85
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Efficacy of Anti-Leishmania Therapy in Visceral Leishmaniasis among HIV Infected Patients: A Systematic Review with Indirect Comparison

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          We conducted a systematic literature review with indirect comparison of studies evaluating therapeutic efficacy and toxicity associated to visceral leishmaniasis (VL) therapy among HIV infected individuals.

          Main outcome measurements

          The outcomes of interest were clinical and parasitological cure, mortality, and adverse events.

          Methods

          PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews and Cochrane manual were followed. Sources were MEDLINE, LILACS, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge databases and manual search of references from evaluated studies. We included all studies reporting outcomes after VL treatment, regardless of their design. Study quality was evaluated systematically by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software v.2.2.048 was used to perform one-group meta-analysis of study arms with the same drug to estimate global rates of success and adverse events with each drug. These estimates were used, when possible, to indirectly compare treatment options, adjusted for CD4 count. Direct comparison was pooled when available.

          Results

          Seventeen studies reporting five treatment regimens and outcome of 920 VL episodes occurring in HIV infected individuals were included. The main outstanding difference in outcome among the treatment regimens was observed in mortality rate: it was around 3 times higher with high-dose antimony use (18.4%, CI 95% 13.3–25%), indirectly compared to lipid formulations of amphotericin B treatment (6.1%, CI 95% 3.9–9.4%). It was observed, also by indirect comparison, higher rates of clinical improvement in study arms using amphotericin B than in study arms using pentavalent antimonial therapy (Sb v). The parasitological cure, an outcome that presented some degree of risk of selection and verification bias, had rates that varied widely within the same treatment arm, with high heterogeneity, hampering any formal comparison among drugs. One direct comparison of amphotericin and antimoniate was possible combining results of two studies and confirming the superiority of amphotericin.

          Conclusions

          Available evidence suggests that amphotericin is superior to antimony treatment. Death rate using antimoniate high dose is unacceptably high. Randomized controlled trials are necessary to compare different formulations and doses of amphotericin, alternative therapies and drug combinations.

          Author Summary

          In co-infection with HIV/AIDS, visceral leishmaniasis (VL) most often results in an unfavorable response to treatment, frequent relapses, and in premature deaths. Scarce data is available regarding the treatment of leishmaniasis in HIV-infected patients (VL-HIV). Despite this, clinical decisions must be made. To aid in this task we reviewed comprehensive and systematically the available literature about efficacy and toxicity of therapeutic options for VL-HIV. PRISMA guidelines and Cochrane manual for systematic reviews were followed. Direct and indirect comparisons of nonrandomized studies were used, adjusting for CD4 count. Seventeen studies reporting five treatment regimens and outcome of 920 VL episodes occurring in HIV infected individuals were included. Results suggest higher survival and clinical response rate with amphotericin B than with antimony treatment. Antimonial therapy carries a higher rate of drug discontinuation and a significantly higher mortality indirectly compared to treatment with amphotericin B. Randomized controlled trials are needed to compare doses and formulations of amphotericin and alternative treatments.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The relationship between leishmaniasis and AIDS: the second 10 years.

          To date, most Leishmania and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) coinfection cases reported to WHO come from Southern Europe. Up to the year 2001, nearly 2,000 cases of coinfection were identified, of which 90% were from Spain, Italy, France, and Portugal. However, these figures are misleading because they do not account for the large proportion of cases in many African and Asian countries that are missed due to a lack of diagnostic facilities and poor reporting systems. Most cases of coinfection in the Americas are reported in Brazil, where the incidence of leishmaniasis has spread in recent years due to overlap with major areas of HIV transmission. In some areas of Africa, the number of coinfection cases has increased dramatically due to social phenomena such as mass migration and wars. In northwest Ethiopia, up to 30% of all visceral leishmaniasis patients are also infected with HIV. In Asia, coinfections are increasingly being reported in India, which also has the highest global burden of leishmaniasis and a high rate of resistance to antimonial drugs. Based on the previous experience of 20 years of coinfection in Europe, this review focuses on the management of Leishmania-HIV-coinfected patients in low-income countries where leishmaniasis is endemic.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses.

