Role of Imiquimod and Parenteral Meglumine Antimoniate in the Initial Treatment of Cutaneous Leishmaniasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cutaneous leishmaniasis is a serious public health problem in the developing world. The main therapeutic agent--pentavalent antimony, developed >50 years ago--is expensive, often accompanied by severe adverse effects, and complicated by the emergence of drug resistance. Better therapies are urgently needed. In the present pilot study, we compared the use of imiquimod, an immunomodulatory molecule, to the use of meglumine antimoniate alone and in combination for the initial treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed cutaneous leishmaniasis were enrolled from a single referral center in Lima, Peru, from August 2005 through October 2005. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups and received either imiquimod 7.5% cream administered topically every other day for 20 days, intravenous meglumine antimoniate administered at a dosage of 20 mg/kg per day every day for 20 days, or combination therapy with both intravenous meglumine antimoniate and imiquimod 7.5% cream. Patients were evaluated weekly and at 1 and 3 months after treatment. Patients who had healed lesions at 3 months were considered to be clinically cured. RESULTS: Although several patients showed initial resolution of symptoms with imiquimod treatment alone, all of these patients experienced relapse after treatment discontinuation. Four (57%) of 7 patients treated with meglumine antimoniate alone and 7 (100%) of 7 patients treated with combination therapy were cured. Combination therapy was not only more effective than the other 2 treatments (P<.05) but also led to faster healing and better cosmetic results. CONCLUSION: Combination therapy with imiquimod and meglumine antimoniate is a promising regimen for the initial treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis that warrants additional larger studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".