Watjer Roeland M, Bonten Tobias N, Sayed Khisraw, Quint Koen D, van der Beek Martha T, Mertens Bart J A, Numans Mattijs E, Eekhof Just A H
Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
BMJ Open. 2024 May 3;14(5):e081914. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081914.
To evaluate the efficacy of topical miconazole or amorolfine compared to placebo for mild to moderately severe onychomycosis.
Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, with computer-generated treatment allocation at a 1:1:1 ratio.
Primary care, recruitment from February 2020 to August 2022.
193 patients with suspected mild to moderately severe onychomycosis were recruited via general practices and from the general public, 111 of whom met the study criteria. The mean age of participants was 51 (SD 13.1), 51% were female and onychomycosis was moderately severe (mean OSI 12.1 (SD 8.0)).
Once-daily miconazole 20 mg/g or once-weekly amorolfine 5% nail lacquer solution was compared with placebo (denatonium benzoate solution).
Complete, clinical and mycological cure at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were clinical improvement, symptom burden, quality of life, adverse effects, compliance, patient-perceived improvement and treatment acceptability.
Based on intention-to-treat analysis, none of the participants receiving miconazole or amorolfine reached complete cure compared with two in the placebo group (OR not estimable (n.e.), p=0.493 and OR n.e., p=0.240, respectively). There was no evidence of a significant difference between groups regarding clinical cure (OR n.e., p=0.493 and OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.45, p=0.615) while miconazole and amorolfine were less effective than placebo at reaching both mycological cure (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.98, p=0.037 and OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.92, p=0.029, respectively) and clinical improvement (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.91, p=0.028 and OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.85, p=0.021, respectively). There was no evidence of a significant difference in disease burden, quality of life, adverse reactions, compliance, patient-perceived improvement or treatment acceptability.
Topical miconazole and amorolfine were not effective in achieving a complete, clinical or mycological cure of mild to moderately severe onychomycosis, nor did they significantly alleviate the severity or symptom burden. These treatments should, therefore, not be advised as monotherapy to treat onychomycosis.
WHO ICTRP NL8193.
评估局部使用咪康唑或阿莫罗芬与安慰剂相比治疗轻至中度严重甲真菌病的疗效。
随机、双盲、安慰剂对照试验,采用计算机生成的1:1:1比例的治疗分配方案。
初级保健机构,招募时间为2020年2月至2022年8月。
通过全科医疗和公众招募了193例疑似轻至中度严重甲真菌病患者,其中111例符合研究标准。参与者的平均年龄为51岁(标准差13.1),51%为女性,甲真菌病为中度严重(平均甲真菌病严重指数12.1(标准差8.0))。
将每日一次的20mg/g咪康唑或每周一次的5%阿莫罗芬甲涂剂溶液与安慰剂(苯甲地那铵溶液)进行比较。
6个月时的完全治愈、临床治愈和真菌学治愈。次要结局包括临床改善、症状负担、生活质量、不良反应、依从性、患者感知的改善和治疗可接受性。
基于意向性分析,接受咪康唑或阿莫罗芬治疗的参与者均未达到完全治愈,而安慰剂组有2例达到完全治愈(比值比不可估计(n.e.),p = 0.493和比值比n.e.,p = 0.240)。在临床治愈方面,两组之间没有显著差异的证据(比值比n.e.,p = 0.493和比值比0.47,95%置信区间0.04至5.45,p = 0.615),而咪康唑和阿莫罗芬在达到真菌学治愈(比值比0.25,95%置信区间0.06至0.98,p = 0.037和比值比0.23,95%置信区间0.06至0.92,p = 0.029)和临床改善(比值比0.26,95%置信区间0.08至0.91,p = 0.028和比值比0.25,95%置信区间0.07至0.85,p = 0.021)方面均不如安慰剂有效。在疾病负担、生活质量、不良反应、依从性、患者感知的改善或治疗可接受性方面没有显著差异的证据。
局部使用咪康唑和阿莫罗芬在实现轻至中度严重甲真菌病的完全治愈、临床治愈或真菌学治愈方面均无效,也未显著减轻严重程度或症状负担。因此,不建议将这些治疗作为甲真菌病的单一疗法。
WHO ICTRP NL8193