4.3 Article

Clinical features and treatment response of cutaneous leishmaniasis in North-West Ethiopia

Journal

TROPICAL MEDICINE & INTERNATIONAL HEALTH
Volume 22, Issue 10, Pages 1293-1301

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/tmi.12928

Keywords

cutaneous leishmaniasis; mucocutaneous leishmaniasis; diffuse cutaneous leishmaniasis; L. aethiopica

Funding

  1. Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (DNDi)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) receives far less attention than visceral leishmaniasis. Nevertheless, CL is predominantly caused by a unique species in Ethiopia (L. aethiopica), which is known to cause severe forms such as diffuse (DCL) and mucocutaneous leishmaniasis (MCL). We report on the number and type of CL cases diagnosed, the clinical features, the treatments and treatment outcomes in North-West Ethiopia. METHODS This is a retrospective chart record analysis of CL patients treated at the Leishmania Research and Treatment Center (LRTC) of the University of Gondar, Ethiopia. RESULTS From 178 CL patients seen between January 2014 and December 2015, a total of 154 chart records were retrieved. These included 80 localised CL (LCL), 7 DCL and 67 MCL. The median age was 23 years; 71.4% were male. Most (n = 121, 78.6%) of the lesions were on the face. The median time since onset was 12 months (6-24 months), and 28.6% presented after a trial of traditional medicine. The treatment of all forms of CL mainly consisted of 30 days of IM antimonial injections. Of these, 51/133 (38.3%) required treatment extension or change due to nonresponse. Three cases were treated with liposomal amphotericin B or miltefosine (two received the combination), of which two responded well. CONCLUSION CL was found to be complicated and difficult to treat. MCL was common, and patients presented after long delays. There is an urgent need to look for better treatment options for CL and improve access to care.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available