds are the treatment of choice, their use is limited by high cost, poor compliance, and systemic toxicity. Paromomycin was developed to overcome such limitations. However, there is no consensus on its efficacy. This meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of paromomycin compared with placebo and pentavalent antimony compounds. Fourteen randomized controlled trials, including 1,221 patients, met our selection criteria. Topical paromomycin appeared to have therapeutic activity against the old world and new world cutaneous leishmaniasis, with increased local reactions, when combined with methylbenzethonium chloride. Topical paromomycin was not significantly different from intralesional pentavalent antimony compounds in treating the old world form, whereas it was inferior to parenteral pentavalent antimony compounds in treating the new world form. However, a similar efficacy was found between parenteral paromomycin and pentavalent antimony compounds in treating the new world form. Fewer systemic side effects were observed with topical and parenteral paromomycin than pentavalent antimony compounds. These results suggest that topical paromomycin with methylbenzethonium chloride could be a therapeutic alternative to pentavalent antimony compounds for selected cases of the old world cutaneous leishmaniasis.

Cutaneous leishmaniasis

Cutaneous leishmaniasis is endemic in the tropics and neotropics. It is often referred to as a group of diseases because of the varied spectrum of clinical manifestations, which range from small cutaneous nodules to gross mucosal tissue destruction. Cutaneous leishmaniasis can be caused by several Leishmania spp and is transmitted to human beings and animals by sandflies. Despite its increasing worldwide incidence, but because it is rarely fatal, cutaneous leishmaniasis has become one of the so-called neglected diseases, with little interest by financial donors, public-health authorities, and professionals to implement activities to research, prevent, or control the disease. In endemic countries, diagnosis is often made clinically and, if possible, by microscopic examination of lesion biopsy smears to visually confirm leishmania parasites as the cause. The use of more sophisticated diagnostic techniques that allow for species identification is usually restricted to research or clinical settings in non-endemic countries. The mainstays of cutaneous leishmaniasis treatment are pentavalent antimonials, with new oral and topical treatment alternatives only becoming available within the past few years; a vaccine currently does not exist. Disease prevention and control are difficult because of the complexity of cutaneous leishmaniasis epizoology, and the few options available for effective vector control.

Cutaneous leishmaniasis treatment

The causative species of cutaneous leishmaniasis determines the clinical features and courses, and treatments. Intralesional or systemic antimonials are the gold standard for the treatment of these diseases. However, as for visceral leishmaniasis, other therapeutic options appear promising. Paromomycin ointments are effective in Leishmania major, L. tropica, L. mexicana, and L. panamensis lesions. In L. braziliensis localized leishmaniasis, both paromomycin and imiquimod may be topically applied. Oral fluconazole and zinc sulfate are useful in L. major. Oral azithromycin, effective in vitro and in mice, needs further investigation in human leishmaniasis. On the contrary, data with oral itraconazole are disappointing. Oral miltefosine, which is very effective in visceral leishmaniasis caused by L. donovani, appears ineffective in L. major and L. braziliensis infections. Intramuscular pentamidine is required for L. guyanensis cutaneous leishmaniasis, for which systemic antimony is not effective. Liposomal amphotericin B could be an alternative to antimony in south American cutaneous leishmaniasis with mucosal involvement (especially L. braziliensis and L. guyanensis infections).

Leishmania major: in vitro and in vivo anti-leishmanial activity of paromomycin ointment (Leshcutan) combined with the immunomodulator Imiquimod

Paromomycin at 25, 50 and 100 microg/ml, inhibited the growth of Leishmania major amastigotes by 34.5%, 61.2%, 74.9% and 85.4%, 89.9%, 95.7% on the 2nd and the 4th day of treatment in culture, respectively. Methylbenzethonium chloride at 0.1 and 0.5 microg/ml and Imiquimod at 5 and 10 microg/ml, administered separately, inhibited the parasite development by 39.5% and 65.2% and 31.5% and 47.7%, respectively. Imiquimod (5-10 microg/ml) combined with either paromomycin (25, 50 and 100 microg/ml) or methylbenzethonium chloride (0.1 and 0.5 microg/ml) showed an anti-leishmanial additive effect. A 10 day topical treatment, twice daily, with an ointment containing 15% paromomycin and 12% methylbenzethonium chloride (Leshcutan), either undiluted or diluted 1:5 in soft white paraffin combined with 5% Imiquimod cream (Aldara), was as effective as Leshcutan given alone. The present study suggests that a combination of Aldara and Leshcutan is as effective as Leshcutan given alone in the topical treatment of CL caused by L. major.

Cutaneous leishmaniasis in the returning traveler

Infection with protozoan parasites of the genus Leishmania leads to a wide variety of clinical disease syndromes called leishmaniasis, or more appropriately the leishmaniases. The three major clinical syndromes are cutaneous leishmaniasis, mucosal leishmaniasis, and visceral leishmaniasis. All three of these syndromes have been documented in returning travelers. This article focuses on cutaneous leishmaniasis with some comment on mucosal leishmaniasis.

