Search

Background: Visceral Leishmaniasis (VL) is a neglected tropical disease (NTD) with the highest regional burden in East Africa. Relapse and Post Kala-azar Dermal Leishmaniasis (PKDL) contribute to the spread of VL in endemic areas, making their surveillance imperative for control and elimination. Little is known about long-term patient outcomes in Kenya through follow-up after VL treatment, despite its requirement for control and elimination by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Kenya Ministry of Health (KMOH). Methodology/Principal findings: 36 follow-up patients in Tiaty East and West, sub-counties, Kenya, and records from 248 patients at the regional Chemolingot Sub-county Hospital (CSCH) were analyzed separately using Fisher's Exact Tests, two-sample t-tests, and Welch's t-tests in R (Version 4.3.0). The study found a prevalence rate of 88.89% (n = 32) final cure, 5.56% (n = 2) relapse, and 5.56% (n = 2) PKDL in follow-up patients and 92.74% (n = 230) initial cure, 6.86% (n = 17) relapse, and 0.80% (n = 2) PKDL in overall CSCH patients. The mean lengths of time at which follow-up patients relapsed and developed PKDL were 4.5 and 17 months, respectively. Young age (p = 0.04, 95% CI 0.63–24.31), shorter length of time from initial treatment to follow-up (p = 0.002, 95% CI 1.03-∞), lower Hb level at primary treatment (p = 0.0002, 95% CI 1.23–3.24), and living in Tiaty East sub-county (p = 0.04, 95% CI 0.00–1.43) were significantly associated (p<0.05) with VL relapse in follow-up study patients. Female sex (p = 0.04, 95% CI 0.84-∞) and living in Tiaty East sub-county (p = 0.03, 95% CI 0.00–1.43) were significantly associated with PKDL in follow-up study patients. Conclusions/Significance: More research should be done on PKDL in Kenya with active follow-up to understand its true burden. These results on prevalence and risk factors for PKDL and relapse in Kenya should inform knowledge of patient outcomes and interventions in the region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In visceral leishmaniasis (VL) patients coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), combination therapy (liposomal amphotericin B infusion and oral miltefosine) is being considered as an alternative to liposomal amphotericin B monotherapy. We aimed to assess the views of stakeholders in relation to these treatment options. Methodology: In a mixed methods study, we surveyed and interviewed patients, government functionaries, programme managers, health service providers, nongovernmental organizations, researchers, and World Health Organization (WHO) personnel. We used the Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for data collection planning and analysis. Constructs of interest included valuation of outcomes, impact on equity, feasibility and acceptability of the treatment options, implementation considerations, monitoring and evaluation, and research priorities. Principal findings/Conclusion: Mortality and non-serious adverse events were rated as "critical" by respectively the highest (61%) and lowest percentages (47%) of survey participants. Participants viewed clinical cure as essential for patients to regain productivity. Non-patient stakeholders emphasized the importance of "sustained" clinical cure. For most survey participants, combination therapy, compared with monotherapy, would increase health equity (40%), and be more acceptable (79%) and feasible (57%). Interviews revealed that combination therapy was more feasible and acceptable than monotherapy when associated with a shorter duration of hospitalization. The findings of the interviews provided insight into those of the survey. When choosing between alternative options, providers should consider the outcomes that matter to patients as well as the impact on equity, feasibility, and acceptability of the options. Author summary: In East Africa and South Asia, the number of patients with visceral leishmaniasis (VL) co-infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has been increasing over the years. In addition to independently posing major health challenges, the two conditions have detrimental effects on each other. In light of new evidence on treatment regimens for this patient population, the World Health Organization (WHO) recently updated its evidence-based region-specific treatment recommendations. To inform this process, we assessed the views of stakeholders on the outcomes of interest and on medication treatment options. The mixed methods study consisted of an online survey and semi-structured interviews. Outcomes of mortality, complications, clinical cure, relapse and serious adverse events were viewed as important because of the burden associated with their experience, their consequences, and the co-infection status of the patients. Outcomes such as non-serious adverse events were viewed as less important for reasons relating to patient tolerability and ease of treatment. As compared to monotherapy, combination therapy was found to be more equitable, acceptable, and feasible. While our findings are important to consider by clinicians treating patients with VL patients coinfected with HIV, they also inform decisions made by other stakeholders such as guideline developers and program managers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]