1
|
Singh-Phulgenda S, Kumar R, Dahal P, Munir A, Rashan S, Chhajed R, Naylor C, Maguire BJ, Siddiqui NA, Harriss E, Rahi M, Alves F, Sundar S, Stepniewska K, Musa A, Guerin PJ, Pandey K. Post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis (PKDL) drug efficacy study landscape: A systematic scoping review of clinical trials and observational studies to assess the feasibility of establishing an individual participant-level data (IPD) platform. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2024; 18:e0011635. [PMID: 38626228 PMCID: PMC11051605 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011635] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/05/2023] [Revised: 04/26/2024] [Accepted: 03/27/2024] [Indexed: 04/18/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis (PKDL) is a dermatosis which can occur after successful treatment of visceral leishmaniasis (VL) and is a public health problem in VL endemic areas. We conducted a systematic scoping review to assess the characteristics of published PKDL clinical studies, understand the scope of research and explore the feasibility and value of developing a PKDL individual patient data (IPD) platform. METHODS A systematic review of published literature was conducted to identify PKDL clinical studies by searching the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Ovid Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, WHO Global Index Medicus, PASCAL, Clinicaltrials.gov, Ovid Global Health, Cochrane Database and CENTRAL, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Only prospective studies in humans with PKDL diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up measurements between January 1973 and March 2023 were included. Extracted data includes variables on patient characteristics, treatment regimens, diagnostic methods, geographical locations, efficacy endpoints, adverse events and statistical methodology. RESULTS A total of 3,418 records were screened, of which 56 unique studies (n = 2,486 patients) were included in this review. Out of the 56 studies, 36 (64.3%) were from India (1983-2022), 12 (21.4%) from Sudan (1992-2021), 6 (10.7%) were from Bangladesh (1991-2019), and 2 (3.6%) from Nepal (2001-2007). Five (8.9%) studies were published between 1981-1990 (n = 193 patients), 10 (17.9%) between 1991-2000 (n = 230 patients), 10 (17.9%) between 2001-2010 (n = 198 patients), and 31 (55.4%) from 2011 onwards (n = 1,865 patients). Eight (14.3%) were randomised clinical trials, and 48 (85.7%) were non-randomised studies. The median post-treatment follow-up duration was 365 days (range: 90-540 days) in 8 RCTs and 360 days (range: 28-2,373 days) in 48 non-randomised studies. Disease diagnosis was based on clinical criterion in 3 (5.4%) studies, a mixture of clinical and parasitological methods in 47 (83.9%) and was unclear in 6 (10.7%) studies. Major drugs used for treatment were miltefosine (n = 636 patients), liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) (n = 508 patients), and antinomy regimens (n = 454 patients). Ten other drug regimens were tested in 270 patients with less than 60 patients per regimen. CONCLUSIONS Our review identified studies with very limited sample size for the three major drugs (miltefosine, L-AmB, and pentavalent antimony), while the number of patients combined across studies suggest that the IPD platform would be valuable. With the support of relevant stakeholders, the global PKDL community and sufficient financing, a PKDL IPD platform can be realised. This will allow for exploration of different aspects of treatment safety and efficacy, which can potentially guide future healthcare decisions and clinical practices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sauman Singh-Phulgenda
- Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO), Oxford, United Kingdom
- Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Rishikesh Kumar
- ICMR—Rajendra Memorial Research Institute of Medical Sciences (RMRIMS), Patna, Bihar, India
| | - Prabin Dahal
- Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO), Oxford, United Kingdom
- Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Abdalla Munir
- Department of Clinical Pathology and Immunology, Institute of Endemic Diseases, University of Khartoum, Khartoum, Sudan
| | - Sumayyah Rashan
- Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO), Oxford, United Kingdom
- Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Rutuja Chhajed
- Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO), Oxford, United Kingdom
- Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Caitlin Naylor
- Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO), Oxford, United Kingdom
- Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Brittany J. Maguire
- Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO), Oxford, United Kingdom
- Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Niyamat Ali Siddiqui
- ICMR—Rajendra Memorial Research Institute of Medical Sciences (RMRIMS), Patna, Bihar, India
| | - Eli Harriss
- The Knowledge Centre, Bodleian Health Care Libraries, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Manju Rahi
- Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), New Delhi, India
| | - Fabiana Alves
- Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi), Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Shyam Sundar
- Infectious Disease Research Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India
| | - Kasia Stepniewska
- Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO), Oxford, United Kingdom
- Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Ahmed Musa
- Department of Clinical Pathology and Immunology, Institute of Endemic Diseases, University of Khartoum, Khartoum, Sudan
| | - Philippe J. Guerin
- Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO), Oxford, United Kingdom
- Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Krishna Pandey
- ICMR—Rajendra Memorial Research Institute of Medical Sciences (RMRIMS), Patna, Bihar, India
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Conceição-Silva F, Leite-Silva J, Morgado FN. The Binomial Parasite-Host Immunity in the Healing Process and in Reactivation of Human Tegumentary Leishmaniasis. Front Microbiol 2018; 9:1308. [PMID: 29971054 PMCID: PMC6018218 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01308] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2018] [Accepted: 05/29/2018] [Indexed: 01/09/2023] Open
Abstract
Leishmaniasis is a vector-borne infectious disease caused by different species of protozoa from the Leishmania genus. Classically, the disease can be classified into two main clinical forms: Visceral (VL) and Tegumentary (TL) leishmaniasis. TL is a skin/mucosal granulomatous disease that manifests mainly as cutaneous localized or disseminated ulcers, papules diffusely distributed, mucosal lesions or atypical lesions. Once the etiology of the infection is confirmed, treatment can take place, and different drugs can be administered. It has already been shown that, even when the scar is clinically evident, inflammation is still present in the native tissue, and the decrease of the inflammatory process occurs slowly during the 1st years after clinical healing. The maintenance of residual parasites in the scar tissue is also well documented. Therefore, it is no longer a surprise that, under some circumstances, therapeutic failure and/or lesion reactivation occurs. All over the years, an impressive amount of data on relapses, treatment resistance and lesion reactivation after healing has been collected, and several factors have been pointed out as having a role in the process. Different factors such as Leishmania species, parasite variability, Leishmania RNA virus 1, parasite load, parasite persistence, age, nutritional status, gender, co-morbidities, co-infection, pregnancy, immunosuppression, lesion duration, number and localization of lesions, drug metabolism, irregular treatment and individual host cellular immune response were described and discussed in the present review. Unfortunately, despite this amount of information, a conclusive understanding remains under construction. In addition, multifactorial influence cannot be discarded. In this context, knowing why leishmaniasis has been difficult to treat and control can help the development of new approaches, such as drugs and immunotherapy in order to improve healing maintenance. In this sense, we would like to highlight some of the findings that may influence the course of Leishmania infection and the therapeutic response, with an emphasis on TL.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fatima Conceição-Silva
- Laboratory of Immunoparasitology, Oswaldo Cruz Institute (Fiocruz), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - Jessica Leite-Silva
- Laboratory of Immunoparasitology, Oswaldo Cruz Institute (Fiocruz), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - Fernanda N. Morgado
- Laboratory of Leishmaniasis Research, Oswaldo Cruz Institute (Fiocruz), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| |
Collapse
|