Categories
Change Password!
Reset Password!
For onychomycosis, the number of affected nails is the primary determinant of Efinaconazole 10% solution usage.
The findings of a recent study issued in the "Journal of Drugs in Dermatology" emphasized the importance of considering the number of affected nails when prescribing Efinaconazole 10% solution for onychomycosis management. Efinaconazole 10% solution, a topical azole antifungal, is a common prescription for fungal infection of the nail unit. However, until now, there has been a lack of data regarding patient-specific factors or disease characteristics that affect the necessary dosage.
Pooling and analyzing data from two phase 3 studies focused on toenail onychomycosis treatment, researchers sought to identify patterns in medication usage. The analysis considered parameters such as the number of affected toenails, the percentage of involvement of the target toenail, sex, and body mass index (BMI). The findings revealed a clear correlation between the number of affected nails and the required dosage of Efinaconazole per month.
Participants with two or more affected nails needed, on average, more than the standard 4 mL prescribed monthly. As the number of nails afflicted with onychomycosis escalated, so did the required dosage, with an average of 4.39 mL for two nails and 6.36 mL for six nails. Surprisingly, the study found that other factors such as the percentage of involvement of the target toenail, sex, or BMI had minimal impact on medication usage.
Hence, tailoring prescriptions based on the extent of nail involvement is crucial for optimizing treatment outcomes. By prioritizing the number of affected nails, medical care providers can ensure that patients receive the appropriate dosage of Efinaconazole, leading to improved treatment adherence and ultimately better outcomes in the fight against onychomycosis.
Journal of Drugs in Dermatology
Number of Affected Nails Is the Primary Determinant of Efinaconazole 10% Solution Usage for Onychomycosis
Steven R Feldman et al.
Comments (0)