Author
Listed:
- 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
- Monique Wasunna
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.
Suggested Citation
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 Fa, 2012.
"Sodium Stibogluconate (SSG) & Paromomycin Combination Compared to SSG for Visceral Leishmaniasis in East Africa: A Randomised Controlled Trial,"
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(6), pages 1-10, June.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pntd00:0001674
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001674
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0001674. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosntds (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.