Sodium Stibogluconate (SSG) & Paromomycin Combination Compared to SSG for Visceral Leishmaniasis in East Africa: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Ahmed Musa, Eltahir Khalil, Asrat Hailu, Joseph Olobo, Manica Balasegaram, Raymond Omollo, Tansy Edwards, Juma Rashid, Jane Mbui, Brima Musa, Abuzaid Abdalla Abuzaid, Osama Ahmed, Ahmed Fadlalla, Ahmed El-Hassan, Marius Mueller, Geoffrey Mucee, Simon Njoroge, Veronica Manduku, Geoffrey Mutuma, Lilian Apadet, Hudson Lodenyo, Dedan Mutea, George Kirigi, Sisay Yifru, Getahun Mengistu, Zewdu Hurissa, Workagegnehu Hailu, Teklu Weldegebreal, Hailemariam Tafes, Yalemtsehay Mekonnen, Eyasu Makonnen, Serah Ndegwa, Patrick Sagaki, Robert Kimutai, Josephine Kesusu, Rhoda Owiti, Sally Ellis and Monique Wasunna

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 2012, vol. 6, issue 6, 1-10

Abstract: Background: Alternative treatments for visceral leishmaniasis (VL) are required in East Africa. Paromomycin sulphate (PM) has been shown to be efficacious for VL treatment in India. Methods: A multi-centre randomized-controlled trial (RCT) to compare efficacy and safety of PM (20 mg/kg/day for 21 days) and PM plus sodium stibogluconate (SSG) combination (PM, 15 mg/kg/day and SSG, 20 mg/kg/day for 17 days) with SSG (20 mg/kg/day for 30 days) for treatment of VL in East Africa. Patients aged 4–60 years with parasitologically confirmed VL were enrolled, excluding patients with contraindications. Primary and secondary efficacy outcomes were parasite clearance at 6-months follow-up and end of treatment, respectively. Safety was assessed mainly using adverse event (AE) data. Findings: The PM versus SSG comparison enrolled 205 patients per arm with primary efficacy data available for 198 and 200 patients respectively. The SSG & PM versus SSG comparison enrolled 381 and 386 patients per arm respectively, with primary efficacy data available for 359 patients per arm. In Intention-to-Treat complete-case analyses, the efficacy of PM was significantly lower than SSG (84.3% versus 94.1%, difference = 9.7%, 95% confidence interval, CI: 3.6 to 15.7%, p = 0.002). The efficacy of SSG & PM was comparable to SSG (91.4% versus 93.9%, difference = 2.5%, 95% CI: −1.3 to 6.3%, p = 0.198). End of treatment efficacy results were very similar. There were no apparent differences in the safety profile of the three treatment regimens. Conclusion: The 17 day SSG & PM combination treatment had a good safety profile and was similar in efficacy to the standard 30 day SSG treatment, suggesting suitability for VL treatment in East Africa. Clinical Trials Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00255567 Author Summary: Visceral leishmaniasis (VL) is a parasitic disease with about 500,000 new cases each year and is fatal if untreated. The current standard therapy involves long courses, has toxicity and there is evidence of increasing resistance. New and better treatment options are urgently needed. Recently, the antibiotic paromomycin (PM) was tested and registered in India to treat this disease, but the same dose of PM monotherapy evaluated and registered in India was not efficacious in Sudan. This article reports the results of a clinical trial to test the effectiveness of injectable PM either alone (in a higher dose) or in combination with sodium stibogluconate (SSG) against the standard SSG monotherapy treatment in four East African countries—Sudan, Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda. The study showed that the combination of SSG &PM was as efficacious and safe as the standard SSG treatment, with the advantages of being cheaper and requiring only 17 days rather than 30 days of treatment. In March 2010, a WHO Expert Committee recommended the use of the SSG & PM combination as a first line treatment for VL in East Africa.

Date: 2012
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0001674 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article/file?id ... 01674&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pntd00:0001674

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001674

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosntds ().