Effectiveness and safety of oral terbinafine for dermatophyte distal subungual onychomycosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Terbinafine has been a cornerstone in dermatophyte infection treatment. Despite its global efficacy, the emergence of terbinafine resistance raises concerns, requiring ongoing vigilance. AREAS COVERED: This paper focuses on evaluating the efficacy and safety of terbinafine in treating dermatophyte toenail infections. Continuous and pulse therapies, with a 24-week continuous regimen and a higher dosage of 500 mg/day have demonstrated superior efficacy to the FDA approved regimen of 250 mg/day x 12 weeks. Pulse therapies, though showing comparable effectiveness, present debates with regards to their efficacy as conflicting findings have been reported. Safety concerns encompass hepatotoxicity, gastrointestinal, cutaneous, neurologic, hematologic and immune adverse-effects, and possible drug interactions, suggesting the need for ongoing monitoring. EXPERT OPINION: Terbinafine efficacy depends on dosage, duration, and resistance patterns. Continuous therapy for 24 weeks and a dosage of 500 mg/day may enhance outcomes, but safety considerations and resistance necessitate individualized approaches. Alternatives, including topical agents and alternative antifungals, are to be considered for resistant cases. Understanding the interplay between treatment parameters, adverse effects, and resistance mechanisms is critical for optimizing therapeutic efficacy while mitigating resistance risks. Patient education and adherence are vital for early detection and management of adverse effects and resistance, contributing to tailored and effective treatments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".