Intravenous Liposomal Amphotericin B Efficacy and Safety for Cutaneous and Mucosal Leishmaniasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it