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 of community-based colorectal cancer screening randomized controlled trials with multi-ethnic groups

Background. The CDC estimates that 40% of adults 50 years of age or older do not receive time-appropriate colorectal cancer screening. Sixty percent of colorectal cancer deaths could be prevented by regular screening of adults 50 years of age and older. Yet, in 2000 only 42.5% of adults age 50 or older in the U.S. had received recommended screening. Disparities by health care, nativity status, socioeconomic status, and race/ethnicity are evident. Disparities in minority, underserved populations prevent us from attaining Goal 2 of Healthy People 2010 to “eliminate health disparities.” This review focuses on community-based screening research among underserved populations that includes multiple ethnic groups for appropriate disparities analysis. There is a gap in the colorectal cancer screening literature describing the effectiveness of community-based randomized controlled trials. ^ Objective. To critically review the literature describing community-based colorectal cancer screening strategies that are randomized controlled trials, and that include multiple racial/ethnic groups. ^ Methods. The review includes a preliminary disparities analysis to assess whether interventions were appropriately targeted in communities to those groups experiencing the greatest health disparities. Review articles are from an original search using Ovid Medline and a cross-matching search in Pubmed, both from January 2001 to June 2009. The Ovid Medline literature review is divided into eight exclusionary stages, seven electronic, and the last stage consisting of final manual review. ^ Results. The final studies (n=15) are categorized into four categories: Patient mailings (n=3), Telephone outreach (n=3), Electronic/multimedia (n=4), and Counseling/community education (n=5). Of 15 studies, 11 (73%) demonstrated that screening rates increased for the intervention group compared to controls, including all studies (100%) from the Patient mailings and Telephone outreach groups, 4 of 5 (80%) Counseling/community education studies, and 1 of 4 (25%) Electronic/multimedia interventions. ^ Conclusions. Patient choice and tailoring education and/or messages to individuals have proven to be two important factors in improving colorectal cancer screening adherence rates. Technological strategies have not been overly successful with underserved populations in community-based trials. Based on limited findings to date, future community-based colorectal cancer screening trials should include diverse populations who are experiencing incidence, survival, mortality and screening disparities. ^