Treatment of onychomycosis in an era of antifungal resistance: Role for antifungal stewardship and topical antifungal agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing body of literature has marked the emergence and spread of antifungal resistance among species of Trichophyton, the most prevalent cause of toenail and fingernail onychomycosis in the United States and Europe. We review published data on rates of oral antifungal resistance among Trichophyton species; causes of antifungal resistance and methods to counteract it; and in vitro data on the role of topical antifungals in the treatment of onychomycosis. Antifungal resistance among species of Trichophyton against terbinafine and itraconazole-the two most common oral treatments for onychomycosis and other superficial fungal infections caused by dermatophytes-has been detected around the globe. Fungal adaptations, patient characteristics (e.g., immunocompromised status; drug-drug interactions), and empirical diagnostic and treatment patterns may contribute to reduced antifungal efficacy and the development of antifungal resistance. Antifungal stewardship efforts aim to ensure proper antifungal use to limit antifungal resistance and improve clinical outcomes. In the treatment of onychomycosis, critical aspects of antifungal stewardship include proper identification of the fungal infection prior to initiation of treatment and improvements in physician and patient education. Topical ciclopirox, efinaconazole and tavaborole, delivered either alone or in combination with oral antifungals, have demonstrated efficacy in vitro against susceptible and/or resistant isolates of Trichophyton species, with low potential for development of antifungal resistance. Additional real-world long-term data are needed to monitor global rates of antifungal resistance and assess the efficacy of oral and topical antifungals, alone or in combination, in counteracting antifungal resistance in the treatment of onychomycosis.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".