Search

ABSTRACTIntroductionOnychomycosis is an infection of the nail bed and the nail plate. While oral antifungals are first-line for moderate-to-severe onychomycosis, topical efinaconazole 10% solution (JUBLIA®; Clenafin®) is effective and safe for mild-to-moderate severity onychomycosis. It is FDA-approved for patients aged 6 years and above.Areas coveredThis literature review includes pharmacokinetics, microbiology, efficacy, safety, and post-marketing surveillance. It demonstrates consistent safety and efficacy across diverse patient demographics and comorbidities, including pediatric, diabetic and the elderly populations, without systemic side effects or drug interactions.Expert opinionEfinaconazole 10% solution is an important addition to the armamentarium of therapies available to treat onychomycosis. Certain subgroups respond particularly well: females versus males, children versus adults, early onset onychomycosis (<1-year disease), those with mild onychomycosis (≤25% nail involvement), absence of tinea pedis, and thin nail plates at baseline (<1 mm thickness). Efinaconazole 10% solution is effective in diabetics and has demonstrated efficacy against dermatophytomas. Efinaconazole may be a consideration when terbinafine resistance is a concern, due to its different target of action.

Introduction:Oral antifungals were the earliest treatments to receive approval for the management of onychomycosis and have a long-standing record to support their efficacy. Topical antifungals and device-based treatments have been explored and some implemented in more recent years as alternatives to traditional oral antifungals. The present bibliometric analysis summarizes trends in publication frequency for onychomycosis treatment modalities over time and characterizes their body of literature in terms of types of studies available and relative level of evidence. Methods:A comprehensive literature search was performed using Web of Science and SCOPUS databases. Results:Covering all publications from 1970 to present day, our search identified oral therapeutics n= 295 articles (n= 63 randomized control trials [RCTs]), topical therapeutics n= 358 articles (n= 72 RCTs), and device-based treatments n= 158 articles (n= 37 RCTs). Spikes in research activity surround FDA approval of therapeutics for each treatment modality. Research activity within the last decade has focused on topical and device-based treatments. Evidence for efficacy of device-based treatments is lacking from relatively few high-quality RCTs. Conclusion:With growing concern for non-dermatophyte mold onychomycosis and terbinafine resistance, researchers should validate the efficacy and safety of device-based treatments with high-quality studies.

ABSTRACTIntroductionThe reports of resistance to antifungal agents used for treating onychomycosis and other superficial fungal infections are increasing. This rise in antifungal resistance poses a public health challenge that requires attention.Areas coveredThis review explores the prevalence of dermatophytes and the current relationship between dermatophyte species, their minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) for terbinafine (an allylamine) and itraconazole (an azole), and various mutations prevalent in these species. The most frequently isolated dermatophyte associated with resistance in patients with onychomycosis and dermatophytosis was T. mentagrophytes. However, T. indotineaeemerged as the most prevalent isolate with mutations in the SQLEgene, exhibiting the highest MIC of 8 µg/ml for terbinafine and MICs of 8 µg/ml and ≥ 32 µg/ml for itraconazole.Overall, the most prevalent SQLEmutations were Phe397Leu, Leu393Phe, Ala448Thr, Phe397Leu/Ala448Thr, and Lys276Asn/Leu415Phe (relatively recent).Expert opinionManaging dermatophyte infections requires a personalized approach. A detailed history should be obtained including details of travel, home and occupational exposure, and clinical examination of the skin, nails and other body systems. Relevant testing includes mycological examination (traditional and molecular). Additional testing, where available, includes MIC evaluation and detection of SQLEmutations. In case of suspected terbinafine resistance, itraconazole or voriconazole (less commonly) should be considered.

ABSTRACTIntroductionTerbinafine has been a cornerstone in dermatophyte infection treatment. Despite its global efficacy, the emergence of terbinafine resistance raises concerns, requiring ongoing vigilance.Areas CoveredThis 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 OpinionTerbinafine 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.

Background:Combination treatments may improve the utility of approved agents for the treatment of pattern hair loss (PHL); however, head-to-head comparisons are lacking. Objective:The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of 5% minoxidil, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and microneedling across adults with PHL insofar as change in total hair density at 24 weeks. Methods:We conducted a literature search in July 2022. Through our Bayesian network meta-analysis, we estimated treatments’ surface under the cumulative ranking distribution (SUCRA) values and relative effects – in terms of mean difference (MD). Results:Data from 27 trials, totaling 1,110 patients, were extracted. Interventions were ranked based on the probability of inducing hair density improvements: 5% minoxidil plus microneedling (SUCRA = 95.8%), 5% minoxidil plus PRP (SUCRA = 64.7%), 5% minoxidil (SUCRA = 53.9%), PRP (SUCRA = 34.9%), microneedling (SUCRA = 27.8%), and PRP with microneedling (SUCRA = 22.9%). The efficacy of 5% minoxidil plus microneedling in improving total hair density was significantly greater (p< 0.05) than 5% minoxidil monotherapy (MD = 13 hairs/cm2), PRP monotherapy (MD = 16 hairs/cm2), and microneedling monotherapy (MD = 17 hairs/cm2). Conclusion:Five percent minoxidil plus microneedling is an effective treatment option for improving hair density at 6 months in adult PHL patients.