FACTORS ASSOCIATED TO ADHERENCE TO DIFFERENT TREATMENT SCHEMES WITH MEGLUMINE ANTIMONIATE IN A CLINICAL TRIAL FOR CUTANEOUS LEISHMANIASIS

The favorable outcome of the treatment of a disease is influenced by the adherence to therapy. Our objective was to assess factors associated with adherence to treatment of patients included in a clinical trial of equivalence between the standard and alternative treatment schemes with meglumine antimoniate (MA) in the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL), in the state of Rio de Janeiro. Between 2008 and 2011, 57 patients with CL were interviewed using a questionnaire to collect socioeconomic data. The following methods were used for adherence monitoring: counting of vial surplus, monitoring card, Morisky test and modified Morisky test (without the question regarding the schedule); we observed 82.1% (vial return), 86.0% (monitoring card), 66.7% (Morisky test) and 86.0% (modified Morisky test) adherence. There was a strong correlation between the method of vial counting and the monitoring card and modified Morisky test. A significant association was observed between greater adherence to treatment and low dose of MA, as well as with a lower number of people sleeping in the same room. We recommend the use of the modified Morisky test to assess adherence to treatment of CL with MA, because it is a simple method and with a good performance, when compared to other methods.

SPf66 vaccine trial in Brazil: conceptual framework study design and analytical approach

This paper describes the study population and the study design of the phase III field trial of the SPf66 vaccine in Brazil. Assessment of validity and precision principles necessary for the appropriate evaluation of the protective effect of the vaccine are discussed, as well as the results of the preliminary analyses of the gathered data. The analytical approach for the estimation of the protective effect of the vaccine is presented. This paper provides the conceptual framework for future publications.

Therapeutic trial in experimental tegumentary leishmaniasis caused by Leishmania (Leishmania) amazonensis. A comparative study between mefloquine and aminosidine

One hundred and eighty-two male inbred C57/BL/6 mice were infected with 3 x 106 Leishmania (Leishmania) amazonensis promastigotes of the MHOM/BR/PH8 strain by means of a subcutaneous injection in the right ear. The animals were separated in three groups: 1) oral mefloquine hydrochloride treatment (16mg/kg/day/10 days), 2) intramuscular aminosidine (Paromomycin®) treatment (20mg/kg/20 days) and 3) control. Twenty six mice of each treated group were sacrificed, one at the end of treatment (nine weeks after inoculation), and one six weeks later (fifteen weeks after inoculation). Control Group animals were sacrificed at weeks six, nine and fifteen after inoculation. There was no significant difference between Group 1 (mefloquine) and Group 3 (control) subjects. Group 2 animals (aminosidine) presented the smallest differences of all, both at the end of the treatment and six weeks later. The histopato-logical parameters have shown the following findings: a) there was no significant difference between the mefloquine treated group and the control group; the group treated with aminosidine showed fewer of vacuolated macrophages than the control group, at week 9 (end of treatment). b) both at the end of treatment and six weeks later, evaluation of tissue necrosis and tissue fibrosis revealed no differences between the treated groups. It was found that six weeks after the end of treatment, mice in the control group presented significantly more severe degrees of fibrosis than mice in the other groups. It can be concluded that mefloquine showed limited therapeutic effect in this experimental model, whereas aminosidine had a significant effect. Nevertheless, neither of them resulted in cure of the lesions.

The effect of Lactobacillus casei and Bifidobacterium breve on antibiotic-associated diarrhea treatment: randomized double-blind clinical trial

INTRODUCTION: Antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) is an important side effect of this specific class of drugs. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of the use of probiotics in the treatment of AAD. METHODS: A group of hospitalized patients, who contracted diarrhea during or after 7 days of suspension of antimicrobial medication, was blindly randomized to receive a standardized diet associated with the use of the probiotics (Lactobacillus casei and Bifidobacterium breve) or its corresponding placebo, three times a day. RESULTS: Seventy patients were studied. For the experimental (n=35) and control (n=35) groups, respectively, the average time of treatment was 5.06±2.18 and 5.49±3.17 days (p=0.95), and the average duration of diarrhea, among those who were healed, was 4.87±2.13 and 4.52±2.55 days (p=0.36). Four (11.4%) patients who received probiotics and ten (28.6%) who received the placebo were not cured (p=0.13), and relapse rates were similar between both groups. Seven patients from each group, in addition to diarrhea, presented cases of bloating and/or abdominal cramps and/or vomiting (p=1.00). CONCLUSIONS: In this light, it is concluded that L. casei associated with B. breve, in the administered dosage and frequency, has no effect on the antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Similar studies need to be conducted with higher doses of these or other probiotics.

