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.

Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical 46(6):669-677, Nov-Dec, 2013http://dx.doi. org/10.1590/0037-8682-0104-2013 Address to: Dr a Juliana Saboia Fontenele e Silva. Lab. ABSTRACT We aimed to assess and synthesize the information available in the literature regarding the treatment of American tegumentary leishmaniasis in special populations. We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, LILACS, SciELO, Scopus, Cochrane Library and mRCT databases to identify clinical trials and observational studies that assessed the pharmacological treatment of the following groups of patients: pregnant women, nursing mothers, children, the elderly, individuals with chronic diseases and individuals with suppressed immune systems. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. The available evidence suggests that the treatments of choice for each population or disease entity are as follows: nursing mothers and children (meglumine antimoniate or pentamidine), patients with renal disease (amphotericin B or miltefosine), patients with heart disease (amphotericin B, miltefosine or pentamidine), immunosuppressed patients (liposomal amphotericin), the elderly (meglumine antimoniate), pregnant women (amphotericin B) and patients with liver disease (no evidence available). The quality of evidence is low or very low for all groups. Accurate controlled studies are required to fi ll in the gaps in evidence for treatment in special populations. Post-marketing surveillance programs could also collect relevant information to guide treatment decision-making.

I n f l u ê n c i a s s o c i a i s , p o l í t i c a s , i n s t i t u c i o n a i s e i d e o l ó g i c a s