Recurrences of Dermatophyte Toenail Onychomycosis during Long-Term Follow-up after Successful Treatments with Mono- and Combined Therapy of Terbinafine and Itraconazole
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The influence of dosing regimens on the recurrence rates of onychomycosis has not been investigated. OBJECTIVE: To compare recurrence rates for toenail dermatophyte onychomycosis between four dosing regimens. METHODS: A prospective, investigator-blinded, long-term follow-up (1.25 to 7 years postenrolment) study of the following regimens was undertaken with or without booster therapy at week 36: overlapping continuous itraconazole and terbinafine (COMBO), continuous terbinafine (CTERB), intermittent terbinafine (TOT), and pulsed itraconazole (III). RESULTS: One hundred six mycologically and 43 completely cured participants at week 48 were included. Recurrence rates (RR) for mycologically and completely cured participants were respectively termed mycologic recurrence (MRR) and complete cure recurrence (CRR) rates. No statistically significant difference was detected between the four regimens for the two rates. However, lower MRRs were obtained for CTERB (32%) and TOT (36%) compared to III (59%) and COMBO (57%). When participants who received booster therapy were excluded from the analysis, the MRR was lower for CTERB (21%) compared to TOT (39%). CONCLUSIONS: Itraconazole therapy was associated with higher RRs than terbinafine therapy. Combined therapy did not reduce the RRs compared to monotherapies. A difference might exist between continuous and intermittent antifungal regimens, but additional randomized clinical trials are needed for confirmation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".