Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38702077›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2024

How effective is topical miconazole or amorolfine for mild to moderately severe onychomycosis in primary care: the Onycho Trial - a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

Roeland M Watjer, Tobias N Bonten, Khisraw Sayed, Koen D Quint, Martha T van der Beek, Bart J A Mertens, Mattijs E Numans, Just A H Eekhof

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Pharmacological assessment of drugs retained in the 1Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Roeland M WatjerPublic Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands r.m.watjer@lumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-9145-7353
Tobias N BontenPublic Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7719-6182
Khisraw SayedLeiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Koen D QuintDermatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Martha T van der BeekMedical Microbiology, Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Bart J A MertensMedical Statistics and Bioinformatics, Leiden Universitair Medisch Centrum, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Mattijs E NumansPublic Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Just A H EekhofPublic Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the efficacy of topical miconazole or amorolfine compared to placebo for mild to moderately severe onychomycosis.

designRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, with computer-generated treatment allocation at a 1:1:1 ratio.

settingPrimary care, recruitment from February 2020 to August 2022.

participants193 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)).

interventionsOnce-daily miconazole 20 mg/g or once-weekly amorolfine 5% nail lacquer solution was compared with placebo (denatonium benzoate solution).

main outcome measuresComplete, 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.

resultsBased 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.

conclusionsTopical 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. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: WHO ICTRP NL8193.

Indexed as

Administration, TopicalAntifungal AgentsMiconazoleMorpholinesOnychomycosisAdultAgedDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareQuality of LifeSeverity of Illness IndexTreatment OutcomeamorolfineAntifungal AgentsMiconazoleMorpholinesdermatologyinfectious diseases & infestationsmycologyprimary health care

Identifiers

PMID38702077
PMCPMC11086198

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.