PLoS ONE (Jan 2019)

Comparative study on liposomal amphotericin B and other therapies in the treatment of mucosal leishmaniasis: A 15-year retrospective cohort study.

  • Carolina Rocio Santos,
  • Felipe Francisco Tuon,
  • Juliette Cieslinski,
  • Regina Maia de Souza,
  • Rui Imamura,
  • Valdir Sabbaga Amato

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218786
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 14, no. 6
p. e0218786

Abstract

Read online

BackgroundLiposomal amphotericin B (L-AMB) has been used for mucosal leishmaniasis (ML), but comparative studies on L-AMB and other drugs used for the treatment of ML have not been conducted. The present study aimed to evaluate the outcome of patients with ML who were treated with L-AMB.MethodsThis is a 15-year retrospective study of Brazilian patients with a confirmed diagnosis of ML. The therapeutic options for the treatment of ML consisted of L-AMB, amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC), deoxycholate amphotericin B (d-AMB), itraconazole, antimonial pentavalent, or pentamidine. Healing, cure rate and adverse effects (AEs) associated with the drugs used to treat this condition were analyzed.ResultsIn 71 patients, a total of 105 treatments were evaluated. The outcome of the treatment with each drug was compared, and results showed that L-AMB was superior to other therapeutic regimens (P = 0.001; odds ratio [OR] = 4.84; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.78-13.17). d-AMB had worse AEs than other treatment regimens (P = 0.001, OR = 0.09; 95% CI = 0.09-0.43). Approximately 66% of the patients presented with AEs during ML treatment. Although L-AMB was less nephrotoxic than d-AMB, it was associated with acute kidney injury compared with other drugs (P ConclusionL-AMB was more effective than other therapies for the treatment of ML. However, a high incidence of toxicity was associated with its use. Therapeutic choices should be reassessed, and the development of new drugs is necessary for the treatment of ML.