MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383874332 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofad348

Intravenous Liposomal Amphotericin B Efficacy and Safety for Cutaneous and Mucosal Leishmaniasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4383874332 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey Chivinski, Keren Nathan, Faheel Naeem, Taline Ekmekjian, Michael Libman, Sapha Barkati

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicResearch on Leishmaniasis Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectRegimenObservational studyAmphotericin BMeta-analysisInternal medicineLeishmaniasisPopulationCutaneous leishmaniasisAdverse drug reactionDermatologyDrugSurgeryAntifungalPharmacologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Tegumentary leishmaniasis is often subject to limited funding, underpowered studies, and a paucity of high-quality interventional studies. Intravenous liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) has been increasingly used to treat cutaneous and mucosal leishmaniasis (CL and ML, respectively) despite the lack of well-conducted interventional studies. We conducted a systematic review to consolidate the descriptive evidence on the efficacy and safety of L-AmB in treating CL and ML. Methods: Several online databases and the reference lists of included studies were searched to extract data from 132 studies comprising both case reports and case series. The population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and study design strategy and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used. Results: Of 132 studies included, 92 were case reports and 40 were case series. Of the 92 cases, 65 (82.3%) were considered cured after receiving L-AmB as part of their treatment regimen. Twenty-one of the 92 (22.8%) cases reported adverse reactions to L-AmB. A pooled cure rate of 87.0% (95% CI, 79.0%-92.0%) was reported for the 38 case series that reported on treatment efficacy; 40.7% of the cases were associated with an adverse reaction. Conclusions: Observational data on cure rates using L-AmB suggest efficacy between 80% and 90%, similar to rates reported for other antileishmanial drugs. The highest efficacy rates were observed when a single cycle of L-AmB was administered to patients with mild-moderate CL and ML. The limitations of this study include the heterogeneity observed among the included studies and the increased likelihood of publication bias associated with the inclusion of case reports and case series. This systematic review further illustrates the need for high-quality comparative trials of intravenous L-AmB for the treatment of tegumentary leishmaniasis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.036
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicResearch on Leishmaniasis StudiesFrench-language works237,207