Safety and efficacy of paromomycin/miltefosine/liposomal amphotericin B combinations for the treatment of post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis in Sudan: A phase II, open label, randomized, parallel arm study.

BackgroundTreatment for post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis (PKDL) in Sudan is currently recommended only for patients with persistent or severe disease, mainly because of the limitations of current therapies, namely toxicity and long hospitalization. We assessed the safety and efficacy of miltefosine combined with paromomycin and liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB) for the treatment of PKDL in Sudan.Methodology/principal findingsAn open-label, phase II, randomized, parallel-arm, non-comparative trial was conducted in patients with persistent (stable or progressive disease for ≥ 6 months) or grade 3 PKDL, aged 6 to ≤ 60 years in Sudan. The median age was 9.0 years (IQR 7.0-10.0y) and 87% of patients were ≤12 years old. Patients were randomly assigned to either daily intra-muscular paromomycin (20mg/kg, 14 days) plus oral miltefosine (allometric dose, 42 days)-PM/MF-or LAmB (total dose of 20mg/kg, administered in four injections in week one) and oral miltefosine (allometric dose, 28 days)-LAmB/MF. The primary endpoint was a definitive cure at 12 months after treatment onset, defined as clinical cure (100% lesion resolution) and no additional PKDL treatment between end of therapy and 12-month follow-up assessment. 104/110 patients completed the trial. Definitive cure at 12 months was achieved in 54/55 (98.2%, 95% CI 90.3-100) and 44/55 (80.0%, 95% CI 70.2-91.9) of patients in the PM/MF and AmB/MF arms, respectively, in the mITT set (all randomized patients receiving at least one dose of treatment; in case of error of treatment allocation, the actual treatment received was used in the analysis). No SAEs or deaths were reported, and most AEs were mild or moderate. At least one adverse drug reaction (ADR) was reported in 13/55 (23.6%) patients in PM/MF arm and 28/55 (50.9%) in LAmB/MF arm, the most frequent being miltefosine-related vomiting and nausea, and LAmB-related hypokalaemia; no ocular or auditory ADRs were reported.Conclusions/significanceThe PM/MF regimen requires shorter hospitalization than the currently recommended 60-90-day treatment, and is safe and highly efficacious, even for patients with moderate and severe PKDL. It can be administered at primary health care facilities, with LAmB/MF as a good alternative. For future VL elimination, we need new, safe oral therapies for all patients with PKDL.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03399955, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03399955 ClinicalTrials.gov ClinicalTrials.gov

Maternal HIV-1 disease progression 18-24 months postdelivery according to antiretroviral prophylaxis regimen (triple-antiretroviral prophylaxis during pregnancy and breastfeeding vs zidovudine/single-dose nevirapine prophylaxis): the Kesho Bora randomized controlled trial

Background. Antiretroviral (ARV) prophylaxis effectively reduces mother-to-child transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV). However, it is unclear whether stopping ARVs after breastfeeding cessation affects maternal HIV disease progression. We assessed 18-24-month postpartum disease progression risk among women in a randomized trial assessing efficacy and safety of prophylactic maternal ARVs. Methods. From 2005 to 2008, HIV-infected pregnant women with CD4(+) counts of 200-500/mm(3) were randomized to receive either triple ARV (zidovudine, lamivudine, and lopinavir/ritonavir during pregnancy and breastfeeding) or AZT/sdNVP (zidovudine until delivery with single-dose nevirapine without postpartum prophylaxis). Maternal disease progression was defined as the combined endpoint of death, World Health Organization clinical stage 4 disease, or CD4(+) counts of <200/mm(3). Results. Among 824 randomized women, 789 had at least 1 study visit after cessation of ARV prophylaxis. Following delivery, progression risk up to 24 months postpartum in the triple ARV arm was significantly lower than in the AZT/sdNVP arm (15.7% vs 28.3%; P = .001), but the risks of progression after cessation of ARV prophylaxis (rather than after delivery) were not different (15.0% vs 13.8% 18 months after ARV cessation). Among women with CD4(+) counts of 200-349/mm(3) at enrollment, 24.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.7-35.5) progressed with triple ARV, and 23.0% (95% CI, 17.8-29.5) progressed with AZT/sdNVP, whereas few women in either arm (= 350/mm(3) progressed. Conclusions. Interrupting prolonged triple ARV prophylaxis had no effect on HIV progression following cessation (compared with AZT/sdNVP). However, women on triple ARV prophylaxis had lower progression risk during the time on triple ARV. Given the high rate of progression among women with CD4(+) cells of <350/mm(3), ARVs should not be discontinued in this group