Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
15th National Conference of the IAOMFP, Chennai, 2006
Abstract
Abstracts from current literature
Acne in India: Guidelines for management - IAA Consensus Document
Addendum
Announcement
Art & Psychiatry
Article
Articles
Association Activities
Association Notes
Award Article
Book Review
Brief Report
Case Analysis
Case Letter
Case Letters
Case Notes
Case Report
Case Reports
Clinical and Laboratory Investigations
Clinical Article
Clinical Studies
Clinical Study
Commentary
Conference Oration
Conference Summary
Continuing Medical Education
Correspondence
Corrigendum
Cosmetic Dermatology
Cosmetology
Current Best Evidence
Current View
Derma Quest
Dermato Surgery
Dermatopathology
Dermatosurgery Specials
Dispensing Pearl
Do you know?
Drug Dialogues
e-IJDVL
Editor Speaks
Editorial
Editorial Remarks
Editorial Report
Editorial Report - 2007
Editorial report for 2004-2005
Errata
Erratum
Focus
Fourth All India Conference Programme
From Our Book Shelf
From the Desk of Chief Editor
General
Get Set for Net
Get set for the net
Guest Article
Guest Editorial
History
How I Manage?
IADVL Announcement
IADVL Announcements
IJDVL Awards
IJDVL AWARDS 2015
IJDVL Awards 2018
IJDVL Awards 2019
IJDVL Awards 2020
IJDVL International Awards 2018
Images in Clinical Practice
In Memorium
Inaugural Address
Index
Knowledge From World Contemporaries
Leprosy Section
Letter in Response to Previous Publication
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor - Case Letter
Letter to the Editor - Letter in Response to Published Article
LETTER TO THE EDITOR - LETTERS IN RESPONSE TO PUBLISHED ARTICLES
Letter to the Editor - Observation Letter
Letter to the Editor - Study Letter
Letter to the Editor - Therapy Letter
Letter to the Editor: Articles in Response to Previously Published Articles
Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor - Letter in Response to Previously Published Articles
Letters to the Editor: Case Letters
Letters to the Editor: Letters in Response to Previously Published Articles
Medicolegal Window
Messages
Miscellaneous Letter
Musings
Net Case
Net case report
Net Image
Net Letter
Net Quiz
Net Study
New Preparations
News
News & Views
Obervation Letter
Obituary
Observation Letter
Observation Letters
Oration
Original Article
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION
Original Contributions
Pattern of Skin Diseases
Pearls
Pediatric Dermatology
Pediatric Rounds
Perspective
Presedential Address
Presidential Address
Presidents Remarks
Quiz
Recommendations
Regret
Report
Report of chief editor
Report of Hon : Treasurer IADVL
Report of Hon. General Secretary IADVL
Research Methdology
Research Methodology
Resident page
Resident's Page
Resident’s Page
Residents' Corner
Residents' Corner
Residents' Page
Retraction
Review
Review Article
Review Articles
Revision Corner
Self Assessment Programme
SEMINAR
Seminar: Chronic Arsenicosis in India
Seminar: HIV Infection
Short Communication
Short Communications
Short Report
Special Article
Specialty Interface
Studies
Study Letter
Supplement-Photoprotection
Supplement-Psoriasis
Symposium - Contact Dermatitis
Symposium - Lasers
Symposium - Pediatric Dermatoses
Symposium - Psoriasis
Symposium - Vesicobullous Disorders
SYMPOSIUM - VITILIGO
Symposium Aesthetic Surgery
Symposium Dermatopathology
Symposium-Hair Disorders
Symposium-Nails Part I
Symposium-Nails-Part II
Tables
Technology
Therapeutic Guidelines
Therapeutic Guidelines - IADVL
Therapeutics
Therapy
Therapy Letter
View Point
Viewpoint
What’s new in Dermatology
View/Download PDF
Letter to the Editor - Therapy Letter
2016:82:3;347-349
doi: 10.4103/0378-6323.175918
PMID: 27088953

Lack of efficacy of liposomal glucantime in the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis

Vahid Mashayehki Ghoyonlo1 , Mahmoud Reza Jafari2 , Mohammad Javad Yazdanpanah1 , Habiballah Esmaili3 , Soleiman Noori1 , Bita Kiafar1
1 Cutaneous Leishmaniasis Research Center, Department of Dermatology, School of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
2 Biotechnology Research Center, Nanotechnology Research Center, School of Pharmacy, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
3 Health Sciences Research Center, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Health, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Bita Kiafar
Cutaneous Leishmaniasis Research Center, Department of Dermatology, School of Medicine, Imam Reza Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad
Iran
How to cite this article:
Ghoyonlo VM, Jafari MR, Yazdanpanah MJ, Esmaili H, Noori S, Kiafar B. Lack of efficacy of liposomal glucantime in the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2016;82:347-349
Copyright: (C)2016 Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology

Sir,

Pentavalent antimony compounds are known to be the main anti-leishmania modalities prescribed either intralesionally or systemically, although pain due to injection and systemic toxicities pose major limitations to their use. Liposomal formulations are among the new methods used to enhance transcutaneous absorption, increase penetration into the macrophages and delay clearance from the site of action.[1],[2],[3] In this pilot study, we sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a new topical formulation of liposomal meglumine antimoniate for the treatment of old world cutaneous leishmaniasis.

