Piero Olliaro

Visceral leishmaniasis: current status of control, diagnosis, and treatment, and a proposed research and development agenda

Visceral leishmaniasis is common in less developed countries, with an estimated 500000 new cases each year. Because of the diversity of epidemiological situations, no single diagnosis, treatment, or control will be suitable for all. Control measures through case finding, treatment, and vector control are seldom used, even where they could be useful. There is a place for a vaccine, and new imaginative approaches are needed. HIV co-infection is changing the epidemiology and presents problems for diagnosis and case management. Field diagnosis is difficult; simpler, less invasive tests are needed. Current treatments require long courses and parenteral administration, and most are expensive. Resistance is making the mainstay of treatment, agents based on pentavalent antimony, useless in northeastern India, where disease incidence is highest. Second-line drugs (pentamidine and amphotericin B) are limited by toxicity and availability, and newer formulations of amphotericin B are not affordable. The first effective oral drug, miltefosine, has been licensed in India, but the development of other drugs in clinical phases (paromomycin and sitamaquine) is slow. No novel compound is in the pipeline. Drug combinations must be developed to prevent drug resistance. Despite these urgent needs, research and development has been neglected, because a disease that mainly affects the poor ranks as a low priority in the private sector, and the public sector currently struggles to undertake the development of drugs and diagnostics in the absence of adequate funds and infrastructure. This article reviews the current situation and perspectives for diagnosis, treatment, and control of visceral leishmaniasis, and lists some priorities for research and development.

Averting a malaria disaster

Estimates for the annual mortality from malaria range from 0·5 to 2·5 million deaths. The burden of this enormous toll, and the concomitant morbidity, is borne by the world’s poorest countries. Malaria morbidity and mortality have been held in check by the widespread availability of cheap and effective antimalarial drugs. The loss of these drugs to resistance may represent the single most important threat to the health of people in tropical countries. Chloroquine has been the mainstay of antimalarial drug treatment for the past 40 years, but resistance is now widespread and few countries are u n a f f e c t e d . 1 Pyrimethamine-sulphadoxine (PSD) is usually deployed as a successor to chloroquine. Both these antimalarials cost less than US

Malaria: current status of control, diagnosis, treatment, and a proposed agenda for research and development

0.20 per adult treatment course, but the drugs required to treat multidrug-resistant falciparum malaria (quinine, mefloquine, halofantrine) are over ten times more expensive and cannot be afforded by most tropical countries— especially those in Africa, where it is estimated that more than 90% of the world’s malaria deaths occur. Resistance to chloroquine is widespread across Africa and resistance to PSD is increasing. 2 A health calamity looms within the next few years. 3 As treatments lose their effectiveness, morbidity and mortality from malaria will inevitably continue to rise. Can this disaster be prevented? Can we really “roll back malaria”, as the new Director-General of WHO has demanded? 4

Amodiaquine-artesunate versus amodiaquine for uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in African children: a randomised, multicentre trial

Rolling back malaria is possible. Tools are available but they are not used. Several countries deploy, as their national malaria control treatment policy, drugs that are no longer effective. New and innovative methods of vector control, diagnosis, and treatment should be developed, and work towards development of new drugs and a vaccine should receive much greater support. But the pressing need, in the face of increasing global mortality and general lack of progress in malaria control, is research into the best methods of deploying and using existing approaches, particularly insecticide-treated mosquito nets, rapid methods of diagnosis, and artemisinin-based combination treatments. Evidence on these approaches should provide national governments and international donors with the cost-benefit information that would justify much-needed increases in global support for appropriate and effective malaria control.

Systematic review of amodiaquine treatment in uncomplicated malaria

BACKGROUND Increasing drug resistance limits the choice of efficacious chemotherapy against Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Africa. Amodiaquine still retains efficacy against P falciparum in many African countries. We assessed the safety, treatment efficacy, and effect on gametocyte carriage of adding artesunate to amodiaquine in three randomised trials in Kenya, Sénégal, and Gabon. METHODS We enrolled 941 children (400 in Kenya, 321 in Sénégal, and 220 in Gabon) who were 10 years or older and who had uncomplicated P falciparum malaria. Patients were randomly assigned amodiaquine (10 mg/kg per day for 3 days) plus artesunate (4 mg/kg per day for 3 days) or amodiaquine (as above) and placebo (for 3 days). The primary endpoints were parasitological cure rates at days 14 and 28. Analysis was by intention to treat and by an evaluability method. FINDINGS Both regimens were well tolerated. Six patients in the amodiaquine-artesunate group and five in the amodiaquine group developed early, drug-induced vomiting, necessitating alternative treatment. By intention-to-treat analysis, the day-14 cure rates for amodiaquine-artesunate versus amodiaquine were: 175/192 (91%) versus 140/188 (74%) in Kenya (D=16.7% [95% CI 9.3-24.1], p<0.0001), 148/160 (93%) versus 147/157 (94%) in Sénégal (-1.1% [-6.7 to 4.5], p=0.7), and 92/94 (98%) versus 86/96 (90%) in Gabon (8.3% [1.5-15.1], p=0.02). The corresponding rates for day 28 were: 123/180 (68%) versus 75/183 (41%) in Kenya (27.3% [17.5-37.2], p<0.0001), 130/159 (82%) versus 123/156 (79%) in Sénégal (2.9% [-5.9 to 11.7], p=0.5), and 80/94 (85%) versus 70/98 (71%) in Gabon (13.7% [2.2-25.2], p=0.02). Similar rates were obtained by evaluability analysis. INTERPRETATION The combination of artesunate and amodiaquine improved treatment efficacy in Gabon and Kenya, and was equivalent in Sénégal. Amodiaquine-artesunate is a potential combination for use in Africa. Further investigations to assess the potential effect on the evolution of drug resistance, disease transmission, and safety of amodiaquine-artesunate are warranted.