Comparison of the effectiveness of two topical paromomycin treatments versus meglumine antimoniate for New World cutaneous leishmaniasis

The randomized, controlled study compared the therapeutic efficacy and safety of two paromomycin-containing topical preparations with the gold treatment standard, meglumine antimoniate, and with each other in 120 Ecuadorian patients with ulcerated lesions. The two paromomycin treatment comparisons were double-blinded. Group 1 (n = 14) received 15% paromomycin plus 12% methylbenzonium chloride (PR-MBCL) dissolved in a soft white paraffin base, applied twice daily for 30 days. Group 2 (n = 40) was also treated for 30 days with 15% paromomycin plus 10% urea (PR-U) dissolved in the same paraffin base. Group 3 (n = 40) received 20mg/kg/day of IM meglumine antimoniate (MA) for 10 days as per Ecuadorian Ministry of Public Health recommendations at the time of the study. The 10-day treatment was completed by 90% of the MA group compared to 72.5% of the PR-MBCL (X2 = 4.0, P = 0.045) and 75% of the PM-U (X2 = 3.1, P > 0.05) groups whose treatment regime lasted 20 days longer than the MA treatment. Post-treatment lesion burning, redness, inflammation, and soreness were more common in the two paromomycin groups compared to MA group (P < 0.05). The frequency of treatment-related side effects in the two paromomycin groups was similar. Six weeks after the start of treatment, 80.6% of MA subjects were clinically cured compared to 48.3% in the PR-MBCL (X2 = 6.1, P = 0.014) and 40% in the PM-U groups (X2 = 12.6, P = 0.002). By 12 weeks, the proportion of clinically cured subjects in the MA (91.7%) compared to PM-MBCL (79.3%) or PM-U (70%) groups was not significantly different (P > 0.05). MA-treated subjects clinically cured by 12 weeks had a faster mean healing time (29.5 +/- 12.2 days) compared to those in the PM-MBCL (versus 43.1 +/- 14.4 days, t = -3.7, P = 0.001) or PR-U groups (43.5 +/- 17 days; t = -3.2, P = 0.002). During the 48-week post-treatment follow-up period, infection reactivation was observed in 15.2% of the MA subjects compared to 17.4% in the PM-MBCL and 10.5% PM-U of subjects diagnosed as clinically healed by 12 weeks (P > 0.05). The results suggest that although the time required for the clinical healing of ulcerated lesions takes longer, topical paromomycin may be an acceptable therapeutic alternative in endemic areas where meglumine antimoniate is not available, is too costly or medically contraindicated.

New World cutaneous leishmaniasis imported into Australia

A case of cutaneous leishmaniasis in a traveller from Belize, Central America is reported. Leishmaniasis presents rarely in Australia and delays in diagnosis and treatment often occur. A high index of suspicion in a patient who has returned from an endemic region is required. Subsequent confirmation of a diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis is best achieved by demonstration of the organism on skin biopsy, aspiration or smear. The histology is variable and depends on geographic, parasite species and host factors. Speciation of New World disease as either Leishmania braziliensis or Leishmania mexicana is important to determine the risk of later development of mucosal disease, which normally only occurs with L. braziliensis infection, and for optimal treatment. Several different modes of treatment have been suggested, but antimonials, such as sodium stibogluconate, remain the treatment of choice in New World cutaneous leishmaniasis.

Non-ulcerative cutaneous leishmaniasis in Honduras fails to respond to topical paromomycin

A double-'blind', placebo-controlled trial of topical therapy with 15% paromomycin (aminosidine) and 10% urea in white paraffin was carried out on 53 patients with non-ulcerating cutaneous leishmaniasis in Honduras. Although the treatment was not effective, several unexpected findings emerged from the trial. Leishmania mexicana was found to be the cause of many of the skin lesions in one of the 2 study sites. These lesions were clinically indistinguishable from those caused by L. chagasi, the aetiologic agent previously found for this form of leishmaniasis. This is the first documented report of L. mexicana in Honduras.

Treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis

The World Health Organization estimates that approximately 400,000 new cases of leishmaniasis occur worldwide each year. Cutaneous leishmaniasis is being encountered more frequently in the United States because of increasing travel and immigration from endemic areas. The indications for treatment and recommended treatment regimens reported in the infectious disease and dermatology literature vary widely. We examine both classic and newly developed therapeutic agents and modalities for cutaneous leishmaniasis. Proper therapy depends on species identification. New World leishmaniasis, in general, requires more aggressive therapy; parenteral antimonials are the drugs of choice. Physical modalities may suffice in most cases of Old World leishmaniasis because of its strong tendency toward spontaneous resolution.

Aminosidine (paromomycin) versus sodium stibogluconate for the treatment of American cutaneous leishmaniasis

The efficacy of aminosidine was compared with sodium stibogluconate in an open, randomized study of parasitologically-proven cutaneous leishmaniasis in Belize. Aminosidine, 14 mg/kg/d (max. 1 g daily) for 20 d, healed 10 of 17 lesions and sodium stibogluconate, 20 mg/kg/d for 20 d, healed 15 of 17 lesions. Lesions caused by Leishmania braziliensis were relatively unresponsive to aminosidine. Aminosidine was well tolerated and toxicity was not observed. Sodium stibogluconate was not well tolerated and treatment was associated with bone marrow suppression and elevation of serum aminotransferases.

Dermatologic therapy: 1993

This article reviews some therapeutic results reported in the English-language literature during 1993. Readers should review the original article in full before attempting any experimental or controversial therapy.