Artesunate + amodiaquine versus artemether-lumefantrine for the treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in the Colombian Pacific region: a noninferiority trial

INTRODUCTION: In Colombia, there are no published studies for the treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria comparing artemisinin combination therapies. Hence, it is intended to demonstrate the non-inferior efficacy/safety profiles of artesunate + amodiaquine versus artemether-lumefantrine treatments. METHODS: A randomized, controlled, open-label, noninferiority (Δ≤5%) clinical trial was performed in adults with uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria using the 28‑day World Health Organization validated design/definitions. Patients were randomized 1:1 to either oral artesunate + amodiaquine or artemether-lumefantrine. The primary efficacy endpoint: adequate clinical and parasitological response; secondary endpoints: - treatment failures defined per the World Health Organization. Safety: assessed through adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients was included in each group: zero censored observations. Mean (95%CI - Confidence interval) adequate clinical and parasitological response rates: 100% for artesunate + amodiaquine and 99% for artemether-lumefantrine; the noninferiority criteria was met (Δ=1.7%). There was one late parasitological therapeutic failure (1%; artemether-lumefantrine group), typified by polymerase chain reaction as the MAD20 MSP1 allele. The fever clearance time (artesunate + amodiaquine group) was significantly shorter (p=0.002). Respectively, abdominal pain for artesunate + amodiaquine and artemether-lumefantrine was 1.9% and 3.8% at baseline (p=0.68) and 1% and 13.3% after treatment (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria treatment with artesunate + amodiaquine is noninferior to the artemether-lumefantrine standard treatment. The efficacy/safety profiles grant further studies in this and similar populations.

Treatment of American tegumentary leishmaniasis in special populations: a summary of evidence

We aimed to assess and synthesize the information available in the literature regarding the treatment of American tegumentary leishmaniasis in special populations. We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, LILACS, SciELO, Scopus, Cochrane Library and mRCT databases to identify clinical trials and observational studies that assessed the pharmacological treatment of the following groups of patients: pregnant women, nursing mothers, children, the elderly, individuals with chronic diseases and individuals with suppressed immune systems. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. The available evidence suggests that the treatments of choice for each population or disease entity are as follows: nursing mothers and children (meglumine antimoniate or pentamidine), patients with renal disease (amphotericin B or miltefosine), patients with heart disease (amphotericin B, miltefosine or pentamidine), immunosuppressed patients (liposomal amphotericin), the elderly (meglumine antimoniate), pregnant women (amphotericin B) and patients with liver disease (no evidence available). The quality of evidence is low or very low for all groups. Accurate controlled studies are required to fill in the gaps in evidence for treatment in special populations. Post-marketing surveillance programs could also collect relevant information to guide treatment decision-making.

Poor response to azithromycin in cutaneous leishmaniasis leading to a premature interruption of a multicentric phase III clinical trial in Brazil

Introduction Parenteral antimony-based compounds are still the standard of care for cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) treatment in many countries, despite their high toxicity. Previous studies showed that oral azithromycin could be an option for CL treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate efficacy and safety of oral azithromycin (AZ) for CL treatment compared with injectable meglumine antimoniate (MA). Methods This was a randomized, open-label, 2-arm, non-inferiority clinical trial. Treatment-naïve patients with localized CL were treated with MA (15mg/kg/day up to 1,215mg) or AZ (500mg/day) during 20 consecutive days. The primary efficacy end point was a CL cure 90 days after treatment completion. The analysis was performed with intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses. After an anticipated interim analysis, the study was interrupted due to the high failure rate in the azithromycin group. Results Twenty-four volunteers were included in each group. The MA group had a higher cure rate than the AZ group with the ITT and PP analyses, which were 54.2% versus 20.8% [relative risk (RR) 1.97; 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) 1.13-3.42] and 72.2% versus 23.8% (RR 3.03; 95%CI 1.34-6.87), respectively. No unexpected adverse events were observed. Conclusions Azithromycin is ineffective for CL treatment and does not seem to have a role in the therapeutic arsenal for CL.

Rifapentine for latent tuberculosis infection treatment in the general population and human immunodeficiency virus-positive patients: summary of evidence

AbstractLatent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-coinfection are challenges in the control of tuberculosis transmission. We aimed to assess and summarize evidence available in the literature regarding the treatment of LTBI in both the general and HIV-positive population, in order to support decision making by the Brazilian Tuberculosis Control Program for LTBI chemoprophylaxis. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Embase, LILACS, SciELO, Trip database, National Guideline Clearinghouse, and the Brazilian Theses Repository to identify systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials, clinical guidelines, evidence-based synopses, reports of health technology assessment agencies, and theses that investigated rifapentine and isoniazid combination compared to isoniazid monotherapy. We assessed the quality of evidence from randomized clinical trials using the Jadad Scale and recommendations from other evidence sources using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach. The available evidence suggests that there are no differences between rifapentine + isoniazid short-course treatment and the standard 6-month isoniazid therapy in reducing active tuberculosis incidence or death. Adherence was better with directly observed rifapentine therapy compared to self-administered isoniazid. The quality of evidence obtained was moderate, and on the basis of this evidence, rifapentine is recommended by one guideline. Available evidence assessment considering the perspective of higher adherence rates, lower costs, and local peculiarity context might support rifapentine use for LTBI in the general or HIV-positive populations. Since novel trials are ongoing, further studies should include patients on antiretroviral therapy.