            To determine the validity of adjusted indirect comparisons by using data from published meta-analyses of randomised trials. Direct comparison of different interventions in randomised trials and adjusted indirect comparison in which two interventions were compared through their relative effect versus a common comparator. The discrepancy between the direct and adjusted indirect comparison was measured by the difference between the two estimates. Database of abstracts of reviews of effectiveness (1994-8), the Cochrane database of systematic reviews, Medline, and references of retrieved articles. 44 published meta-analyses (from 28 systematic reviews) provided sufficient data. In most cases, results of adjusted indirect comparisons were not significantly different from those of direct comparisons. A significant discrepancy (P<0.05) was observed in three of the 44 comparisons between the direct and the adjusted indirect estimates. There was a moderate agreement between the statistical conclusions from the direct and adjusted indirect comparisons (kappa 0.51). The direction of discrepancy between the two estimates was inconsistent. Adjusted indirect comparisons usually but not always agree with the results of head to head randomised trials. When there is no or insufficient direct evidence from randomised trials, the adjusted indirect comparison may provide useful or supplementary information on the relative efficacy of competing interventions. The validity of the adjusted indirect comparisons depends on the internal validity and similarity of the included trials.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Indirect comparisons of competing interventions.

              To survey the frequency of use of indirect comparisons in systematic reviews and evaluate the methods used in their analysis and interpretation. Also to identify alternative statistical approaches for the analysis of indirect comparisons, to assess the properties of different statistical methods used for performing indirect comparisons and to compare direct and indirect estimates of the same effects within reviews. Electronic databases. The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) was searched for systematic reviews involving meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that reported both direct and indirect comparisons, or indirect comparisons alone. A systematic review of MEDLINE and other databases was carried out to identify published methods for analysing indirect comparisons. Study designs were created using data from the International Stroke Trial. Random samples of patients receiving aspirin, heparin or placebo in 16 centres were used to create meta-analyses, with half of the trials comparing aspirin and placebo and half heparin and placebo. Methods for indirect comparisons were used to estimate the contrast between aspirin and heparin. The whole process was repeated 1000 times and the results were compared with direct comparisons and also theoretical results. Further detailed case studies comparing the results from both direct and indirect comparisons of the same effects were undertaken. Of the reviews identified through DARE, 31/327 (9.5%) included indirect comparisons. A further five reviews including indirect comparisons were identified through electronic searching. Few reviews carried out a formal analysis and some based analysis on the naive addition of data from the treatment arms of interest. Few methodological papers were identified. Some valid approaches for aggregate data that could be applied using standard software were found: the adjusted indirect comparison, meta-regression and, for binary data only, multiple logistic regression (fixed effect models only). Simulation studies showed that the naive method is liable to bias and also produces over-precise answers. Several methods provide correct answers if strong but unverifiable assumptions are fulfilled. Four times as many similarly sized trials are needed for the indirect approach to have the same power as directly randomised comparisons. Detailed case studies comparing direct and indirect comparisons of the same effect show considerable statistical discrepancies, but the direction of such discrepancy is unpredictable. Direct evidence from good-quality RCTs should be used wherever possible. Without this evidence, it may be necessary to look for indirect comparisons from RCTs. However, the results may be susceptible to bias. When making indirect comparisons within a systematic review, an adjusted indirect comparison method should ideally be used employing the random effects model. If both direct and indirect comparisons are possible within a review, it is recommended that these be done separately before considering whether to pool data. There is a need to evaluate methods for the analysis of indirect comparisons for continuous data and for empirical research into how different methods of indirect comparison perform in cases where there is a large treatment effect. Further study is needed into when it is appropriate to look at indirect comparisons and when to combine both direct and indirect comparisons. Research into how evidence from indirect comparisons compares to that from non-randomised studies may also be warranted. Investigations using individual patient data from a meta-analysis of several RCTs using different protocols and an evaluation of the impact of choosing different binary effect measures for the inverse variance method would also be useful.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS Negl Trop Dis
                PLoS Negl Trop Dis
                plos
                plosntds
                PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1935-2727
                1935-2735
                May 2013
                2 May 2013
                : 7
                : 5
                : e2195
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Laboratory of Clinical Research, Centro de Pesquisas René Rachou, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Fiocruz, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
                [2 ]Eduardo de Menezes Hospital, Fundação Hospitalar do Estado de Minas Gerais-FHEMIG, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
                [3 ]Post-Graduate Program in Adult Health Sciences, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
                RTI International, United States of America
                Author notes

                The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Revised the manuscript critically: AR. Conceived and designed the experiments: GFC MRdS AR. Performed the experiments: GFC TOF MRdS. Analyzed the data: GFC MRdS. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: GFC MRdS. Wrote the paper: GFC MRdS.

                Article
                PNTD-D-12-01655
                10.1371/journal.pntd.0002195
                3642227
                23658850
                2105bc67-a6f8-43c5-863b-8d980b15aeea
                Copyright @ 2013

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 25 December 2012
                : 25 March 2013
                Page count
                Pages: 13
                Funding
                Ana Rabello is an investigator supported by CNPq and FAPEMIG. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine
                Infectious Diseases
                Neglected Tropical Diseases
                Leishmaniasis
                Sexually Transmitted Diseases
                AIDS

                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                Infectious disease & Microbiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article