Antihelmintic and antiparasitic drugs: unapproved uses or indications

Schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminthiasis: common drugs for treatment and control

Schistosomiasis is a disease caused by parasitic trematode worms (schistosomes) that currently affects 200 million people living in tropical and subtropical environments. It is a chronic disease and the latest estimates for sub-Saharan Africa are that it kills > 200000 people every year. Soil-transmitted helminthiasis (STH) is caused by intestinal nematodes. More than 2 billion people are infected worldwide and the disease burden might approach that of malaria. Recognising the enormous public health significance of schistosomiasis and STH, particularly among the poor, and in view of readily available drugs that are safe, efficacious and inexpensive, the World Health Assembly recently set forth a resolution for a combined approach for morbidity control of both diseases. This review briefly summarises the geographical distribution, life cycle and global burden of schistosomiasis and STH. The current arsenal of drugs available for morbidity control, including discovery, chemistry, pharmacological properties and aspects of therapeutic efficacy and adverse events in clinical human use is then discussed. The emphasis is on praziquantel, oxamniquine and artemisinin derivatives (against schistosomes) and albendazole, mebendazole, levamisole, pyrantel pamoate and other compounds (against intestinal nematodes). The experience gained with combination chemotherapy in schistosomiasis and STH is briefly discussed. Finally, current research needs and the critical importance for development of novel anthelmintic drugs, so that chemotherapy can continue to serve as the backbone of integrated and sustainable control of schistosomiasis and STH, is highlighted.

Recurrent aphthous stomatitis unresponsive to topical corticosteroids: a study of the comparative therapeutic effects of systemic prednisone and systemic sulodexide

BACKGROUND

Recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS) is a common oral condition, the etiology of which remains largely unclear. Numerous therapeutic protocols have been tried. Apart from immunomodulators, no therapy is unequivocally effective, and many systemic therapies have potential adverse effects.

OBJECTIVE

To compare, in patients with frequent RAS unresponsive to conventional therapies, the therapeutic effectiveness of systemic prednisone with that of systemic sulodexide, a low-molecular-weight heparin with immunosuppressive activity but few adverse effects.

METHODS

The study involved a group of 30 patients suffering from frequent minor RAS over >or= 4 months unresponsive to topical corticosteroids. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three study groups: blind therapy with systemic sulodexide or systemic prednisone and control (no treatment). The outcomes were assessed blind on the basis of the days to recovery from pain and days to recovery from ulceration (epithelialization) during the first month of therapy; the number of aphthae appearing during the second month of therapy; and the number of aphthae appearing in the 2 months after the end of the 2-month treatment cycle.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of systemic sulodexide was almost comparable with that of systemic prednisone in patients with frequent RAS, without significant adverse effects.