Sally Ellis

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

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.

Geographical Variation in the Response of Visceral Leishmaniasis to Paromomycin in East Africa: A Multicentre, Open-Label, Randomized Trial

Background Visceral leishmaniasis (VL) is a major health problem in developing countries. The untreated disease is fatal, available treatment is expensive and often toxic, and drug resistance is increasing. Improved treatment options are needed. Paromomycin was shown to be an efficacious first-line treatment with low toxicity in India. Methods This was a 3-arm multicentre, open-label, randomized, controlled clinical trial to compare three treatment regimens for VL in East Africa: paromomycin sulphate (PM) at 15 mg/kg/day for 21 days versus sodium stibogluconate (SSG) at 20 mg/kg/day for 30 days; and the combination of both dose regimens for 17 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was cure based on parasite-free tissue aspirates taken 6 months after treatment. Findings Overall, 135 patients per arm were enrolled at five centres in Sudan (2 sites), Kenya (1) and Ethiopia (2), when the PM arm had to be discontinued due to poor efficacy. The trial has continued with the higher dose of PM as well as the combination of PM and SSG arms. These results will be reported later. Baseline patient characteristics were similar among treatment arms. The overall cure with PM was significantly inferior to that with SSG (63.8% versus 92.2%; difference 28.5%, 95%CI 18.8% to 38.8%, p<0.001). The efficacy of PM varied among centres and was significantly lower in Sudan (14.3% and 46.7%) than in Kenya (80.0%) and Ethiopia (75.0% and 96.6%). No major safety issues with PM were identified. Conclusion The efficacy of PM at 15 mg/kg/day for 21 days was inadequate, particularly in Sudan. The efficacy of higher doses and the combination treatment warrant further studies.

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

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

Safety and Efficacy of Single Dose versus Multiple Doses of AmBisome® for Treatment of Visceral Leishmaniasis in Eastern Africa: A Randomised Trial.

Background Anti-leishmanial drug regimens that include a single dose AmBisome® could be suitable for eastern African patients with symptomatic visceral leishmaniasis (VL) but the appropriate single dose is unknown. Methodology A multi-centre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial with an adaptive design, was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of a single dose and multiple doses of AmBisome® for the treatment of VL in eastern Africa. The primary efficacy endpoint was definitive cure (DC) at 6 months. Symptomatic patients with parasitologically-confirmed, non-severe VL, received a single dose of AmBisome® 7.5 mg/kg body weight or multiple doses, 7 times 3 mg/kg on days 1–5, 14, and 21. If interim analyses, evaluated 30 days after the start of treatment following 40 or 80 patients, showed the single dose gave significantly poorer parasite clearance than multiple doses at the 5% significance level, the single dose was increased by 2·5 mg/kg. In a sub-set of patients, parasite clearance was measured by quantitative reverse transcriptase (qRT) PCR. Principal Findings The trial was terminated after the third interim analysis because of low efficacy of both regimens. Based on the intention-to-treat population, DC was 85% (95%CI 73–93%), 40% (95%CI 19–64%), and 58% (95%CI 41–73%) in patients treated with multiple doses (n = 63), and single doses of 7·5 (n = 21) or 10 mg/kg (n = 40), respectively. qRT-PCR suggested superior parasite clearance with multiple doses as early as day 3. Safety data accorded with the drug label. Conclusions The tested AmBisome® regimens would not be suitable for VL treatment across eastern Africa. An optimal single dose regimen was not identified. Trials Registration www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00832208

Safety and Efficacy of miltefosine alone and in combination with sodium stibogluconate and liposomal amphotericin B for the treatment of primary visceral leishmaniasis in East Africa: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundTreatment options for Visceral Leishmaniasis (VL) in East Africa are far from satisfactory due to cost, toxicity, prolonged treatment duration or emergence of parasite resistance. Hence there is a need to explore alternative treatment protocols such as miltefosine alone or in combinations including miltefosine, sodium stibogluconate (SSG) or liposomal amphotericin B. The aim of this trial is to identify regimen(s) which are sufficiently promising for future trials in East Africa.Methods/DesignA phase II randomized, parallel arm, open-labelled trial is being conducted to assess the efficacy of each of the three regimens: liposomal amphotericin B with SSG, Liposomal amphotericin B with miltefosine and miltefosine alone. The primary endpoint is cure at day 28 with secondary endpoint at day 210 (6 months). Initial cure is a single composite measure based on parasitologic evaluation (bone marrow, spleen or lymph node aspirate) and clinical assessment. Repeated interim analyses have been planned after recruitment of 15 patients in each arm with a maximum sample size of 63 for each. These will follow group-sequential methods (the triangular test) to identify when a regimen is inadequate (<75% efficacy) or adequate (>90% efficacy). We describe a method to ensure consistency of the sequential analysis of day 28 cure with the non-sequential analysis of day 210 cure.DiscussionA regimen with adequate efficacy would be a candidate for treatment of VL with reasonable costs. The design allows repeated testing throughout the trial recruitment period while maintaining good statistical properties (Type I & II error rates) and reducing the expected sample sizes.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01067443

