There have been significant differences in progress and approaches to drug development for visceral leishmaniasis (VL) and cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL); these two manifestations will therefore be discussed separately. There are several underlying aspects of the biology of Leishmania parasites that affect drug development. For both forms of the disease this includes (i) the intracellular location of the target form of the pathogen, the amastigote, in the low pH phagolysosomal compartment of different macrophage populations and (ii) the varying sensitivities of strains and species compounded by their inter-relationship with the host immune response, which under some circumstances renders drugs ineffective. Where there might be differences in drug development between VL and CL relates mainly to the requirements of the different pharmacokinetic properties of compounds that distribute to the viscera (liver, spleen, bone marrow in VL) or skin (in CL) and to the pharmaceutical formulation of drugs that aid that distribution. Other more subtle differences relating to immunological responses include approaches to accelerate self-cure, especially in CL.

Leishmaniasis, in its variety of visceral (VL), cutaneous (CL) and mucocutaneous (MCL) forms, directly affects about 2 million people per annum, with approximately 350 million individuals at risk worldwide. During the last 10 years there have been extensive epidemics of the visceral form of the disease, which is also emerging as an important opportunistic infection in immunocompromised patients, especially those co-infected with HIV. The control of leishmaniasis remains a problem- principally a zoonotic infection, except in epidemics where it is anthroponotic, interruption of transmission is difficult, though not impossible. No vaccines exist for either VL, CL or MCL and chemotherapy is inadequate and expensive. Current regimes use pentavalent antimony as primary therapy, which must be administered parenterally. Should this fail, a number of other drugs may be employed, depending upon the species of Leishmania concerned and the resources available to the health professionals involved. Recommended s econdary treatment employs a variety of drugs, again depending on the nature of the infection. The most widely used of these is amphotericin B, which is highly active but has extensive toxicity complications. The newer formulations of this drug are too expensive to use for the majority of endemic countries. Pentamidine and paromomycin are used in some instances, and a new anti-leishmanial, miltefosine, may be used in the future. In short, there remains a pressing need for new anti-leishmanials and this chapter reviews the current status of chemotherapy, the various avenues being investigated by researchers and their potential application in the future.

The current treatments for human African trypanosomiasis (HAT), Chagas disease and leishmaniasis (collectively referred to as the kinetoplastid diseases) are far from ideal but, for some, there has been significant recent progress. For HAT the only advances in treatment over the past two decades have been the introduction of an eflornithine/nifurtimox co-administration and a shorter regime of the old standard melarsoprol. PubMed. There is a need for new safe, oral drugs for cost-effective treatment of patients and use in control programmes for all the trypanosomatid diseases. Cutaneous leishmaniasis is not on the agenda and treatments are lagging behind. There are three compounds in development for the treatment of the CNS stage of HAT: fexinidazole, currently due to entry into phase II clinical studies, a benzoxaborole (SCYX-7158) in phase I trials and a diamidine derivative (CPD-0802), in advanced pre-clinical development. For Chagas disease, two anti-fungal triazoles are now in clinical trial. In addition, clinical studies with benznidazole, a drug previously recommended only for acute stage treatment, are close to completion to determine the effectiveness in the treatment of early chronic and indeterminate Chagas disease. For visceral leishmaniasis new formulations, therapeutic switching, in particular AmBisome, and the potential for combinations of established drugs have significantly improved the opportunities for the treatment in the Indian subcontinent, but not in East Africa. Improved diagnostic tools are needed to support treatment, for test of cure in clinical trials and for monitoring/surveillance of populations in control programmes.

Pyronaridine was synthesized in 1970 at the Institute of Chinese Parasitic Disease and has been used in China for over 30 years for the treatment of malaria. Pyronaridine has high potency against Plasmodium falciparum, including chloroquine-resistant strains. Studies in various animal models have shown pyronaridine to be effective against strains resistant to other anti-malarials, including chloroquine. Resistance to pyronaridine appears to emerge slowly and is further retarded when pyronaridine is used in combination with other anti-malarials, in particular, artesunate. Pyronaridine toxicity is generally less than that of chloroquine, though evidence of embryotoxicity in rodents suggests use with caution in pregnancy. Clinical pharmacokinetic data for pyronaridine indicates an elimination T1/2 of 13.2 and 9.6 days, respectively, in adults and children with acute uncomplicated falciparum and vivax malaria in artemisinin-combination therapy. Clinical data for mono or combined pyronaridine therapy show excellent anti-malarial effects against P. falciparum and studies of combination therapy also show promise against Plasmodium vivax. Pyronaridine has been developed as a fixed dose combination therapy, in a 3:1 ratio, with artesunate for the treatment of acute uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria and blood stage P. vivax malaria with the name of Pyramax® and has received Positive Opinion by European Medicines Agency under the Article 58 procedure.