Is paromomycin an effective and safe treatment against cutaneous leishmaniasis? A meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: High cost, poor compliance, and systemic toxicity have limited the use of pentavalent antimony compounds (SbV), the treatment of choice for cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL). Paromomycin (PR) has been developed as an alternative to SbV, but existing data are conflicting. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, without language restriction, through August 2007, to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy or safety between PR and placebo or SbV. Primary outcome was clinical cure, defined as complete healing, disappearance, or reepithelialization of all lesions. Data were extracted independently by two investigators, and pooled using a random-effects model. Fourteen trials including 1,221 patients were included. In placebo-controlled trials, topical PR appeared to have therapeutic activity against the old world and new world CL, with increased local reactions, when used with methylbenzethonium chloride (MBCL) compared to when used alone (risk ratio [RR] for clinical cure, 2.58 versus 1.01: RR for local reactions, 1.60 versus 1.07). In SbV-controlled trials, the efficacy of topical PR was not significantly different from that of intralesional SbV in the old world CL (RR, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-1.89), whereas topical PR was inferior to parenteral SbV in treating the new world CL (0.67; 0.54-0.82). No significant difference in efficacy was found between parenteral PR and parenteral SbV in the new world CL (0.88; 0.56-1.38). Systemic side effects were fewer with topical or parenteral PR than parenteral SbV. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Topical PR with MBCL could be a therapeutic alternative to SbV in selected cases of the old world CL. Development of new formulations with better efficacy and tolerability remains to be an area of future research.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of diabetes disease management programs

Context. Despite the rapid growth of disease management programs, there are still questions about their efficacy and effectiveness for improving patient outcomes and their ability to reduce costs associated with chronic disease. ^ Objective. To determine the effectiveness of disease management programs on improving the results of HbA1c tests, lipid profiles and systolic blood pressure (SBP) readings among diabetics. These three quantitative measures are widely accepted methods of determining the quality of a patient's diabetes management and the potential for future complications. ^ Data Sources. MEDLINE and CINAHL were searched from 1950 to June 2008 using MeSH terms designed to capture all relevant studies. Scopus pearling and hand searching were also done. Only English language articles were selected. ^ Study Selection. Titles and abstracts for the 2347 articles were screened against predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, yielding 217 articles for full screening. After full article screening, 29 studies were selected for inclusion in the review. ^ Data Extraction. From the selected studies, data extraction included sample size, mean change over baseline, and standard deviation for each control and experimental arm. ^ Results. The pooled results show a mean HbA1c reduction of 0.64%, 95% CI (-0.83 to -0.44), mean SBP reduction of 7.39 mmHg (95% CI to -11.58 to -3.2), mean total cholesterol reduction of 5.74 mg/dL (95% CI, -10.01 to -1.43), and mean LDL cholesterol reduction of 3.74 mg/dL (95% CI, -8.34 to 0.87). Results for HbA1c, SBP and total cholesterol were statistically significant, while the results for LDL cholesterol were not. ^ Conclusions. The findings suggest that disease management programs utilizing five hallmarks of care can be effective at improving intermediate outcomes among diabetics. However, given the significant heterogeneity present, there may be fundamental differences with respect to study-specific interventions and populations that render them inappropriate for meta-analysis. ^