ArticleThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene2025
Oleylphosphocholine versus Miltefosine for Canine Leishmaniasis.
Article in The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Treatment ofMicroorganisms · 2025Review
- ComparativeFrontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oleylphosphocholine (OlPC) is a miltefosine derivative that is more effective than miltefosine against Leishmania infections in rodent models. Because canines are a natural host for Leishmania, the improved treatment of canine leishmaniasis is essential both for veterinary medicine and as a large animal model for clinical development. Oleylphosphocholine, at a dosage of 4 mg/kg/day for 28 days, was compared with the approved canine regimen of miltefosine at a dosage of 2 mg/kg/day for 28 days in 33 naturally infected Brazilian dogs (17 randomly assigned to receive OlPC versus 16 designated to receive miltefosine). The animals were followed for 5 months posttreatment. The primary endpoint was the clinical score, which was calculated as the sum of scores for each of 23 clinical parameters graded 0 (normal), 1 (somewhat abnormal), or 2 (markedly abnormal) by a blinded observer. A higher clinical score signified more severe disease. The mean (SD) clinical scores for the OlPC versus miltefosine groups are as follows: pretherapy, 10.1 (5.6) versus 7.7 (4.5; P = 0.19); 3 months posttherapy, 4.3 (4.1) versus 9.5 (4.9; P <0.01); 5 months posttherapy, 3.9 (3.8) versus 8.9 (4.7; P <0.01). Scores for lymph nodes, ear crusts, and splenic parasites were statistically lower for the OlPC group versus the miltefosine group, suggesting that both visceral and cutaneous parameters contributed to OlPC's statistically greater efficacy. One OlPC animal, with minimal splenic parasites pretreatment and zero parasites at the end of treatment, died of kidney failure due to immune-complex deposition, which was presumably already present pretreatment. The increase in blood creatinine values observed in OlPC animals warrants further study in future experiments. The superior clinical effect of OlPC in comparison to miltefosine in this canine study primes OlPC for development as an oral treatment for canine and human leishmaniasis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.