Skip to main content
. 2018 Aug 13;7:80. doi: 10.1186/s40249-018-0461-0

Table 1.

Patients’ distribution based on treatment options along with adverse drug reactions

L-AMB (ADR: n; percentage) MILTE (ADR: n; percentage) PARO (ADR: n; percentage) L-AMB & MILTE (ADR: n; percentage) L-AMB & PARO (ADR: n; percentage) MILTE &PARO (ADR: n; percentage) Total (ADR: n; percentage)
NKA 585 (179; 31%) 12 (2; 2/17) 0 (0; 0) 1 (0; 0) 9 (0; 0) 1 (0; 0) 608 (181; 30%)
PKDL 155 (41; 26%) 181 (29; 16%) 0 (0; 0) 15 (3; 3/15) 0 (0; 0) 0 (0; 0) 351 (73; 21%)
RELAPSE VL 64 (17; 27%) 0 (0; 0) 1 (0; 0) 7 (0; 0) 21 (0; 0) 0 (0; 0) 93 (17; 18%)
KATF 3 (2; 2/3) 0 (0; 0) 0 (0; 0) 1 (0; 0) 0 (0; 0) 0 (0; 0) 4 (2; 2/4)
RELAPSE AND PKDL 5 (2; 2/5) 0 (0; 0) 0 (0; 0) 0 (0; 0) 0 (0; 0) 0 (0; 0) 5 (2; 2/5)
CL 2 (1; 1/2) 0 (0; 0) 0 (0; 0) 0 (0; 0) 0 (0; 0) 0 (0; 0) 2 (1; 1/2)
NKA WITH PKDL 3 (0; 0) 0 (0; 0) 0 (0; 0) 0 (0; 0) 0 (0; 0) 0 (0; 0) 3 (0; 0)
Total (ADR: n; percentage) 817 (242; 30%) 193 (31; 16%) 1 (0; 0) 24 (3; 13%) 30 (0; 0) 1 (0; 0) 1066 (276; 26%)a

Note:

ADR adverse drug reactions, CL cutaneous leishmaniasis, KATF Kala-azar treatment failure, L-AMB liposomal amphotericin B, MILTE miltefosine, NKA New Kala-azar, PARO paromomycin, PKDL Post Kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis, VL visceral leishmaniasis

aWhere the percentage value has been calculated from the total number of ADRs, irrespective of disease type and treatment method