Relative impact of traditional vs. newer oral antifungals for dermatophyte toenail onychomycosis: a network meta-analysis study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of evidence regarding the relative therapeutic efficacy of treatments for onychomycosis. OBJECTIVES: We determined the relative efficacy of monotherapies for dermatophyte toenail onychomycosis with Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMAs). METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE (Ovid) and CINAHL to identify studies that investigated the efficacy of monotherapy with oral antifungals for dermatophyte toenail onychomycosis in adults. In this paper, 'regimen' corresponds to a given agent and its dosage. The relative effects and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values of the various regimens were estimated; evidence quality was assessed at the study level and across networks. RESULTS: Data from 21 studies were used. Our two efficacy-related endpoints were: (i) mycological and (ii) complete cure at 1 year; safety--related endpoints were: (i) 1-year count of any adverse event (AE), (ii) 1-year odds of discontinuation due to any AE, (iii) 1-year odds of discontinuation due to liver issues. Thirty-five regimens were identified; the newer agents among these included posaconazole and oteseconazole. We compared the efficacy of newer regimens with traditional ones like 'terbinafine 250 mg daily for 12 weeks' and 'itraconazole 200 mg daily for 12 weeks. We found that an agent's dosage was associated with its efficacy; for example, the 1-year odds of mycological cure with terbinafine 250 mg daily for 24 weeks (SUCRA = 92.4%) were significantly greater than those of terbinafine 250 mg daily for 12 weeks (SUCRA = 66.3%) (odds ratio 2.62, 95% credible interval 1.57-4.54). We also found that booster regimens can increase efficacy. Our results showed that some triazoles could be more effective than terbinafine. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first NMA study of monotherapeutic antifungals - and their various dosages - for dermatophyte toenail onychomycosis. Our findings could provide guidance for the selection of the most appropriate antifungal agent, especially amid the growing concerns about terbinafine resistance.
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 | 0.032 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.051 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".