Leishmaniose mucosa fatal em criança

Leishmania and its relationships with bacteria

Leishmaniasis is a zoonotic and neglected disease, which represents an important public health problem worldwide. Different species of Leishmania are associated with different manifestations, and a practical problem that can worsen the condition of hosts infected with Leishmania is the secondary infection caused by bacteria. This review aims to examine the importance and prevalence of bacteria co-infection during leishmaniasis and the nature of this ecological relationship. In the cases discussed in this review, the facilitation phenomenon, defined as any interaction where the action of one organism has a beneficial effect on an organism of another species, was considered in the Leishmania-bacteria interaction, as well as the effects on one another and their consequences for the host.

A randomized, open-label clinical trial comparing the long-term effects of miltefosine and meglumine antimoniate for mucosal leishmaniasis

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of mucosal leishmaniasis (ML) is difficult due to the toxicity and route of administration of standard drugs. Miltefosine is an oral agent used for leishmaniasis treatment; however, no data exist regarding its use for ML in Brazil. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of miltefosine for ML treatment compared to that of pentavalent antimonial in a pilot study.

METHODS

We performed a randomized clinical trial with two parallel groups. The tested intervention consisted of miltefosine 1.3-2 mg/kg/day (two capsules) for 28 days or intravenous 20 mg SbV/kg/day of meglumine antimoniate (N-MA) for 30 days. The final endpoint was defined as complete healing of the lesion four years after treatment. We also analyzed an early endpoint at 90 days after treatment.

RESULTS

Forty patients were included in this study: each experimental group comprised 20 patients. Applying a multivariate model in an intention-to-treat analysis, we observed that patients treated with miltefosine had a cure probability 2.08 times greater (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03-4.18) than those treated with N-MA at 90 days after treatment. At the final endpoint, we observed no differences in cure probability between miltefosine and N-MA (relative risk = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.33-1.32). With respect to adverse reactions, significant differences between groups were related to gastrointestinal effects, which were more frequent in the miltefosine group.

CONCLUSIONS

Miltefosine may be an interesting alternative for treating ML because of its oral administration and cure rate after long-term follow-up.

Phonotherapeutic Intervention in Patients With Mucosal Leishmaniasis Sequelae

PURPOSE

To characterize the voice before and after speech-language intervention, with Humming nasal sound in patients with sequelae Mucosal Leishmaniasis (ML) and Cutaneous Leishmaniasis (CL).

METHODS

Collection of phonation /a:/ from 44 patients with ML and CL for perceptual voice analysis and computed acoustic. The Wilcoxon nonparametric test and Fisher's exact test were used, with significance level of 5%.

RESULTS

It was observed, prespeech therapy, that 27.7% of participants with ML presented asthenic vocal quality, and for the acoustics characteristics there was a statistically significant result for measures of frequency, frequency disturbance, noise, and subharmonic measurements, indicating phonatory instability, weakness, and noise emission giving the emission a feeling of vocal weakness. After therapy, the subharmonic segment measurements for the group with ML, showing reduction noise emission. Patients with CL had more grade 1 instability (36.4%), indicating tremor in vocal tract structures. After speech therapy, this group presented a reduction in the degree of roughness and reduction of the frequency disturbance measures, indicating a decrease in tension in the larynx and pharynx.

CONCLUSION

Even after completing treatment for LM, patients may experience vocal changes due to the sequelae of the disease, like vocal alterations due to nasal lesions or in other locations that interfere in the correct vocal emission. As for participants with CL, no vocal changes would be expected, since these patients present thorax, leg and arm lesions that would not cause problems for the voice. Nevertheless, the two groups of participants presented vocal changes to different degrees before vocal therapy. However, it was observed that patients with ML present vocal alterations with more severe degrees. After the speech-language intervention, the participants of both groups showed vocal improvement, but the group with CL presented more vocal benefits, possibly due to the previous vocal alterations not being so severe.