Review of the alternative therapies for onychomycosis and superficial fungal infections: posaconazole, fosravuconazole, voriconazole, oteseconazole
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Terbinafine and itraconazole are the most commonly used oral antifungals to treat onychomycosis and superficial dermatomycoses. Recently, poor response to oral terbinafine has been reported. We have summarized the most appropriate dosing regimens of posaconazole, fosravuconazole, voriconazole, and oteseconazole (VT-1161) to treat onychomycosis and superficial fungal infections. A structured search on PubMed and Google Scholar was conducted. Additionally, the bibliographies of selected articles were searched to identify relevant records. The number of records identified from the searches was 463, with 50 articles meeting the inclusion criteria for review. None of the new azoles are US FDA approved for onychomycosis treatment; however, an increasing number of studies have evaluated these agents. The efficacies (complete cure and mycologic cure) of the antifungal agents for dermatophyte great toenail onychomycosis treatment are terbinafine 250 mg/day × 12 weeks (Phase III trial) (38%, 70%), itraconazole 200 mg/day × 12 weeks (Phase III trial) (14%, 54%), posaconazole 200 mg/day × 24 weeks (Phase IIB) (54.1%, 70.3%), fosravuconazole 100 mg/day ravuconazole equivalent × 12 weeks (Phase III) (59.4%, 82.0%), and oteseconazole 300 mg/day loading dose × 2 weeks (Phase II), followed by 300 mg/week × 10 weeks (maintenance dose) (45%, 70%). Guidelines for monitoring are also presented.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".