Harmonized clinical trial methodologies for localized cutaneous leishmaniasis and potential for extensive network with capacities for clinical evaluation
ABSTRACT: Introduction Progress with the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) has been hampered by inconsistent methodologies used to assess treatment effects. A sizable number of trialsconducted over the years has generated only weak evidence backing current treatment recommendations, as shown...
- Autores:
-
López Carvajal, Liliana
Vélez Bernal, Iván Darío
- Tipo de recurso:
- Article of investigation
- Fecha de publicación:
- 2018
- Institución:
- Universidad de Antioquia
- Repositorio:
- Repositorio UdeA
- Idioma:
- eng
- OAI Identifier:
- oai:bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.co:10495/23094
- Acceso en línea:
- http://hdl.handle.net/10495/23094
- Palabra clave:
- Leishmaniasis Cutánea
Leishmaniasis, Cutaneous
Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto
Clinical Trials as Topic
Terapéutica
Therapeutics
- Rights
- openAccess
- License
- http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/co/
| Summary: | ABSTRACT: Introduction Progress with the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) has been hampered by inconsistent methodologies used to assess treatment effects. A sizable number of trialsconducted over the years has generated only weak evidence backing current treatment recommendations, as shown by systematic reviews on old-world and new-world CL (OWCL and NWCL). Materials and methods Using a previously published guidance paper on CL treatment trial methodology as the reference, consensus was sought on key parameters including core eligibility and outcome measures, among OWCL (7 countries, 10 trial sites) and NWCL (7 countries, 11 trial sites) during two separate meetings. Results Findings and level of consensus within and between OWCL and NWCL sites are presented and discussed. In addition, CL trial site characteristics and capacities are summarized. Conclusions The consensus reached allows standardization of future clinical research across OWCL and NWCL sites. We encourage CL researchers to adopt and adapt as required the proposed parameters and outcomes in their future trials and provide feedback on their experience. The expertise afforded between the two sets of clinical sites provides the basis for a powerful consortium with potential for extensive, standardized assessment of interventions for CL and faster approval of candidate treatments. |
|---|