Advertisement

Parasitology Research

, 105:463 | Cite as

Clinical efficacy and tolerance of miltefosine in the treatment of canine leishmaniosis

  • Virginie WoerlyEmail author
  • Laurence Maynard
  • Annaële Sanquer
  • Hyone-Myong Eun
Original Paper

Abstract

The study was aimed to assess the efficacy and tolerance profiles of an oral administration miltefosine drug (Milteforan®, Virbac) in dogs with natural leishmaniosis. In this multicentric open trial, 96 dogs were treated with the drug administered orally at a dose of 2 mg/kg body weight once a day for 28 days. During the 56-day trial, clinical signs of the dogs were monitored every 2 weeks. On the first and the last visits, blood and bone marrow samples were collected for laboratory analyses. According to clinical scores, the treatment demonstrated a significant time-dependent therapeutic effect resulting in a 61.2% mean reduction on day 56. Hematologic and biochemical analyses showed improvements in most of the parameters examined, supporting the observed clinical efficacy of the drug. Overall, veterinarians estimated that 82.7% of the dogs treated with the miltefosine drug showed an equal or higher treatment efficacy than other antileishmanial drugs. During the trial, the adverse reactions probably associated with the drug treatment were observed in 11.7% of the dogs. However, they were not serious. The most frequent one was vomiting, which was transient, self-limiting, and reversible. These data demonstrate that the drug, at the recommended dose and treatment regime, was safe and efficacious for the treatment of canine leishmaniosis.

Keywords

Clinical Score Visceral Leishmaniasis Leishmaniasis Bone Marrow Sample Spiramycin 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to all the veterinarians who have participated in the study and to Carine Rousseau for her help with statistics. These experiments complied with the current laws of the country in which they were performed.

References

  1. Achterberg V, Gercken G (1987a) Cytotoxicity of ester and ether lysophospholipids on Leishmania donovani promastigotes. Mol Biochem Parasitol 23:117–122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Achterberg V, Gercken G (1987b) Metabolism of ether lysophospholipids in Leishmania donovani promastigotes. Mol Biochem Parasitol 26:277–287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Baneth G, Koutinas AF, Solano-Gallego L, Bourdeau P, Ferrer L (2008) Canine leishmaniosis - new concepts and insights on an expanding zoonosis: part one. Trends Parasitol 24(7):324–330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Carrio J, Portus M (2002) In vitro susceptibility to pentavalent antimony in Leishmania infantum strains is not modified during in vitro or in vivo passages but is modified after host treatment with meglumine antimoniate. BMC Pharmacol 2:11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Croft SL, Seifert K, Duchêne M (2003) Antiprotozoal activities of phospholipids analogues. Mol Biochem Parasitol 126:165–172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cruz I, Cañavate C, Rubio JM, Morales MA, Chicharro C, Laguna F, Jiménez-Mejías M, Sirena G, Videla S, Alvar J (2002) A nested polymerase chain reaction (Ln-PCR) for diagnosing and monitoring Leishmania infantum infection in patients co-infected with human immunodeficiency virus. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 96(1):185–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Denerolle P, Bourdoiseau G (1999) Combination allopurinol and antimony treatment versus antimony alone and allopurinol alone in the treatment of canine leishmaniasis (96 cases). J Vet Intern Med 13(5):413–415CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Gramiccia M, Gradoni L, Orsini S (1992) Decreased sensitivity to meglumine antimoniate (Glucantime®) of Leishmania infantum isolated from dogs after several courses of drug treatment. Ann Trop Med Parasitol 86(6):613–620PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Jha TK, Sundar S, Thakur CP, Bachmann P, Karbwang J, Fischer C, Voss A, Berman J (1999) Miltefosine, an oral agent, for the treatment of Indian visceral leishmaniasis. N Engl J Med 341(24):1795–1800CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Miro G, Cardoso L, Pennisi MG, Oliva G, Baneth G (2008) Canine leishmaniosis - new concepts and insights on an expanding zoonosis: part two. Trends Parasitol 24(8):371–377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Molina R, Miro G, Galvez R, Nieto J, Descalzo MA (2006) Evaluation of a spray of permethrin and pyriproxyfen for the protection of dogs against Phlebotomus perniciosus. Vet Rec 159(7):206–209PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Noli C, Auxillia ST (2005) Treatment of canine old world visceral leishmaniasis: a systematic review. Vet Dermatol 16:213–232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Palatnik-de-Sousa CB (2008) Vaccines for leishmaniasis in the fore coming 25 years. Vaccine 26:1709–1724CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Requena JM, Iborra S, Carrion J, Alonso C, Soto M (2004) Recent advances in vaccines for leishmaniasis. Expert Opin Biol Ther 4(9):1505–1517CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Roze M (2005) Canine leishmaniasis. A spreading disease. Diagnosis and treatment. Eur J Companion Anim Pract 15(1):39–52Google Scholar
  16. Sindermann H, Engel J (2006) Development of miltefosine as on oral treatment for leismaniasis. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 100S:S17–S20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sundar S, Jha TK, Thakur CP, Bhattacharya SK, Rai M (2006) Oral miltefosine for the treatment of Indian visceral leishmaniasis. Trans R Soc Med Hyg 100(Suppl.1):S26–S33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Verma NK, Dey CS (2004) Possible mechanism of miltefosine-mediated death of Leishmania donovani. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 48(8):3010–3015CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Virginie Woerly
    • 1
    Email author
  • Laurence Maynard
    • 1
  • Annaële Sanquer
    • 1
  • Hyone-Myong Eun
    • 1
  1. 1.R&DVirbac S.A.CarrosFrance

Personalised recommendations