Treating Onychomycosis with Efinaconazole: Considerations for Diverse Patient Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Onychomycosis is a common nail disease that manifests with varying severity and frequency in specific patient populations, warranting a personalized treatment approach. Novel topical antifungals, such as efinaconazole 10% approved for use in North America and Japan, offer a safe treatment option for many of these patients, though real-world use requires special considerations. In this scoping review, a literature search was conducted in October 2025 using PubMed, Embase (Ovid), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science (Core Collection). In children and adolescents (≥6 years), efinaconazole 10% has shown higher efficacy rates than in adults, possibly attributed to less nail trauma, thinner nail plates, and faster nail growth. In the elderly, a mycological response can precede visual nail improvements, which may require extending treatment beyond the standard 48-week regimen, along with intermittent maintenance therapies. Although antifungal resistance is a concern, dermatophytes-including terbinafine-resistant strains-have generally shown high susceptibility to efinaconazole. In diabetic individuals, onychomycosis should be treated promptly to prevent secondary complications. Efinaconazole 10% showed similar efficacy in this population, regardless of glycemic control. In historically underserved populations, efinaconazole 10% showed no significant difference in efficacy for Latino/Hispanic patients, though further research is needed. Overall, efinaconazole 10% solution was well-tolerated across patient groups, with application-site reactions occurring without systemic sequalae. Healthcare providers are advised to check for concomitant tinea pedis, which increases the risk of relapse or re-infection, and advise patients on nail polish use, which may degrade after topical antifungal application. A shared decision-making framework can help improve treatment compliance and patient satisfaction.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".