Retrospective case series demonstrates safety and effectiveness of liposomal amphotericin B in treating complicated pediatric cutaneous leishmaniasis with facial lesions and prior treatment failure.
Background: First-line treatments for cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL), including topical agents, are often limited in cases of complicated disease involving multiple, facial, or treatment-resistant lesions. Data on intravenous liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) are scarce, especially in children. We report our experience using L-AmB to treat pediatric CL, focusing on treatment rationale, safety, and clinical effectiveness. Methods: A retrospective case series. Diagnosis was confirmed by PCR. Data on demographics, clinical presentation, treatment rationale, adverse events, lab findings, and outcomes, during treatment and follow-up, were collected. Results: Twenty-seven children were included, most (96%) with Leishmania major. The mean number of lesions per child was 5.71 ± 6.19. All had facial involvement; 41% nasal and 15% eyelid. Most lesions were ulcerated (78%). Prior treatment failure was common (78%), with the use of topical antimicrobials, liposomal amphotericin gel, and paromomycin-containing ointments (59%, 38%, 19%, respectively). Twenty-four children (89%) completed treatment successfully. Adverse events occurred in 41% of cases but were mostly mild and reversible: flushing, rash, shortness of breath, and vomiting (11%, each). One case of transient renal impairment and one case with neutropenia were recorded. Early improvement was noted by day 10, with 50% (n = 12) of cases exhibiting crust falling/reduced ulceration and a 50% lesion size reduction. By day 30–90, 92% achieved substantial healing without the need for further therapy. Nevertheless, scarring was noted in 79% of cases. Conclusions: L-AmB treatment appears to be safe and effective for pediatric CL, particularly in cases with facial lesions or prior treatment failure. Clinical improvement was notable, although scarring was common.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shmueli et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: