Tools for Practice Outils pour la pratique


#242 Putting the FUN in Fungi: Toenail onychomycosis treatments


CLINICAL QUESTION
QUESTION CLINIQUE
How effective are treatments for mild-moderate adult toenail onychomycosis?


BOTTOM LINE
RÉSULTAT FINAL
Up to 45-60% of patients on oral treatments (terbinafine best), 6-23% on topicals (efinaconazole best), and <10% on placebo will be “cured” after ~1 year.  Topicals should be reserved for cases with minimal (<40%) nail involvement.  



CFPCLearn Logo

Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits

La lecture d'articles d'outils de pratique peut vous permettre de gagner des crédits MainPro+

Join Now S’inscrire maintenant

Already a CFPCLearn Member? Log in

Déjà abonné à CMFCApprendre? Ouvrir une session



EVIDENCE
DONNÉES PROBANTES
Oral agents: 
  • Meta-analysis of 43 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs),19730 patients, example ~60-70% nail involvement2, 12-16 weeks treatment3. Rates of clinical cure after 4 months-2 years follow-up:1 
    • Terbinafine versus placebo, 8 RCTs: 48% terbinafine, 6% placebo, number needed to treat (NNT)=3. 
    • Azoles” (mostly itraconazole) versus placebo, 9 RCTs: 31% azole, 1.4% placebo, NNT=4. 
    • Terbinafine versus “azoles” (mostly itraconazole), 15 RCTs: 58% terbinafine, 46% azole; NNT=9. 
Topical ciclopirox:  
  • 3 RCTs, 928 patients, 48 weeks of treatment, ~40% nail involvement.4,5 
    • “Cure” (mycological and clinical cure): 6-8% ciclopirox, 0-1% placebo (NNT=15-23). 
Topical efinaconazole: 
  • 2 identical RCTs, 1655 patients.  48 weeks of treatment, assessed at 52 weeks, ~40% nail involvement:6 
    • “Complete cure” (mycological cure and 100% healthy nail): ~16%, ~4% placebo (NNT~9). 
  • RCT, 135 patients. After 36 weeks of treatment and 4 weeks follow-up, ~40% nail involvement:7 
    • “Complete cure” (mycological cure and 100% healthy nail): ~22%, 9% placebo (NNT=8). 
Other systematic reviews only reported mycological cure.8-10   Context: 
  • While British guidelines suggest laboratory confirmation before treatment;11 only 50% of Canadian guideline authors recommend this approach.12 
    • Culture results take several weeks and have ~35% false negative rate.13 
    • Fungal stains alone (without culture/histology) have low sensitivity.13 
  • Canadian guidelines suggest topical efinaconazole if <20% nail involvement, efinaconazole +/- oral terbinafine for 20-60% involvement (or for >3 nails), oral terbinafine for >60% involvement.12 
  • Risk of terbinafine-induced liver injury: ~1 in 50,000-120,000 prescriptions.14 
  • Medication Costs:15 
    • Oral (12 weeks): 
      • Terbinafine: ~$90 
      • Itraconazole: ~$850  
    • Topical (48 weeks): 2 bottles per treatment.  
      • Ciclopirox: ~$150 
      • Efinaconazole: ~$250 
  • Terbinafine treatment without confirmatory testing is likely most cost-effective approach.16 
  • Although not always statistically different, some RCTs found clinically relevant improvements with 4-6-month oral treatment regimens compared to 3 months.3,17 


Latest Tools for Practice
Derniers outils pour la pratique

#367 Oral Calcitonin Gene-related Peptide Antagonists: A painfully long name for the acute treatment of migraines

What are the risks and benefits of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of episodic migraines?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#366 Looking for Closure: Managing simple excisions or wounds efficiently

What are some options for efficiency in wound closure?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#365 Shrooms for Glooms: Evidence for psilocybin for depression

What are the benefits and harms of psilocybin for treatment-resistant/recurrent depression?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

This content is certified for MainPro+ Credits, log in to access

Ce contenu est certifié pour les crédits MainPro+, Ouvrir une session


Author(s)
Auteur(s)
  • Adrienne J Lindblad BSP ACPR PharmD
  • Stacy Jardine BScPharm
  • Michael R Kolber MD CCFP MSc

1. Kreijkamp-Kaspers S, Hawke K, Guo L, et al. Cochrane Database System Rev. 2017;7:CD010031.

2. Evans EG, Sigurgeirsson B. BMJ. 1999 Apr 17; 318(7190):1031-5.

3. Drake LA, Shear NH, Arlette JP, et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1997; 37:740-5.

4. Gupta AK, Fleckman P, Baran R. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000; 43(4):S70-79.

5. Baran R, Tosti A, Hartmane I, et al. JEADV. 2009; 23:773-81.

6. Elewski BW, Rich P, Pollak R, et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013; 68:600-8.

7. Tschen EH, Bucko AD, Oizumi N, et al. J Drugs Dermatol. 2013; 12(2):186-92.

8. Gupta AK, Foley KA, Mays RR, et al. Br J Dermatol. 2019 May 23 [Epub ahead of print].

9. Gupta AK, Daigle D, Paquet M. J American Podiatric Med Assoc 2015; 105(4):357-366.

10. Crawford S, Hollis S. Cochrane Database System Rev. 2007; 3:CD001434.

11. Ameen M, Lear JT, Madan V, et al. Br J Dermatol. 2014; 171:937-958.

12. Gupta AK, Sibbald RG, Andriessen A, et al. J Cut Med Surg. 2015; 19(5):440-9.

13. Gupta AK, Versteeg SG, Shear NH. J Cut Med Surg. 2017; Vol.21(6):525-539.

14. Albrecht J, Kramer ON. Br J Dermatol. 2017; 177:1279-84.

15. Calculations using data from Alberta Health Interactive Drug Benefit List. Available at: https://idbl.ab.bluecross.ca/idbl/load.do Accessed June 7, 2019.

16. Mikailov A, Cohen J, Joyce C, et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2016; 152(3):276-281.

17. Heikkila H, Stubb S. Br J Dermatol. 2002; 146:250-3.

Authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Les auteurs n’ont aucun conflit d’intérêts à déclarer.