ArticleCureus2026
Efficacy and Safety of Conventional Versus Super-bioavailable Itraconazole in Dermatophytic Infections: A Prospective Randomized Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDermatophytosis has emerged as a therapeutic challenge in recent years due to suboptimal response to conventional antifungal therapy and frequent relapses. While conventional itraconazole (C-ITZ) remains a mainstay of treatment, super-bioavailable itraconazole (SB-ITZ) has emerged as a promising alternative with improved pharmacokinetics. This study compares the efficacy and safety of C-ITZ and SB-ITZ in the management of dermatophytosis. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel-group comparative study included 108 patients with clinically and mycologically confirmed dermatophytosis involving >20% body surface area. Participants were randomized to receive either C-ITZ 100 mg twice daily or SB-ITZ 50 mg twice daily for four to six weeks. Clinical, mycological, and complete cure rates were assessed at four and six weeks. Safety profile and relapse rates were also evaluated.
resultsComplete cure rates were low at four weeks in both groups. At six weeks, most patients in both groups achieved clinical and mycological cures. Although cure rates were numerically higher in the SB-ITZ group, no statistically significant difference was observed between the two formulations overall. In recalcitrant dermatophytosis, SB-ITZ demonstrated a significantly higher clinical cure rate at six weeks (p = 0.029), while mycological cure and relapse rates were similar. Adverse events were more frequent in the C-ITZ group.
conclusionsSB-ITZ and C-ITZ showed comparable overall efficacy in dermatophytosis. SB-ITZ demonstrated a modest clinical advantage in recalcitrant cases with better tolerability. Treatment duration, adherence, and hygiene practices remain key determinants of long-term outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.