Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34555016›Full record

Trial reportPLoS neglected tropical diseases2021

An old drug and different ways to treat cutaneous leishmaniasis: Intralesional and intramuscular meglumine antimoniate in a reference center, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Carla Oliveira-Ribeiro, Maria Inês Fernandes Pimentel, Liliane de Fátima Antonio Oliveira, Érica de Camargo Ferreira E Vasconcellos, Fatima Conceição-Silva, Armando de Oliveira Schubach, Aline Fagundes, Cintia Xavier de Mello, Eliame Mouta-Confort, Luciana de Freitas Campos Miranda and 5 more

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Carla Oliveira-RibeiroLaboratório de Pesquisa Clínica e Vigilância em Leishmanioses, Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-6382-7943
Maria Inês Fernandes PimentelLaboratório de Pesquisa Clínica e Vigilância em Leishmanioses, Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-8159-0502
Liliane de Fátima Antonio OliveiraLaboratório de Pesquisa Clínica e Vigilância em Leishmanioses, Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-2714-7139
Érica de Camargo Ferreira E VasconcellosEscola de Medicina Souza Marques, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Fatima Conceição-SilvaLaboratório de Imunoparasitologia, Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-0114-5001
Armando de Oliveira SchubachLaboratório de Pesquisa Clínica e Vigilância em Leishmanioses, Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-3460-1210
Aline FagundesLaboratório de Pesquisa Clínica e Vigilância em Leishmanioses, Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Cintia Xavier de MelloLaboratório Interdisciplinar de Pesquisas Médicas, Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Eliame Mouta-ConfortLaboratório de Pesquisa Clínica e Vigilância em Leishmanioses, Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Luciana de Freitas Campos MirandaLaboratório de Pesquisa Clínica e Vigilância em Leishmanioses, Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-1695-1922
Claudia Maria Valete-RosalinoLaboratório de Pesquisa Clínica e Vigilância em Leishmanioses, Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-3110-9271
Ana Cristina da Costa MartinsLaboratório de Pesquisa Clínica e Vigilância em Leishmanioses, Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Raquel de Vasconcellos Carvalhaes de OliveiraLaboratório de Epidemiologia Clínica, Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-9387-8645
Leonardo Pereira QuintellaServiço de Anatomia Patológica, Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-2076-8776
Marcelo Rosandiski LyraLaboratório de Pesquisa Clínica e Vigilância em Leishmanioses, Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-6969-2234

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTreatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) remains challenging since the drugs currently used are quite toxic, thus contributing to lethality unrelated to the disease itself but to adverse events (AE). The main objective was to evaluate different treatment regimens with meglumine antimoniate (MA), in a reference center in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. METHODOLOGY: A historical cohort of 592 patients that underwent physical and laboratory examination were enrolled between 2000 and 2017. The outcome measures of effectiveness were epithelialization and complete healing of cutaneous lesions. AE were graded using a standardized scale. Three groups were evaluated: Standard regimen (SR): intramuscular (IM) MA 10-20 mg Sb5+/kg/day during 20 days (n = 46); Alternative regimen (AR): IM MA 5 mg Sb5+/kg/day during 30 days (n = 456); Intralesional route (IL): MA infiltration in the lesion(s) through subcutaneous injections (n = 90). Statistical analysis was performed through Fisher exact and Pearson Chi-square tests, Kruskal-Wallis, Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests.

resultsSR, AR and IL showed efficacy of 95.3%, 84.3% and 75.9%, with abandonment rate of 6.5%, 2.4% and 3.4%, respectively. IL patients had more comorbidities (58.9%; p = 0.001), were mostly over 50 years of age (55.6%), and had an evolution time longer than 2 months (65.6%; p = 0.02). Time for epithelialization and complete healing were similar in IL and IM MA groups (p = 0.9 and p = 0.5; respectively). Total AE and moderate to severe AE that frequently led to treatment interruption were more common in SR group, while AR and IL showed less toxicity. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: AR and IL showed less toxicity and may be good options especially in CL cases with comorbidities, although SR treatment was more effective. IL treatment was an effective and safe strategy, and it may be used as first therapy option as well as a rescue scheme in patients initially treated with other drugs.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAntiprotozoal AgentsBrazilFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansInjections, IntralesionalInjections, IntramuscularLeishmaniaLeishmaniasis, CutaneousMaleMeglumine AntimoniateMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesAntiprotozoal AgentsMeglumine Antimoniate

Identifiers

PMID34555016
PMCPMC8491910

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.