IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pntd00/0007996.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patients’ preferences of cutaneous leishmaniasis treatment outcomes: Findings from an international qualitative study

Author

Listed:
  • Astrid C Erber
  • Byron Arana
  • Afif Ben Salah
  • Issam Bennis
  • Aicha Boukthir
  • María del Mar Castro Noriega
  • Mamoudou Cissé
  • Gláucia Fernandes Cota
  • Farhad Handjani
  • Liliana López-Carvajal
  • Kevin Marsh
  • Dalila Martínez Medina
  • Emma Plugge
  • Trudie Lang
  • Piero Olliaro

Abstract

Background: Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is a disease that often affects exposed skin areas and may heal leaving lifelong scars. Patients’ expectations from treatment are rarely considered in drug development for CL. An initiative aiming to address shortcomings in clinical trial design and conduct for CL treatments involving the researchers’ community is on-going. This manuscript presents patient-preferred outcomes for CL and an assessment on how to consider these in the conduct of future trials. Methodology/Principal findings: We report preferred treatment outcomes by 74 patients with confirmed CL in endemic regions of Brazil, Burkina Faso, Colombia, Iran, Morocco, Peru and Tunisia during individual in-depth interviews. Beyond outcomes customarily considered in trials (such as lesion appearance and adverse events), patients talked about a large number of outcomes related to quality of life, such as pain, scar formation, and others affecting their work and daily activities. They also reported fears around getting rid of the parasite, disease recurrence, and possible sequelae. Conclusions/Significance: The study results provide a rich insight into important outcomes for CL treatments, as well as related topics, from the perspective of a diverse patient population. Among the outcomes identified, we argue that those related to quality of life as well as recurrence should be included to a greater extent for assessment in clinical trials, and discuss the suitability of measurement instruments such as the Dermatology Quality of Life Index (DLQI). Interviews also point out the potential need to address concerns related to parasitological cure or scar formation, such as social stigmatization and disability. In addition, patients should be given information in order to clarify reported misconceptions. This study therefore suggests a methodology for consulting CL patients on outcomes as elements of clinical trial design, and how to incorporate these outcomes in trials. It also discusses how reported outcomes could be addressed in clinical care. Author summary: Cutaneous Leishmaniasis (CL) is a parasitic disease transmitted by sand fly vectors causing lesions and potentially life-long scars. Trials for CL treatments so far have not included patients’ input, such as their preferences on outcomes. This study reports treatment outcomes seen as important by patients that were explored through semi-structured interviews conducted in CL-endemic regions in Brazil, Burkina Faso, Colombia, Iran, Morocco, Peru and Tunisia. In addition to outcomes mostly considered in trials centered on lesion evolution and adverse events, patients reported a wide range of further outcomes and concerns. These are related to their quality of life, but also parasitological cure, potential for recurrence and sequelae of the disease. We suggest possibilities on how to include and measure a number of these patient-preferred outcomes into trials, and discuss ways of considering others in the context of treatment and clinical trials, e.g. via information provided to patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Astrid C Erber & Byron Arana & Afif Ben Salah & Issam Bennis & Aicha Boukthir & María del Mar Castro Noriega & Mamoudou Cissé & Gláucia Fernandes Cota & Farhad Handjani & Liliana López-Carvajal & Kevi, 2020. "Patients’ preferences of cutaneous leishmaniasis treatment outcomes: Findings from an international qualitative study," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-21, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0007996
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007996
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0007996
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0007996&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007996?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pntd00:0007996. 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.