Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSantos, Carolina Rocioen
dc.contributor.authorTuon, Felipe Franciscoen
dc.contributor.authorCieslinski, Julietteen
dc.contributor.authorSouza, Regina Maia deen
dc.contributor.authorImamura, Ruien
dc.contributor.authorAmato, Valdir Sabbagaen
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-14T13:50:40Z
dc.date.available2020-09-14T13:50:40Z
dc.date.issued2019-06
dc.identifier.citationSantos CR, Tuon FF, Cieslinski J, de Souza RM, Imamura R, Amato VS. Comparative study on liposomal amphotericin B and other therapies in the treatment of mucosal leishmaniasis: A 15-year retrospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2019 Jun 26;14(6):e0218786. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218786.en
dc.identifier.other10.1371/journal.pone.0218786
dc.identifier.urihttp://digital.bibliotecaorl.org.br/handle/forl/425
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Liposomal amphotericin B (L-AMB) has been used for mucosal leishmaniasis (ML), but comparative studies on L-AMB and other drugs used for the treatment of ML have not been conducted. The present study aimed to evaluate the outcome of patients with ML who were treated with L-AMB. METHODS: This is a 15-year retrospective study of Brazilian patients with a confirmed diagnosis of ML. The therapeutic options for the treatment of ML consisted of L-AMB, amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC), deoxycholate amphotericin B (d-AMB), itraconazole, antimonial pentavalent, or pentamidine. Healing, cure rate and adverse effects (AEs) associated with the drugs used to treat this condition were analyzed. RESULTS: In 71 patients, a total of 105 treatments were evaluated. The outcome of the treatment with each drug was compared, and results showed that L-AMB was superior to other therapeutic regimens (P = 0.001; odds ratio [OR] = 4.84; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.78–13.17). d-AMB had worse AEs than other treatment regimens (P = 0.001, OR = 0.09; 95% CI = 0.09–0.43). Approximately 66% of the patients presented with AEs during ML treatment. Although L-AMB was less nephrotoxic than d-AMB, it was associated with acute kidney injury compared with other drugs (P <0.05). CONCLUSION: L-AMB was more effective than other therapies for the treatment of ML. However, a high incidence of toxicity was associated with its use. Therapeutic choices should be reassessed, and the development of new drugs is necessary for the treatment of ML.en
dc.language.isoen_USen
dc.publisherPLoS One. 2019 Jun 26;14(6):e0218786. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218786.
dc.source.urihttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218786
dc.subjectAcute Kidney Injuryen
dc.subjectAmphotericin Ben
dc.subjectAntimonyen
dc.subjectAntiprotozoal Agentsen
dc.subjectCohort Studiesen
dc.subjectDeoxycholic Aciden
dc.subjectItraconazoleen
dc.subjectLeishmaniasis, Mucocutaneousen
dc.subjectLiposomesen
dc.subjectPentamidineen
dc.subjectRetrospective Studiesen
dc.titleComparative study on liposomal amphotericin B and other therapies in the treatment of mucosal leishmaniasis: A 15-year retrospective cohort studyen
dc.title.alternativePLoS One. 2019 Jun 26;14(6):e0218786. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218786.en
dc.typeArtigoen


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record