Conventional approach x laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer treatment after neoadjuvant chemoradiation: results of a prospective randomized trial

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection compared to conventional approach for surgical treatment of patients with distal rectal cancer presenting with incomplete response after chemoradiation. METHOD: Twenty eight patients with distal rectal adenocarcinoma were randomized to undergo surgical treatment by laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection or conventional approach and evaluated prospectively. Thirteen underwent laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection and 15 conventional approach. RESULTS: There was no significant difference (p<0,05) between the two studied groups regarding: gender, age, body mass index, patients with previous abdominal surgeries, intra and post operative complications, need for blood transfusion, hospital stay after surgery, length of resected segment and pathological staging. Mean operation time was 228 minutes for the laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection versus 284 minutes for the conventional approach (p=0.04). Mean anesthesia duration was shorter (p=0.03) for laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection when compared to conventional approach : 304 and 362 minutes, respectively. There was no need for conversion to open approach in this series. After a mean follow-up of 47.2 months and with the exclusion of two patients in the conventional abdominoperineal resection who presented with unsuspected synchronic metastasis during surgery, local recurrence was observed in two patients in the conventional group and in none in the laparoscopic group. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection is feasible, similar to conventional approach concerning surgery duration, intra operative morbidity, blood requirements and post operative morbidity. Larger number of cases and an extended follow-up are required to adequate evaluation of oncological results for patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection after chemoradiation for radical treatment of distal rectal cancer.

A comparative analysis of primary stenting and optimal balloon coronary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction. Six month results from the STENT PAMI trial

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcome of balloon PTCA with final coronary stenosis diameter (SD) <=30%, with elective coronary stenting. METHODS: We performed a comparative analysis of the 6 month outcomes in patients treated with primary stenting and those who obtained an optimal balloon PTCA result treated during the first 12 hours of AMI onset included in the STENT PAMI randomized trial. RESULTS: The results were analysed into 3 groups: primary stenting (441 patients, SD=22±6%), optimal PTCA (245 patients), and nonoptimal PTCA (182 patients, SD= 37±5%). At the end of the 6 months primary stent group presented with the lowest restenosis(23 vs. 31 vs. 45%, p=0.001, respectively). Ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization rate (TVR) (7 vs. 15.5 vs. 19%, p=0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: At the 6 month follow-up, primary stenting offered the lowest restenosis and ischemia-driven TVR rates. Compared to optimal balloon PTCA. Nonoptimal primary balloon PTCA pts (SD=31-50%), had the worst late angiographic outcomes and should be treated more actively with coronary stent implantation.

One-year follow-up after primary coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction in diabetic patients: a substudy of the STENT PAMI trial

OBJECTIVE - This analysis was undertaken to determine the composite incidence of cumulative adverse events (death, reinfarction, disabling stroke, and target vessel revascularization) at the end of the first year after acute myocardial infarction, in diabetic patients who underwent coronary stenting or primary coronary balloon angioplasty. METHODS - From the STENT PAMI trial, we analyzed the 6-month angiographic and 1-year clinical outcomes of 135 diabetic (112, noninsulin dependent) patients who underwent the randomization process of the trial and compared them with 758 nondiabetic patients. RESULTS - Coronary stenting did not significantly reduce the primary composite clinical end point when compared with PTCA (20 vs. 30%, p=0.2). A significant benefit from stenting was observed in patients with noninsulin dependent diabetes, with a trend toward a lesser need for new revascularization procedures (10 vs. 21%, p<.001), with a significant reduction in the primary composite clinical end point at 1 year (12 vs. 28%, p=. 04). At 6 months, the restenosis rate were significantly reduced only in nondiabetic patients (18 vs. 33%, p<. 001). Diabetic patients had the same restenosis rate (38%) either with stenting or balloon PTCA. CONCLUSIONS - Coronary Stenting in diabetics noninsulin dependent offered a significant reduction in the composite incidence of major clinical adverse events compared with balloon PTCA.

Improving Post-Discharge Medication Adherence in Patients with CVD: A Pilot Randomized Trial

Background:Effective interventions to improve medication adherence are usually complex and expensive.Objective:To assess the impact of a low-cost intervention designed to improve medication adherence and clinical outcomes in post-discharge patients with CVD.Method:A pilot RCT was conducted at a teaching hospital. Intervention was based on the four-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-4). The primary outcome measure was medication adherence assessed using the eight-item MMAS at baseline, at 1 month post hospital discharge and re-assessed 1 year after hospital discharge. Other outcomes included readmission and mortality rates.Results:61 patients were randomized to intervention (n = 30) and control (n = 31) groups. The mean age of the patients was 61 years (SD 12.73), 52.5% were males, and 57.4% were married or living with a partner. Mean number of prescribed medications per patient was 4.5 (SD 3.3). Medication adherence was correlated to intervention (p = 0.04) and after 1 month, 48.4% of patients in the control group and 83.3% in the intervention group were considered adherent. However, this difference decreased after 1 year, when adherence was 34.8% and 60.9%, respectively. Readmission and mortality rates were related to low adherence in both groups.Conclusion:The intervention based on a validated patient self-report instrument for assessing adherence is a potentially effective method to improve adherent behavior and can be successfully used as a tool to guide adherence counseling in the clinical visit. However, a larger study is required to assess the real impact of intervention on these outcomes.