Efficacy and Safety of AmBisome in Combination with Sodium Stibogluconate or Miltefosine and Miltefosine Monotherapy for African Visceral Leishmaniasis: Phase II Randomized Trial

Background SSG&PM over 17 days is recommended as first line treatment for visceral leishmaniasis in eastern Africa, but is painful and requires hospitalization. Combination regimens including AmBisome and miltefosine are safe and effective in India, but there are no published data from trials of combination therapies including these drugs from Africa. Methods A phase II open-label, non-comparative randomized trial was conducted in Sudan and Kenya to evaluate the efficacy and safety of three treatment regimens: 10 mg/kg single dose AmBisome plus 10 days of SSG (20 mg/kg/day), 10 mg/kg single dose AmBisome plus 10 days of miltefosine (2.5mg/kg/day) and miltefosine alone (2.5 mg/kg/day for 28 days). The primary endpoint was initial parasitological cure at Day 28, and secondary endpoints included definitive cure at Day 210, and pharmacokinetic (miltefosine) and pharmacodynamic assessments. Results In sequential analyses with 49–51 patients per arm, initial cure was 85% (95% CI: 73–92) in all arms. At D210, definitive cure was 87% (95% CI: 77–97) for AmBisome + SSG, 77% (95% CI 64–90) for AmBisome + miltefosine and 72% (95% CI 60–85) for miltefosine alone, with lower efficacy in younger patients, who weigh less. Miltefosine pharmacokinetic data indicated under-exposure in children compared to adults. Conclusion No major safety concerns were identified, but point estimates of definitive cure were less than 90% for each regimen so none will be evaluated in Phase III trials in their current form. Allometric dosing of miltefosine in children needs to be evaluated. Trial Registration The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01067443

Single-dose liposomal amphotericin B (AmBisome®) for the treatment of Visceral Leishmaniasis in East Africa: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundAmBisome® is an efficacious, safe anti-leishmanial treatment. There is growing interest in its use, either as a single dose or in combination treatments. In East Africa, the minimum optimal single-dosage has not been identified.Methods/DesignAn open-label, 2-arm, non-inferiority, multi-centre randomised controlled trial is being conducted to determine the optimal single-dose treatment with AmBisome®.Patients in the single-dose arm will receive one infusion on day 1, at a dose depending on body weight. For the first group of patients entered to the trial, the dose will be 7.5 mg/kg, but if this dose is found to be ineffective then in subsequent patient series the dose will be escalated progressively to 10, 12.5 and 15 mg/kg. Patients in the reference arm will receive a multi-dose regimen of AmBisome® (3 mg/kg/day on days 1-5, 14 and 21: total dose 21 mg/kg). Patients will be hospitalised for approximately one month after the start of treatment and then followed up at three and six months. The primary endpoint is the status of patients six months after treatment. A secondary endpoint is assessment at day 30. Treatment success is determined as the absence of parasites on microscopy samples taken from bone marrow, lymph node or splenic aspirates. Interim analyses to assess the comparative efficacy of the single dose are planned after recruitment of 20 and 40 patients per arm. The final non-inferiority analysis will include 120 patients per arm, to determine if the single-dose efficacy 6 months after treatment is not more than 10% inferior to the multi-dose.DiscussionAn effective, safe single-dose treatment would reduce hospitalization and treatment costs. Results will inform the design of combination treatment studies.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00832208

Safety and efficacy of short course combination regimens with AmBisome, miltefosine and paromomycin for the treatment of visceral leishmaniasis (VL) in Bangladesh

Background AmBisome therapy for VL has an excellent efficacy and safety profile and has been adopted as a first-line regimen in Bangladesh. Second-line treatment options are limited and should preferably be given in short course combinations in order to prevent the development of resistant strains. Combination regimens including AmBisome, paromomycin and miltefosine have proved to be safe and effective in the treatment of VL in India. In the present study, the safety and efficacy of these same combinations were assessed in field conditions in Bangladesh. Methods The safety and efficacy of three combination regimens: a 5 mg/kg single dose of AmBisome + 7 subsequent days of miltefosine (2.5 mg/kg/day), a 5 mg/kg single dose of AmBisome + 10 subsequent days of paromomycin (15 mg/kg/day) and 10 days of paromomycin (15 mg/kg/day) + miltefosine (2.5 mg/kg/day), were compared with a standard regimen of AmBisome 15 mg/kg given in 5 mg/kg doses on days 1, 3 and 5. This was a phase III open label, individually randomized clinical trial. Patients from 5 to 60 years with uncomplicated primary VL were recruited from the Community Based Medical College Bangladesh (CBMC,B) and the Upazila Health Complexes of Trishal, Bhaluka and Fulbaria (all located in Mymensingh district), and randomly assigned to one of the treatments. The objective was to assess safety and definitive cure at 6 months after treatment. Results 601 patients recruited between July 2010 and September 2013 received either AmBisome monotherapy (n = 158), AmBisome + paromomycin (n = 159), AmBisome + miltefosine (n = 142) or paromomycin + miltefosine (n = 142). At 6 months post- treatment, final cure rates for the intention-to-treat population were 98.1% (95%CI 96.0–100) for AmBisome monotherapy, 99.4% (95%CI 98.2–100) for the AmBisome + paromomycin arm, 94.4% (95%CI 90.6–98.2) for the AmBisome + miltefosine arm, and 97.9% (95%CI 95.5–100) for paromomycin + miltefosine arm. There were 12 serious adverse events in the study in 11 patients that included 3 non-study drug related deaths. There were no relapses or PKDL up to 6 months follow-up. All treatments were well tolerated with no unexpected side effects. Adverse events were most frequent during treatment with miltefosine + paromomycin, three serious adverse events related to the treatment occurred in this arm, all of which resolved. Conclusion None of the combinations were inferior to AmBisome in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. All the combinations demonstrated excellent overall efficacy, were well tolerated and safe, and could be deployed under field conditions in Bangladesh. The trial was conducted by the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research (ICDDR,B) and the Shaheed Suhrawardy Medical College (ShSMC), Dhaka, in collaboration with the trial sites and sponsored by the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi). Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01122771

Visceral leishmaniasis relapse hazard is linked to reduced miltefosine exposure in patients from Eastern Africa: a population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study

Abstract Background Low efficacy of miltefosine in the treatment of visceral leishmaniasis was recently observed in Eastern Africa. Objectives To describe the pharmacokinetics and establish a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationship for miltefosine in Eastern African patients with visceral leishmaniasis, using a time-to-event approach to model relapse of disease. Methods Miltefosine plasma concentrations from 95 patients (48 monotherapy versus 47 combination therapy) were included in the population pharmacokinetic model using non-linear mixed effects modelling. Subsequently a time-to-event model was developed to model the time of clinical relapse. Various summary pharmacokinetic parameters (various AUCs, Time > EC50, Time > EC90), normalized within each treatment arm to allow simultaneous analysis, were evaluated as relapse hazard-changing covariates. Results A two-compartment population model with first-order absorption fitted the miltefosine pharmacokinetic data adequately. Relative bioavailability was reduced (−74%, relative standard error 4.7%) during the first week of treatment of the monotherapy arm but only the first day of the shorter combination regimen. Time to the relapse of infection could be described using a constant baseline hazard (baseline 1.8 relapses/year, relative standard error 72.7%). Miltefosine Time > EC90 improved the model significantly when added in a maximum effect function on the baseline hazard (half maximal effect with Time > EC90 6.97 days for monotherapy). Conclusions Miltefosine drug exposure was found to be decreased in Eastern African patients with visceral leishmaniasis, due to a (transient) initial lower bioavailability. Relapse hazard was inversely linked to miltefosine exposure. Significantly lower miltefosine exposure was observed in children compared with adults, further urging the need for implementation of dose adaptations for children.

Field safety and effectiveness of new visceral leishmaniasis treatment regimens within public health facilities in Bihar, India

Background In 2010, WHO recommended the use of new short-course treatment regimens in kala-azar elimination efforts for the Indian subcontinent. Although phase 3 studies have shown excellent results, there remains a lack of evidence on a wider treatment population and the safety and effectiveness of these regimens under field conditions. Methods This was an open label, prospective, non-randomized, non-comparative, multi-centric trial conducted within public health facilities in two highly endemic districts and a specialist referral centre in Bihar, India. Three treatment regimens were tested: single dose AmBisome (SDA), concomitant miltefosine and paromomycin (Milt+PM), and concomitant AmBisome and miltefosine (AmB+Milt). Patients with complicated disease or significant co-morbidities were treated in the SDA arm. Sample sizes were set at a minimum of 300 per arm, taking into account inter-site variation and an estimated failure risk of 5% with 5% precision. Outcomes of drug effectiveness and safety were measured at 6 months. The trial was prospectively registered with the Clinical Trials Registry India: CTRI/2012/08/002891. Results Out of 1,761 patients recruited, 50.6% (n = 891) received SDA, 20.3% (n = 358) AmB+Milt and 29.1% (n = 512) Milt+PM. In the ITT analysis, the final cure rates were SDA 91.4% (95% CI 89.3–93.1), AmB+Milt 88.8% (95% CI 85.1–91.9) and Milt+PM 96.9% (95% CI 95.0–98.2). In the complete case analysis, cure rates were SDA 95.5% (95% CI 93.9–96.8), AmB+Milt 95.5% (95% CI 92.7–97.5) and Milt+PM 99.6% (95% CI 98.6–99.9). All three regimens were safe, with 5 severe adverse events in the SDA arm, two of which were considered to be drug related. Conclusion All regimens showed acceptable outcomes and safety profiles in a range of patients under field conditions. Phase IV field-based studies, although extremely rare for neglected tropical diseases, are good practice and an important step in validating the results of more restrictive hospital-based studies before widespread implementation, and in this case contributed to national level policy change in India. Trial registration Clinical trial is registered at Clinical trial registry of India (CTRI/2012/08/002891, Registered on 16/08/2012, Trial Registered Prospectively).