The study was approved by the ethical committee of the Mashhad University of Medical Science. Twenty patients with cutaneous leishmaniasis attending the leishmaniasis clinic of Imam Reza Hospital were enrolled in this study based on the following inclusion criteria: (1) parasitological confirmation of the disease (2) no previous history of treatment (3) duration of disease <6 months (4) largest diameter of the lesion <80 mm (5) refusal to receive conventional intralesional injection of glucantime and (6) informed consent. Exclusion criteria were: (1) antimoniate sensitivity (2) irregular attendance (3) secondary infection of the lesion (4) concomitant use of other treatments.

Liposomal meglumine antimoniate was prepared locally using small unilamellar liposomes with an approximate diameter of 110 nanometers by fusion method. Shape and sizes of the nanoliposomes were checked by particle size analyzer. Furthermore, the particles were checked for stability, zeta potential and meglumine antimonite content. Patients were asked to apply the formulation 3 times a day for eight weeks. Follow-up visits were scheduled weekly and two largest perpendicular diameters of the lesion in millimeters were recorded. Potential local adverse effects of the treatment were also recorded.

After 8 weeks of the treatment, decrease in induration was recorded and clinical efficacy of the formulation was defined as: (1) significant response (>75% decrement) (2) moderate response (50–75% decrement) (3) mild response (25–50% decrement)(4) slight response (<25% decrement) (5) no response (no change or increase of indurated area). Patients were followed up at 1.5, 3 and 6 months after the end of the treatment to evaluate disease progression and suspected adverse effects. All the data was analyzed with SPSS version 11.5 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) for Windows, New York, USA. Eight men and 12 women were enrolled and a total of 55 lesions were studied. The mean age (= SD) of patients enrolled was: 23.2 ± 18.48 years. (range 2-52 years). Initial induration was calculated as the product of two perpendicular diagonals of the lesion. Accordingly, the largest lesion was 4118 mm 2 and the smallest was 12 mm 2 (mean 349.85 mm 2). In four patients, allergic contact dermatitis to liposomal glucantime occurred at the treatment site. Among them, two patients showed adverse reactions at week 6 of treatment resulting in treatment withdrawal. and two other patients at weeks and at week 3 respectively. In the last patient the dermatitis resolved with continued treatment. Three patients were excluded from the study, two patients with a total of 19 lesions because of local adverse effects and one patient with a single lesion because of irregular attendance. Finally, 17 patients with a total lesion count of 35 were statically analyzed. Since the improvements calculated as mentioned above did not have a normal distribution, non- parametric tests such as Kruskal–Wallis and Spearman's test were used to analyze the data.

Clinical response rates of the lesions at 8 weeks are summarized in [Table - 1]. The most common outcome was no response which was noted in 24 (68.6%) lesions. Significant response was noted in only 3 (8.6%) lesions.

Table 1: Frequency distribution of the lesions according to clinical response

Spearman's test showed no statistically significant correlation between the duration of the lesion and response rate and between the initial size of the lesion and improvement rate (r = 0.117, P = 0.505). Contrary to our expectation, in this pilot study liposomal formulation of glucantime was not effective in the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis. The lack of efficacy could be due to the low penetration of the formulation through skin considering that most treated lesions were not ulcerated. This was unexpected since penetration of the formulation and its efficacy in the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis in BALB/c mice has been previously studied.[4] However, it failed to be clinically effective in humans in this pilot study, in contrast to liposomal amphotericin which was effective in another clinical trial reported from our country.[5] Instability of the drug in these formulation is also another concern. The main limitations of this study are the small sample size and lack of a control group.

Acknowledgment

Special thanks to Miss. Akram Momenzadeh for her assistance in preparing and submitting this manuscript.

Financial support and sponsorship

This article was extracted from the thesis prepared by Dr. Soleiman Noori. The research council of the Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran is appreciated for financially supporting this study, thesis number T-2890.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References
1.
Carneiro G, Aguiar MG, Fernandes AP, Ferreira LA. Drug delivery systems for the topical treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 2012;9:1083-97.
[Google Scholar]
2.
Momeni A, Rasoolian M, Momeni A, Navaei A, Emami S, Shaker Z, et al. Development of liposomes loaded with anti-leishmanial drugs for the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis. J Liposome Res 2013;23:134-44.
[Google Scholar]
3.
Barros NB, Migliaccio V, Facundo VA, Ciancaglini P, Stábeli RG, Nicolete R, et al. Liposomal-lupane system as alternative chemotherapy against cutaneous leishmaniasis: Macrophage as target cell. Exp Parasitol 2013;135:337-43.
[Google Scholar]
4.
Kalat SA, Khamesipour A, Bavarsad N, Fallah M, Khashayarmanesh Z, Feizi E, et al. Use of topical liposomes containing meglumine antimoniate (Glucantime) for the treatment of L. major lesion in BALB/c mice. Exp Parasitol 2014;143:5-10.
[Google Scholar]
5.
Layegh P, Rajabi O, Jafari MR, Emamgholi Tabar Malekshah P, Moghiman T, Ashraf H, et al. Efficacy of topical liposomal amphotericin B versus intralesional meglumine antimoniate (Glucantime) in the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis. J Parasitol Res 2011;2011:656523.
[Google Scholar]

Fulltext Views
141

PDF downloads
92
Show Sections