Brand-Ad-30-6
 IADVL
Indexed with PubMed and Science Citation Index (E) 
 
Users online: 2901 
     Home | Feedback | Login 
About Current Issue Archive Ahead of print Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe What's New Contact  
  Navigate here 
  Search
 
   Next article
   Previous article 
   Table of Contents
  
 Resource links
   Similar in PUBMED
    Search Pubmed for
    Search in Google Scholar for
   Article in PDF (162 KB)
   Citation Manager
   Access Statistics
   Reader Comments
   Email Alert *
   Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
   References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2597    
    Printed37    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded168    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2008  |  Volume : 74  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 168

Author's reply


1 Department of Dermatology and Venereology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
2 Department of Pathology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
3 Department of Microbiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
4 Department of Mycology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
M Ramam
Department of Dermatology and Venereology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi - 110 029
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0378-6323.39716

Rights and Permissions



How to cite this article:
Ramam M, Bhat R, Garg T, Sharma VK, Ray R, Singh M K, Banerjee U, Rajendran C. Author's reply. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2008;74:168

How to cite this URL:
Ramam M, Bhat R, Garg T, Sharma VK, Ray R, Singh M K, Banerjee U, Rajendran C. Author's reply. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol [serial online] 2008 [cited 2021 Jan 22];74:168. Available from: https://www.ijdvl.com/text.asp?2008/74/2/168/39716


Sir,

We thank Dr. Joshi for his interest in our paper and his thoughtful comments about the management of actinomycetomas. There is a great need for more sensitive diagnostic tests that will confirm the presence of mycetoma. Although the clinical presentation is characteristic in many cases, laboratory diagnosis is required to know if mycetoma is eumycotic or actinomycotic. In addition, identification of the organism causing actinomycetoma may lead to better-directed therapy using drugs effective against the isolated bacterium.

Fortunately, many of the different organisms causing actinomycetoma are susceptible to the same drugs, making it possible to embark on treatment even if the antibiotic sensitivity of the causative organism is not known. While there are no randomized studies comparing monotherapy with combination therapy, observational studies show that the latter is more effective. [1] The usefulness of combination treatments was demonstrated in a fairly large group of 144 patients with actinomycetoma. In that study, the most effective combinations were streptomycin plus co-trimoxazole and streptomycin plus daspone. [1] Other studies in smaller groups of patients have also identified treatments useful in this disorder; [2] these combinations are likely to be effective in most patients. But clearly, more work is necessary.

It is true that admission to a hospital places financial strain on patients and may lead to drop-outs. However, in our study, all the drop-outs occurred after discharge from hospital. Nevertheless, admission can be avoided if gentamicin is injected intramuscularly in the intensive phase of the schedule described in our paper. [3] The pharmacokinetics of gentamicin after intravenous and intramuscular administration appear to be similar. [4] Since administration of the drug and monitoring for toxicity is familiar to medical practitioners, it may be possible for the patient to receive injections from any medical facility near his home. After 4 weeks, the patient can be switched to the maintenance phase, which requires oral medications alone.

The response to combination therapy with rifampicin and co-trimoxazole in the reported patient is impressive. If results are similar in a larger number of patients, it would be a useful addition to the treatments available for this neglected disease. Careful clinical evaluation and a chest X-ray to exclude concurrent tuberculosis would, of course, be mandatory to avoid inadvertently administering rifampicin monotherapy for tuberculosis in people who have both infections. [5]

 
  References Top

1.Mahgoub ES. Medical management of mycetoma. Bull WHO 1976;54:303-9.  Back to cited text no. 1  [PUBMED]  
2.Desai SC, Pardanani DS, Kher YR, Mehta RS, Sreedevi N, Wagle UD, et al . Therapeutic investigations on actinomycetomas. Indian J Surg 1970;32:448-61.  Back to cited text no. 2    
3.Ramam M, Bhat R, Garg T, Sharma VK, Ray R, Singh MK, et al . A modified two-step treatment for actinomycetomas. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2007;73:235-9.  Back to cited text no. 3    
4.Gemer O, Harari D, Mishal J, Segal S. Comparative pharmacokinetics of once daily intravenous and intramuscular gentamicin in patients with post partum endometritis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2001;265:34-35.  Back to cited text no. 4  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
5.Fahal AH, Azziz KA, Saliman SH, Galib HV, Mahgoub S. Dual infection with mycetoma and tuberculosis: Report of two cases. East Afr Med J 1995;72:749-50.  Back to cited text no. 5  [PUBMED]  




 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
Previous article Next article

    

Online since 15th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow