MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396868971 · doi:10.7759/cureus.60162

Efficacy and Safety of Amorolfine Lotion 0.25% w/v Compared to Amorolfine Cream 0.25% w/w in Patients With Superficial Fungal Infections of the Skin: A Multi-center, Randomized, Open-Label, Active-Controlled, Non-inferiority Phase III Clinical Trial

2024· article· en· W4396868971 on OpenAlexaff
M Kanaka Prasad Rao, Lokesh Siddananjappa, Neetu Sidana, Ashish Deshmukh, Binayak Diwari, Surendra Kumar, Ravindra Mittal, Pavankumar Daultani, A K Jaiswal, Monika Chinda

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNail Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSKiN Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLotionDermatologyMedicineTraditional medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Dermatophytosis, a major cause of superficial fungal infections, requires topical and systemic antifungals. Amorolfine, a morpholine derivative, is a new topical antifungal available in cream and lotion formulations. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of amorolfine lotion 0.25% compared to amorolfine cream 0.25% in patients with dermatophytosis. METHODS: A multi-center randomized, two-arm, active-controlled, parallel, non-inferiority phase III clinical trial involving 284 dermatophytosis patients was conducted, with the test arm using amorolfine lotion and the reference arm using amorolfine cream. The study drugs were applied once daily in the evening for four weeks and patients were followed up for another two weeks. The primary endpoint was clinical cure, while secondary endpoints included mycological cure, composite cure, global efficacy assessment, and post-treatment relapse. Safety and tolerability were assessed. RESULTS: Amongst the enrolled patients, 69.9% and 68.1% of patients had tinea corporis, while 30.1% and 31.9% had tinea cruris. The majority of patients in both groups (99.3% test and 97% reference) achieved a clinical cure at the end of treatment. Mycological cure was achieved by 98.6% and 96.3% respectively. A composite cure was achieved by 98.6% in the test arm versus 96.3% in the reference arm. A total of two AEs were reported in two (1.4%) patients in the test group and three AEs were reported in three (2.1%) patients in the reference group, all of the AEs were mild and resolved within three days without supportive medication. No severe adverse effects were reported in any of the study subjects. CONCLUSION: Amorolfine lotion 0.25% w/v showed a non-inferior clinical, mycological, and composite cure in dermatophytosis patients, was well-tolerated, and had a similar safety profile to amorolfine cream 0.25% w/w.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicNail Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207