Introduction: The treatment of mucosal leishmaniasis (ML) is difficult due to the toxicity and route of administration of standard drugs. Miltefosine is an oral agent used for leishmaniasis treatment; however, no data exist regarding its use for ML in Brazil. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of miltefosine for ML treatment compared to that of pentavalent antimonial in a pilot study. Methods: We performed a randomized clinical trial with two parallel groups. The tested intervention consisted of miltefosine 1.3-2 mg/kg/day (two capsules) for 28 days or intravenous 20 mg SbV/kg/day of meglumine antimoniate (N-MA) for 30 days. The final endpoint was defined as complete healing of the lesion four years after treatment. We also analyzed an early endpoint at 90 days after treatment. Results: Forty patients were included in this study: each experimental group comprised 20 patients. Applying a multivariate model in an intention-to-treat analysis, we observed that patients treated with miltefosine had a cure probability 2.08 times greater (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03-4.18) than those treated with N-MA at 90 days after treatment. At the final endpoint, we observed no differences in cure probability between miltefosine and N-MA (relative risk = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.33-1.32). With respect to adverse reactions, significant differences between groups were related to gastrointestinal effects, which were more frequent in the miltefosine group. Conclusions: Miltefosine may be an interesting alternative for treating ML because of its oral administration and cure rate after long-term follow-up.

In this sample, peritonsillar abscess was more likely to occur in warmer months. The findings corroborate the theory that peritonsillar abscess is not a direct complication of acute tonsillitis and may improve understanding of peritonsillar abscess aetiology.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the use of ear endoscopy in the postoperative management of open mastoidectomy cavities, and to test whether ear endoscopy improves inspection and cleaning compared with ear microscopy.MethodsProspective study. Thirty-two ears were divided into two groups: group 1, examination and cleaning of mastoid cavities under endoscopic visualization after microscopic standard ear cleaning; group 2, examination and cleaning of mastoid cavities under microscopic visualization after endoscope-assisted ear cleaning. We assessed the ability of each method to provide exposure and facilitate cleaning, comparing the benefits of microscopy and endoscopy when used sequentially and vice-versa.ResultsEndoscopy provided additional benefits for exposure in 61.1% of cases and cleaning in 66.7%. Microscopy provided no additional benefits in terms of exposure in any case, and provided added benefit for cleaning in only 21.4% of cases.DiscussionFor outpatient postoperative care of open mastoidectomy cavities, ear endoscopy provides greater benefit over ear microscopy than vice-versa. In over half of all cases, endoscopy was able to expose areas not visualized under the microscope. Furthermore, in two-thirds of cases, endoscopy enabled removal of material that could not be cleared under microscopy. Ear endoscopy was superior to microscopy in terms of enabling exposure and cleaning of hard-to-reach sites, due to its wider field of vision.ConclusionEar endoscopy is a feasible technique for the postoperative management of open mastoidectomy cavities. Ear endoscopy provided superior advantages in terms of exposure and aural cleaning compared with microscopy.

Background: There are major challenges in olfactory measurements in clinical practice; therefore, a handheld digital scent device (DSD; Noar MultiScent 20) was developed as a tablet with an integrated storage system for odors. The DSD is a self-administered, handheld device that controls the duration of odor release to the nasal cavity through a touchscreen digital interface with automatic database generation. In this study we aimed to determine the feasibility of this DSD as an olfactory assessment test. Methods:We recruited 180 participants (age [mean ± standard deviation], 34.58 ± 9.71 years; 114 women and 66 men) to participate in smell tests using both the DSD and the 40-item Smell Identification Test (SIT-40), which contained the same type and order of odors and the same multiple-choice answers. The scores were compared and evaluated for correlation between the tests, and test-retest reliability was calculated. Results: The DSD test scores were higher than the SIT-40 scores (median [interquartile range], 32 [5.0] vs 31 [7.0]; p = 0.005). The completion time was less for the DSD test than for the vs 16 [6.0] minutes; p < 0.001). The tests were strongly correlated (Spearman rho = 0.74; p < 0.001) and exhibited a high level of agreement (Bland-Altman regression coefficient = 0.672; p = 0.003). The DSD test-retest reliability coefficient was 0.820.