Stakeholders' views and perspectives on treatments of visceral leishmaniasis and their outcomes in HIV-coinfected patients in East Africa and South-East Asia: A mixed methods study.

• Published in: PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• Main Authors: Joanne Khabsa, Saurabh Jain, Amena El-Harakeh, Cynthia Rizkallah, Dhruv K Pandey, Nigus Manaye, Gladys Honein-AbouHaidar, Christine Halleux, Daniel Argaw Dagne, Elie A Akl
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2022
• Subjects: Arctic medicine. Tropical medicine; RC955-962; Public aspects of medicine; RA1-1270; Arctic
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0010624; https://doaj.org/article/ecc60649b79849389e3742ec17b40273

Background In visceral leishmaniasis (VL) patients coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), combination therapy (liposomal amphotericin B infusion and oral miltefosine) is being considered as an alternative to liposomal amphotericin B monotherapy. We aimed to assess the views of stakeholders in relation to these treatment options. Methodology In a mixed methods study, we surveyed and interviewed patients, government functionaries, programme managers, health service providers, nongovernmental organizations, researchers, and World Health Organization (WHO) personnel. We used the Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for data collection planning and analysis. Constructs of interest included valuation of outcomes, impact on equity, feasibility and acceptability of the treatment options, implementation considerations, monitoring and evaluation, and research priorities. Principal findings/conclusion Mortality and non-serious adverse events were rated as "critical" by respectively the highest (61%) and lowest percentages (47%) of survey participants. Participants viewed clinical cure as essential for patients to regain productivity. Non-patient stakeholders emphasized the importance of "sustained" clinical cure. For most survey participants, combination therapy, compared with monotherapy, would increase health equity (40%), and be more acceptable (79%) and feasible (57%). Interviews revealed that combination therapy was more feasible and acceptable than monotherapy when associated with a shorter duration of hospitalization. The findings of the interviews provided insight into those of the survey. When choosing between alternative options, providers should consider the outcomes that matter to patients as well as the impact on equity, feasibility, and acceptability of the options.