Refractory mucocutaneous leishmaniasis resolved with combination treatment based on intravenous pentamidine, oral azole, aerosolized liposomal amphotericin B, and intralesional meglumine antimoniate

Introduction: Mucocutaneous leishmaniasis (MCL) is a complication of tegumentary leishmaniasis, causing potentially life-threatening lesions in the ear, nose, and throat (ENT) region, and most commonly due to Leishmania (Viannia) braziliensis. We report a case of relapsing MCL in an Italian traveler returning from Argentina. Case description: A 65-year-old Italian male patient with chronic kidney disease, arterial hypertension, prostatic hypertrophy, and type-2 diabetes mellitus was referred for severe relapsing MCL acquired in Argentina. ENT examination showed severe diffuse pharyngolaryngeal edema and erythema, partially obstructing the airways. A nasopharyngeal biopsy revealed a lymphoplasmacytic inflammation and presence of Leishmania amastigotes, subsequently identified as L. (V.) braziliensis by hsp70 PCR-RFLP analysis and sequencing. Despite receiving four courses of liposomal amphotericine B (L-AmB) and two courses of miltefosine over a 2-year period, the patient presented recurrence of symptoms a few months after the end of each course.After the patient was referred to us, a combined treatment was started with intravenous pentamidine 4 mg/kg on alternate days for 10 doses, followed by one dose per week for an additional seven doses, intralesional meglumine antimoniate on the nasal lesion once per week for six doses, oral azoles for three months, and aerosolized L-AmB on alternate days for three months.The treatment led to regression of mucosal lesions and respiratory symptoms. Renal function temporarily worsened, and the addition of insulin was required to maintain glycemic compensation after pentamidine discontinuation. Conclusions: This case highlights the difficulties in managing a life-threatening refractory case of MCL in an Italian traveler with multiple comorbidities. Even though parenteral antimonial derivatives are traditionally considered the treatment of choice for MCL, they are relatively contraindicated in cases of chronic kidney disease.The required dose adjustment in cases of impaired renal function is unknown, therefore the use of alternative drugs is recommended. This case was resolved with combination treatment, including aerosolized L-AmB, which had never been used before for MCL

Artesunate monotherapy versus artesunate plus quinine combination therapy for treatment of imported severe malaria: a TropNet retrospective cohort study

Background The addition of intravenous quinine (IVQ) to intravenous artesunate (IVA) has been recently suggested by World Health Organization in areas where artemisinin resistance is highly prevalent. Since IVA is not yet widely available as "Good Manufacturing Practices" product, for several years combination treatment with IVA and IVQ was used in some Italian centers to mitigate the legal risks in using an unlicensed drug. Methods A retrospective cohort study was designed to compare IVA + IVQ and IVA treatment for imported severe malaria. We collected data from three Italian centers. Adult and pediatric cohorts were analyzed separately. Results Forty-nine patients treated with IVA and 44 with IVA + IVQ were enrolled, 45 were adults and 48 children. All acquired malaria in Sub-Saharan Africa. In the adult cohort, median of fever clearance time (FCT) was similar in both groups (48 h vs 48 h, p = 0.19) but number of patients who reached apyrexia within 48 h (FCT48) was higher in IVA group (20/24, 83.3% vs 8/17, 47%, p = 0.002). The parasite clearance time (PCT) measure did not differ (median 48 h vs 48 h, p = 0.669). In the pediatric cohort, FCT did not differ in the two groups (median 30 vs 48 h, p = 0.50) while PCT was longer in IVA + IVQ group (median 72 vs 48 h, p = 0.002). Adverse events (AEs) in adults were more common in the combination treatment group (6/19, 31.58% vs 2/26, 7.69%, p = 0.055). Conclusion IVA + IVQ treatment did not show better outcome with respect to IVA monotherapy. AEs were more frequent in the IVA + IVQ group compared to the monotherapy. Further studies are necessary to investigate whether IVA + IVQ could be an efficient strategy to treat severe malaria cases in areas at high risk of artemisinin resistance