Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Addendum
Announcement
Announcements
Author’ response
Author’s reply
Authors' response
Authors#x2019; response
Book Received
Book Review
Book Reviews
Books Received
Centenary Review Article
Clinical Image
Clinical Images
Commentary
Communicable Diseases - Original Articles
Correspondence
Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Correspondences
Correspondences & Authors’ Responses
Corrigendum
Corrrespondence
Critique
Current Issue
Editorial
Editorial Podcast
Errata
Erratum
FORM IV
GUIDELINES
Health Technology Innovation
IAA CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
Innovations
Letter to Editor
Malnutrition & Other Health Issues - Original Articles
Media & News
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Panel of Reviewers (2006)
Panel of Reviewers (2007)
Panel of Reviewers (2009) Guidelines for Contributors
Perspective
Policy
Policy Document
Policy Guidelines
Policy, Review Article
Policy: Correspondence
Policy: Editorial
Policy: Mapping Review
Policy: Original Article
Policy: Perspective
Policy: Process Paper
Policy: Scoping Review
Policy: Special Report
Policy: Systematic Review
Policy: Viewpoint
Practice
Practice: Authors’ response
Practice: Book Review
Practice: Clinical Image
Practice: Commentary
Practice: Correspondence
Practice: Letter to Editor
Practice: Method
Practice: Obituary
Practice: Original Article
Practice: Pages From History of Medicine
Practice: Perspective
Practice: Review Article
Practice: Short Note
Practice: Short Paper
Practice: Special Report
Practice: Student IJMR
Practice: Systematic Review
Pratice, Original Article
Pratice, Review Article
Pratice, Short Paper
Programme
Programme, Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Programme: Authors’ response
Programme: Commentary
Programme: Correspondence
Programme: Editorial
Programme: Original Article
Programme: Originial Article
Programme: Perspective
Programme: Rapid Review
Programme: Review Article
Programme: Short Paper
Programme: Special Report
Programme: Status Paper
Programme: Systematic Review
Programme: Viewpoint
Protocol
Public Notice
Research Brief
Research Correspondence
Retraction
Review Article
Reviewers
Short Paper
Some Forthcoming Scientific Events
Special Opinion Paper
Special Report
Special Section Nutrition & Food Security
Status Paper
Status Report
Strategy
Student IJMR
Systematic Article
Systematic Review
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
View Point
Viewpoint
White Paper
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Addendum
Announcement
Announcements
Author’ response
Author’s reply
Authors' response
Authors#x2019; response
Book Received
Book Review
Book Reviews
Books Received
Centenary Review Article
Clinical Image
Clinical Images
Commentary
Communicable Diseases - Original Articles
Correspondence
Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Correspondences
Correspondences & Authors’ Responses
Corrigendum
Corrrespondence
Critique
Current Issue
Editorial
Editorial Podcast
Errata
Erratum
FORM IV
GUIDELINES
Health Technology Innovation
IAA CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
Innovations
Letter to Editor
Malnutrition & Other Health Issues - Original Articles
Media & News
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Panel of Reviewers (2006)
Panel of Reviewers (2007)
Panel of Reviewers (2009) Guidelines for Contributors
Perspective
Policy
Policy Document
Policy Guidelines
Policy, Review Article
Policy: Correspondence
Policy: Editorial
Policy: Mapping Review
Policy: Original Article
Policy: Perspective
Policy: Process Paper
Policy: Scoping Review
Policy: Special Report
Policy: Systematic Review
Policy: Viewpoint
Practice
Practice: Authors’ response
Practice: Book Review
Practice: Clinical Image
Practice: Commentary
Practice: Correspondence
Practice: Letter to Editor
Practice: Method
Practice: Obituary
Practice: Original Article
Practice: Pages From History of Medicine
Practice: Perspective
Practice: Review Article
Practice: Short Note
Practice: Short Paper
Practice: Special Report
Practice: Student IJMR
Practice: Systematic Review
Pratice, Original Article
Pratice, Review Article
Pratice, Short Paper
Programme
Programme, Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Programme: Authors’ response
Programme: Commentary
Programme: Correspondence
Programme: Editorial
Programme: Original Article
Programme: Originial Article
Programme: Perspective
Programme: Rapid Review
Programme: Review Article
Programme: Short Paper
Programme: Special Report
Programme: Status Paper
Programme: Systematic Review
Programme: Viewpoint
Protocol
Public Notice
Research Brief
Research Correspondence
Retraction
Review Article
Reviewers
Short Paper
Some Forthcoming Scientific Events
Special Opinion Paper
Special Report
Special Section Nutrition & Food Security
Status Paper
Status Report
Strategy
Student IJMR
Systematic Article
Systematic Review
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
View Point
Viewpoint
White Paper
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Original Article
127 (
6
); 582-588
doi:
10.25259/IJMR_20081276_582

Comparison of treatment regimens of kala-azar based on culture & sensitivity of amastigotes to sodium antimony gluconate

Balaji Utthan Sansthan, Patna University, Patna, India
Rajendra Memorial Research Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna University, Patna, India
Department of Statistics, Patna University, Patna, India

Reprint requests: Dr C.P. Thakur, Uma Complex, Fraser Road, Patna 800 001, India e-mail: info@bus.org.in, cpthakur1@rediffmail.com, thakurcp@gmail.com

Licence
This open access article is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

Abstract

Background & objectives:

Present treatment strategies for kala-azar (visceral leishmaniasis, VL) include use of first line drug sodium antimony gluconate (SAG) to all patients but a large number of patients do not get relief with this drug. If a patient does not respond to a full course of SAG, a second or third line drug is given. We undertook this study to test whether an improved outcome can be achieved by employing a strategy of treatment based on culture and sensitivity of amastigotes to SAG compared with conventional empirical treatment.

Methods:

In a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial done in Balaji Utthan Sansthan, Patna, of the 181 patients screened,140 were finally randomly allocated to two groups A and B; group A patients were treated with SAG if their amastigotes were sensitive to SAG, and all patients in group B were treated with SAG to start with. Primary outcome measured was as no relapse within 6 months of follow up after cure and other outcomes measured were period of stay of patients in hospital, expenditure involved in the treatment, and infectivity periods of two groups, two-third of treatment period and whole of untreated period were taken as infectivity period. SAG was used at a dosage of 20 mg/kg given deep intramuscular injections in buttock for 28 days, amphotericin B (AMB) given at a dose of 1 mg/kg body wt daily for 20 days as a slow intravenous infusion in 5 per cent dextrose.

Results:

Of the 70 patients in group A, 29 patients whose amastigotes were sensitive to SAG were treated with SAG, 2 patients were withdrawn due to drug toxicity; and 2 relapsed within 6 months of follow up and ultimate cure occurred in 25 (86.2%) patients only. Of the 70 patients in group B treated with SAG, 5 (7.1%) patients withdrew due to drug toxicity, 35 patients (50%) did not respond to treatment, 5 (7.1%) relapsed during 6 months of follow up and thus only 25 patients (35.7%) were ultimately cured. The difference between the two groups was significant (P<0.001). No patient died during treatment due to any toxicity because of early withdrawl of patients from treatment apprehending toxicity. Patients whose amastigotes were resistant to SAG, withdrawn from the study due to SAG toxicity, relapsed after cure with SAG, and who did not respond to SAG in both the groups were treated with AMB and all were cured. Groups B and A patients spent 3065 and 2340 days respectively in hospital, group B 1.3 times more than group A. The likely period of spread of parasites in society was 1965 days in group B and 1644 days in group A, group B 1.4 times more than group A. The total expenditure on treatment in groups B and A was $ 65,575 and $ 50,590 respectively; group B patient had to spend 1.3 times more than group A.

Interpretation & conclusions:

A new strategy for treatment of kala-azar based on culture and sensitivity of amastigotes improved the cure rate, saved expenditure on the patient's treatment, patients had to stay for shorter periods in hospital and reduced the chance of spread of SAG resistant disease in society. Till the government opts for better drugs, the treatment based on culture and sensitivity of the parasites to SAG may be a better method.

Keywords

Culture
sensitivity of amastigotes
sodium antimony gluconate
treatment

Fulltext Views
173

PDF downloads
75
View/Download PDF
Download Citations
BibTeX
RIS
Show Sections
Scroll to Top