Friedman-Birnbaum R, Cohen A, Shemer A, Bitterman O, Bergman R, Stettendorf S
Department of Dermatology, Rambam Medical Centre, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Israel.
Int J Dermatol. 1997 Jan;36(1):67-9. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-4362.1997.00024.x.
A parallel-group double-blind study was carried out which compared the efficacy of chemical avulsion of affected nail by urea 40% and bifonazole 1% cream alone with that of the same local therapy combined with short-term oral griseofulvin in onychomycosis. A total of 120 patients were included in the study. Patients' characteristics were comparable in both treatment groups. Of the 98 patients fully evaluated, 91 had toenail involvement and only seven had fingernail involvement. Forty-six of the patients were men and 51 were women. The mean age of the patients was 47.14 +/- 13.84 years (range 17-80 years). The duration of onychomycosis was for more than 1 year in 96 patients and for 3 months duration in only one patient, who was in the placebo group. Forty patients had received different previous therapies. All topical treatments were discontinued for at least 2 weeks and oral therapy for at least 2 months prior to the beginning of the study. The diagnosis was confirmed by positive mycologic cultures. Trychophyton rubrum was identified as the pathogen in 90 patients, 45 in each group, T. tonsurans in four patients, two in each group, and T. mentagrophytes in three patients, two in the griseofulvin treated group, and one in the placebo group. The first phase of treatment given to all patients consisted of occlusive dressing every 24 h with urea 40% and bifonazole 1% ointment until the infected nail became completely detached. Subsequently, in the second phase bifonazole 1% cream was applied to the nail ped every 24 h for 4 weeks. In addition, concomitantly with the bifonazole cream the patients were randomly allocated to a daily oral double-blind treatment with griseofulvin 500 mg or placebo, for 4 weeks. Clinical and mycologic evaluations were carried out at baseline, immediately after removal of the nail, and at 3 days, 4 weeks, and 4 months after the end of treatment with bifonazole cream and griseofulvin/placebo tablets. Mycologic examination included identification of fungi by KOH preparation and culture on potato dextrose agar. Positive cultures were transfered for identification on Sabouraud's. Criteria for evaluation of efficacy comprised: "cure" defined as clinical and mycologic cure (fresh specimen and culture negative) at both investigation times after the end of treatment; "late cure" defined as mycologic cure at both investigation times after the end of treatment, clinical clearing of the nail only 4 months after the end of treatment; "improvement" defined as mycologic cure and only partial clinical improvement at both times after the end of treatment; "failure" indicating no mycologic cure (fresh specimen and/or culture positive); and "relapse" signifying a change from negative findings 1 month after the end of treatment to positive findings 4 months after the end of treatment. Adverse reactions were evaluated on each visit. Only those patients who had completed clinical and mycologic evaluation during the entire study were included in the final statistical analysis. Those patients with partial evaluation were included only in the evaluation of adverse events. Based on the assumptions of a failure rate (failure and relapse) of 30% with bifonazole cream alone and of 10% with bifonazole cream and griseofulvin tables, a = 0.05 and b = 0.2 the required sample size was at least 58 patients for each treatment group (Casagrande formula, one-sided test). The primary efficacy variable "assessment of treatment" (cure and improvement versus failure and relapse) was tested for treatment differences by Fisher's exact test (a = 0.05, one-sided test; Ho, no advantage with additional systemic therapy of griseofulvin). Additionally, the relapse rates of both treatments were tested exploratively in the same way as the primary efficacy variable. All other data were analyzed descriptively.
开展了一项平行组双盲研究,比较了单独使用40%尿素化学脱甲和1%联苯苄唑乳膏与相同局部治疗联合短期口服灰黄霉素治疗甲真菌病的疗效。该研究共纳入120例患者。两个治疗组患者的特征具有可比性。在98例完成评估的患者中,91例累及趾甲,仅7例累及指甲。患者中46例为男性,51例为女性。患者的平均年龄为47.14±13.84岁(范围17 - 80岁)。96例患者甲真菌病病程超过1年,仅1例患者病程为3个月,该患者在安慰剂组。40例患者之前接受过不同治疗。在研究开始前,所有局部治疗至少停用2周,口服治疗至少停用2个月。通过真菌学培养阳性确诊。90例患者鉴定为红色毛癣菌,每组45例;4例患者鉴定为断发毛癣菌,每组2例;3例患者鉴定为须癣毛癣菌,灰黄霉素治疗组2例,安慰剂组1例。所有患者治疗的第一阶段包括每24小时用40%尿素和1%联苯苄唑软膏进行封包换药,直至感染的指甲完全脱落。随后,在第二阶段,每24小时在甲床涂抹1%联苯苄唑乳膏,持续4周。此外,在使用联苯苄唑乳膏的同时,患者被随机分配接受每日口服500mg灰黄霉素或安慰剂的双盲治疗,持续4周。在基线、指甲去除后即刻、联苯苄唑乳膏和灰黄霉素/安慰剂片剂治疗结束后3天、4周和4个月进行临床和真菌学评估。真菌学检查包括通过氢氧化钾制片鉴定真菌以及在马铃薯葡萄糖琼脂上培养。阳性培养物转种至沙氏培养基上进行鉴定。疗效评估标准包括:“治愈”定义为治疗结束后的两次检查时临床和真菌学治愈(新鲜标本和培养阴性);“延迟治愈”定义为治疗结束后的两次检查时真菌学治愈,仅在治疗结束后4个月指甲临床清除;“改善”定义为治疗结束后的两次检查时真菌学治愈且仅部分临床改善;“失败”表示未真菌学治愈(新鲜标本和/或培养阳性);“复发”表示从治疗结束后1个月的阴性结果变为治疗结束后4个月的阳性结果。每次就诊时评估不良反应。仅将在整个研究期间完成临床和真菌学评估的患者纳入最终统计分析。部分评估的患者仅纳入不良事件评估。基于单独使用联苯苄唑乳膏失败率(失败和复发)为30%以及联苯苄唑乳膏和灰黄霉素片剂联合使用失败率为10%的假设,α = 0.05,β = 0.2,每个治疗组所需样本量至少为58例患者(卡萨格兰德公式,单侧检验)。主要疗效变量“治疗评估”(治愈和改善与失败和复发)通过Fisher精确检验进行治疗差异检验(α = 0.05,单侧检验;原假设,灰黄霉素额外全身治疗无优势)。此外,以与主要疗效变量相同的方式探索性检验两种治疗的复发率。所有其他数据进行描述性分析。