The use of an intermittent terbinafine regimen for the treatment of dermatophyte toenail onychomycosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of intermittent terbinafine with standard courses of terbinafine and itraconazole for dermatophyte toenail onychomycosis. DESIGN: Data from a Canadian study of continuous terbinafine (CTERB) and intermittent itraconazole (III) was compared to an intermittent terbinafine regimen (TOT) using similar protocol to the randomized study. INTERVENTIONS: Terbinafine 250 mg/day for 4 weeks followed by 4 weeks of no terbinafine and then an additional 4 weeks of terbinafine 250 mg/day (TOT); terbinafine 250 mg/day for 12 weeks (CTERB); itraconazole pulse of 200 mg twice daily for 7 days on, 21 days off, three pulses given (III). RESULTS: At 72 weeks, mycological cure rates (negative KOH and culture) were 36 of 43 (83.7%), 25 of 32 (78.1%), and 17 of 30 (56.7%), for the TOT, CTERB, and III groups, respectively (P = 0.01 for TOT vs. III). Effective cure rates (simultaneous mycological cure and < or =10% nail plate involvement) were 34 of 43 (79.1%), 21 of 32 (65.6%), and 11 of 30 (36.7%), respectively (P < 0.001 for TOT vs. III; P = 0.02 for CTERB vs. III). No significant differences in effective and mycological cure rates were noted between the two terbinafine groups. Adverse events reported were similar to those reported in the respective package inserts. Most adverse events were mild to moderate, transient, and did not require interruption of the drug regimens. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: A TOT intermittent terbinafine regimen provided similar efficacy and safety to the gold standard continuous terbinafine regimen and better effective cure rates than pulse itraconazole therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".