Harmonized clinical trial methodologies for localized cutaneous leishmaniasis and potential for extensive network with capacities for clinical evaluation.

Progress with the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) has been hampered by inconsistent methodologies used to assess treatment effects. A sizable number of trials conducted over the years has generated only weak evidence backing current treatment recommendations, as shown by systematic reviews...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
Main Authors: Piero Olliaro, Max Grogl, Marina Boni, Edgar M Carvalho, Houda Chebli, Mamoudou Cisse, Ermias Diro, Gláucia Fernandes Cota, Astrid C Erber, Endalamaw Gadisa, Farhad Handjani, Ali Khamesipour, Alejandro Llanos-Cuentas, Liliana López Carvajal, Lise Grout, Badre Eddine Lmimouni, Mourad Mokni, Mohammad Sami Nahzat, Afif Ben Salah, Yusuf Ozbel, Juan Miguel Pascale, Nidia Rizzo Molina, Joelle Rode, Gustavo Romero, José Antonio Ruiz-Postigo, Nancy Gore Saravia, Jaime Soto, Soner Uzun, Vahid Mashayekhi, Ivan Dario Vélez, Florian Vogt, Olga Zerpa, Byron Arana
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2018
Subjects:
Arctic medicine. Tropical medicine
RC955-962
Public aspects of medicine
RA1-1270
Arctic
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0006141
https://doaj.org/article/ef3ff102cf1848f5a91bb95d75b6865e
Description
Summary:Progress with the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) has been hampered by inconsistent methodologies used to assess treatment effects. A sizable number of trials conducted over the years has generated only weak evidence backing current treatment recommendations, as shown by systematic reviews on old-world and new-world CL (OWCL and NWCL).Using a previously published guidance paper on CL treatment trial methodology as the reference, consensus was sought on key parameters including core eligibility and outcome measures, among OWCL (7 countries, 10 trial sites) and NWCL (7 countries, 11 trial sites) during two separate meetings.Findings and level of consensus within and between OWCL and NWCL sites are presented and discussed. In addition, CL trial site characteristics and capacities are summarized.The consensus reached allows standardization of future clinical research across OWCL and NWCL sites. We encourage CL researchers to adopt and adapt as required the proposed parameters and outcomes in their future trials and provide feedback on their experience. The expertise afforded between the two sets of clinical sites provides the basis for a powerful consortium with potential for extensive, standardized assessment of interventions for CL and faster approval of candidate treatments.

Similar Items