Comparison of short-course multidrug treatment with standard therapy for visceral leishmaniasis in India: an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Opinion and policy over the use of amodiaquine for treating malaria vary. Amodiaquine is more palatable than chloroquine and may be more effective but serious adverse events have been reported in travellers taking it as prophylaxis. It is not recommended as first-line treatment. In the light of the global debate over the use of this drug, we conducted a systematic review of the effectiveness and tolerability of amodiaquine in the treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria. METHODS This is a systematic review of published and unpublished randomised or pseudorandomised trials of amodiaquine. Observational reports were also systematically identified and reviewed to access evidence of serious adverse events. FINDINGS 40 trials met the inclusion criteria. Symptomatic patients were enrolled in 24 studies in comparisons of amodiaquine (n = 1071) with chloroquine (n = 1097). Amodiaquine was significantly more effective than chloroquine, with odds ratios and 99% confidence intervals (OR [99% CI]) of 4.29 (3.30-5.58) on day 7 and 6.00 (3.97-9.06) on day 14. Time to parasite clearance was significantly shorter with amodiaquine and fever clearance times were marginally faster. Eight studies compared amodiaquine with chloroquine in asymptomatic parasitaemia, with effects on parasitological outcomes similar to those for symptomatic malaria. At twelve sites, 692 amodiaquine and 679 sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine (S/P) recipients were enrolled. The two drugs did not differ significantly on day 7 (OR 0.74 [0.48-1.15]) but the odds ratios favoured S/P on day 14 (OR 0.51 [0.28-0.93]) and on day 28 (OR 0.30 [0.16-0.55]). The time to parasitological clearance was similar in the two groups; fever clearance times were significantly shorter with amodiaquine. Tolerability was assessed for both comparative and non-comparative trials. The rates of adverse events in controlled trials were 10.7%, 8.8%, and 14.3% with amodiaquine, chloroquine, and S/P, respectively. No life-threatening adverse events and no significant shifts in laboratory indices were reported. INTERPRETATION This systematic review of published and unpublished trials supports the use of amodiaquine in the treatment of uncomplicated malaria. However, there is partial cross-resistance between chloroquine and amodiaquine, and monitoring of the effectiveness of this drug and surveillance for evidence of toxicity must continue.

Treatment options for visceral leishmaniasis: a systematic review of clinical studies done in India, 1980-2004.

BACKGROUND Improved treatment approaches are needed for visceral leishmaniasis. We assessed the efficacy and safety of three potential short-course combination treatments compared with the standard monotherapy in India. METHODS Standard treatment (1 mg/kg amphotericin B infusion on alternate days for 30 days, total dose 15 mg/kg) was compared with three drug combinations (single injection of 5 mg/kg liposomal amphotericin B and 7-day 50 mg oral miltefosine or single 10-day 11 mg/kg intramuscular paromomycin; or 10 days each of miltefosine and paromomycin) in an open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial in two hospital sites in Bihar, India. Patients aged 5-60 years with parasitologically confirmed visceral leishmaniasis were randomly assigned one of the four treatments by the trial statistician by use of a computer-generated list. Clinical assessments were done at the end of treatment (15 days on combination treatment; 31 days for standard treatment) and after 45 days and 6 months. The primary endpoint was definitive cure (defined as no sign or symptom of visceral leishmaniasis and parasitologically cured to the last follow-up). Analyses were done both by intention to treat and per protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00696969. FINDINGS Between June, 2008, and July, 2009, 634 patients were assigned amphotericin B (n=157), liposomal amphotericin B with miltefosine (n=160) or paromomycin (n=158), or miltefosine and paromomycin (n=159). 618 patients were in the per-protocol population. There were two relapses in each group. The numbers with definitive cure at 6 months for the intention-to-treat population were 146 (cure rate 93·0%; CI 87·5-96·3) for amphotericin B, 156 (97·5%; 93·3-99·2) for liposomal amphotericin B and miltefosine, 154 (97·5%; 93·24-99·2) for liposomal amphotericin B and paromomycin, and 157 (98·7%; 95·1-99·8) for miltefosine and paromomycin. All combinations were non-inferior to the standard treatment, in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. Patients in the combination groups had fewer adverse events than did those assigned standard treatment. INTERPRETATION Combination treatments for visceral leishmaniasis are efficacious and safe, and decrease the duration of therapy, thereby encouraging adherence and reducing emergence of drug-resistant parasites. FUNDING Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative and the Indian Council of Medical Research.

Chemotherapy in the Treatment and Control of Leishmaniasis

The state of Bihar in India carries the largest share of the worlds burden of antimony-resistant visceral leishmaniasis. We analysed clinical studies done in Bihar with different treatments between 1980 and 2004. Overall, 53 studies were included (all but one published), of which 15 were comparative (randomised, quasi-randomised, or non-randomised), 23 dose-finding, and 15 non-comparative. Data from comparative studies were pooled when appropriate for meta-analysis. Overall, these studies enrolled 7263 patients in 123 treatment arms. Adequacy of methods used to do the studies and report on them varied. Unresponsiveness to antimony has developed steadily in the past to such an extent that antimony must now be replaced, despite attempts to stop its progression by increasing dose and duration of therapy. The classic second-line treatments are unsuited: pentamidine is toxic and its efficacy has also declined, and amphotericin B deoxycholate is effective but requires hospitalisation for long periods and toxicity is common. Liposomal amphotericin B is very effective and safe but currently unaffordable because of its high price. Miltefosine-the first oral drug for visceral leishmaniasis-is now registered and marketed in India and is effective, but should be used under supervision to prevent misuse. Paromomycin (or aminosidine) is effective and safe, and although not yet available, a regulatory submission is due soon. To preserve the limited armamentarium of drugs to treat visceral leishmaniasis, drugs should not be deployed unprotected; combinations can make drugs last longer, improve treatment, and reduce costs to households and health systems. India, Bangladesh, and Nepal agreed recently to undertake measures towards the elimination of visceral leishmaniasis. The lessons learnt in Bihar could help inform policy decisions both regionally and elsewhere.

Efficacy of artesunate plus pyrimethamine-sulphadoxine for uncomplicated malaria in Gambian children: a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial

Drugs remain the most important tool for the treatment and control of both visceral and cutaneous leishmaniasis. Although there have been several advances in the past decade, with the introduction of new therapies by liposomal amphotericin, oral miltefosine and paromomycin (PM), these are not ideal drugs, and improved shorter duration, less toxic and cheaper therapies are required. Treatments for complex forms of leishmaniasis and HIV co-infections are inadequate. In addition, full deployment of drugs in treatment and control requires defined strategies, which can also prevent or delay the development of drug resistance.

Efficacy of Artesunate Plus Amodiaquine versus That of Artemether-Lumefantrine for the Treatment of Uncomplicated Childhood Plasmodium falciparum Malaria in Zanzibar, Tanzania

BACKGROUND Resistance to cheap effective antimalarial drugs, especially to pyrimethaminesulphadoxine (Fansidar), is likely to have a striking impact on childhood mortality in sub-Sharan Africa. The use of artesunate (artesunic acid) [corrected] in combination with pyrimethamine-sulphadoxine may delay or prevent resistance. We investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of this combined treatment. METHODS We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in The Gambia. 600 children with acute uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria, aged 6 months to 10 years, at five health centres were randomly assigned pyrimethaminesulphadoxine (25 mg/500 mg) with placebo; pyrimethamine-sulphadoxine plus one dose of artesunate (4mg/kg bodyweight); or pyrimethamine-sulphadoxine plus one dose 4 mg/kg bodyweight artesunate daily for 3 days. Children were visited at home each day after the start of treatment until parasitaemia had cleared. FINDINGS The combined treatment was well tolerated. No adverse reactions attributable to treatment were recorded. By day 1, only 178 (47%) of 381 children treated with artesunate were still parasitaemic, compared with 157 (81%) of 195 children in the pyrimethamine-sulphadoxine alone group (relative risk 1.7 [95% CI 1.5-2.0], p<0.001). Treatment-failure rates at day 14 were 3.1% in the pyrimethamine sulphadoxine alone group, and 3.7% in the one-dose artesunate group (risk difference -0.6% [-4.2 to 3.0]) and 1.6% in the three-dose group (1.5 [1.5-4.5], p=0.048). Symptoms resolved faster in children who received artesunate, but there was no additional benefit for three doses of artesunate over one dose. Children given artesunate were less likely to be gametocytaemic after treatment. INTERPRETATION The combined treatment was safe, well tolerated, and effective. The addition of artesunate to malaria treatment regimens in Africa results in lower gametocyte rates and may lower transmission rates.