Randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study of itraconazole for the treatment of onychomycosis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Itraconazole, approved for treatment of toenail fungal infection onychomycosis, provides antifungal activity at a dosage requiring once-daily (QD) administration of 2 100-mg capsules for 12 weeks. Utilizing the Meltrex® technology delivery system, a novel 200-mg formulation of itraconazole was developed delivering the same dosage as 2 capsules in a single tablet. METHODS: This phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial investigated the noninferiority of 1 itraconazole 200-mg tablet to 2 itraconazole 100-mg capsules dosed QD for 12 weeks, with a 40-week follow-up period. Clinical Cure (Investigator's Global Assessment plus mycological examination) was the primary outcome measure and Clinical Improvement was a secondary endpoint. Safety and efficacy of itraconazole 200-mg tablets were also compared with placebo. RESULTS: Significantly more patients in the intent-to-treat per-protocol populations on itraconazole (200-mg tablet or 2 100-mg capsules) achieved Complete Cure and Clinical Improvement compared with placebo. For both endpoints, itraconazole 200-mg tablet QD was noninferior to itraconazole 100-mg capsules and superior to placebo. All treatment groups demonstrated a similar safety profile with no new safety signals identified. LIMITATIONS: Absolute patient blinding was not possible; the number of tablets versus capsules differed, and the appearance of the active drugs could not be masked. However, efficacy was based on objective assessments from blinded investigators. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily itraconazole 200-mg was well-tolerated, and may be an effective alternative to 2 itraconazole 100-mg capsules for the treatment of toenail onychomycosis. The convenience of a simpler dosing regimen may improve patient compliance
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".