Impact Factor 2021: 3.041 (@Clarivate Analytics)
5-Year Impact Factor: 2.776 (@Clarivate Analytics)
Impact Factor Rank: 10/24, Q2 (Tropical Medicine)
  • Users Online: 779
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 15  |  Issue : 8  |  Page : 343-353

Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapeutic interventions used in visceral leishmaniasis clinical trials: A systematic review and network meta-analysis


Department of Pharmacy Practice, National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, S.A.S. Nagar Mohali, 160062, Punjab, India

Correspondence Address:
Pramil Tiwari
Department of Pharmacy Practice, National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, S.A.S. Nagar Mohali, 160062, Punjab
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: The authors received no extramural funding for the study, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1995-7645.354419

Rights and Permissions

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of different antileishmanial agents used in visceral leishmaniasis clinical trials. Methods: A systematic literature search in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar was done using keywords “randomized controlled trials”, “antileishmanial” and “visceral leishmaniasis”. The outcomes included were cure rate, overall withdrawals, relapse rate, and treatment-emergent adverse events. Effect estimates through the frequentist network meta-analysis approach were presented as OR with 95% CI. Rankogram plots were used for identifying the “best intervention” based on p-scores obtained using the surface under the cumulative ranking. The risk of bias was evaluated by using Pedro Scale. Results: Seventeen randomized controlled trials with 5 143 visceral leishmaniasis patients who received different antileishmanial agents (amphotericin B, miltefosine, paromomycin, meglumine antimoniate, sodium stibogluconate, sitamaquine, and pentavalent antimonials) and met the inclusion criteria were included. For efficacy outcomes of the treatments, the rankogram of the network meta-analysis revealed that paromomycin (p-score=0.814 8) has the highest probability of being best in the pool, followed by sodium stibogluconate (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.24-2.79, p-score=0.758 0), amphotericin B+miltefosine (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.02-19.04, p-score=0.732 9) as compared to the remaining treatments; however, the most of the treatment-emergent adverse events were reported with sitamaquine. Conclusions: Paromomycin reported the highest cure rates, while the maximum treatment-emergent adverse events were seen with sitamaquine.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed679    
    Printed30    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded104    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal