Topical liposomal amphotericin B gel treatment for cutaneous leishmaniasis caused by Leishmania major: a double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled, pilot study

Background Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) topical treatments may have low efficacy, while systemic treatments have adverse effects (AEs) and high cost. Since treatment options for CL nowadays have numerous disadvantages, an alternative topical treatment is vastly needed. We assessed liposomal amphoter...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of dermatology 2023-01, Vol.62 (1), p.40-47
Hauptverfasser: Horev, Amir, Sagi, Orli, Zur, Eyal, Ben‐Shimol, Shalom
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) topical treatments may have low efficacy, while systemic treatments have adverse effects (AEs) and high cost. Since treatment options for CL nowadays have numerous disadvantages, an alternative topical treatment is vastly needed. We assessed liposomal amphotericin B gel (LAmB gel) treatment efficacy and safety. Methods A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial. Adults with CL (PCR proven, ≤5 lesions) were randomized for 28 days with LAmB gel (cases) versus placebo gel (controls), followed by LAmB gel for 28 days (both groups). Lesion size, ulceration, induration, scarring, swelling, and AEs (pain, itch, erythema, discharge, fever, and urticaria) were assessed at days 1, 28, and 56. PCR was repeated at day 56. Results Thirteen patients (four cases, nine controls) with 39 lesions (11 cases, 28 controls) caused by Leishmania major (L. major) were randomized. Ulcer, induration, scarring, and swelling were noted in 18%, 91%, 0%, and 27% of cases, respectively, versus 86%, 89%, 7%, and 54% of controls, respectively. At day 28, improvement rates were low in both groups. Induration improved comparing LAmB gel treatment for 56 days versus 28 days. Ulceration, induration, and swelling improved comparing all patients at 56 days versus 28 days. PCR turned negative in three of four cases and eight of nine controls. Mild, only local, AEs were reported in
ISSN:0011-9059
1365-4632
DOI:10.1111/ijd.16407