Fungal InfectionPhase 4amphotericinNCT03814343
Topical Amphotericin B in 30% Dimethylsulphoxide in Treating of Non-dermatophytes Onychomycosis
A Phase 4 study testing amphotericin B in 30% DMSO and 30% DMSO in people with Fungal Infection and Onychomycosis, run by Mahidol University at 1 site in Thailand.
Trial summary
The randomized control trial study aimed to evaluate effectiveness and safety of amphotericin B in 30% DMSO solution comparing with 30% DMSO solution in NDMs onychomycosis treatment. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Fungal Infection, Onychomycosis, Fungus, Nail
- What is being tested?
- amphotericin B in 30% DMSO and 30% DMSO
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 19 participants
- Where
- 1 siteThailand
- Study dates
- 15 Jan 2019to 30 Nov 2020
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients with non-dermatophyte onychomycosis.
- Patients aged more than 18 years.
- Patients has not been treated with any oral/ IV/ topical antifungal therapy within 36 weeks before enrolled.
Who cannot join
- Patients had concomitant nail diseases.
- Immunocompromised host.
- Patients with dermatophyte onychomycosis.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Thailand1 site
Department of Dermatology Siriraj Hospital
Bangkoknoi, Bangkok, 10700
About this study
Official title: Comparison of Effectiveness of Topical Amphotericin B in 30% Dimethylsulphoxide and 30% Dimethylsulphoxide in Treating of Non-dermatophytes Onychomycosis: Randomized Double Blind Controlled Trial Pilot Study
The randomized control trial study aimed to evaluate effectiveness and safety of amphotericin B in 30% DMSO solution comparing with 30% DMSO solution in NDMs onychomycosis treatment.
Read the detailed description
Introduction Onychomycosis caused by non-dermatophyte molds (NDMs) have become more common in clinical practice, particularly in tropical and subtropical area. With worldwide prevalence as high as 10-24% for nail infection, more recent studies have focused on the treatment regimens for NDMs onychomycosis, especially of Neoscytalidium spp and Fusarium spp. etiology. However, there has been no consensus to-date regarding standard treatment of choice for NDMs onychomycosis.
NDMs onychomycosis was considered to be recalcitrant infection. Previous in vitro study in Malaysia reported high susceptibility of Neoscytalidium dimidiatum in amphotericin B, voriconazole, and miconazole treatment.Different therapeutic approaches such as oral antifungal agents, keratolytic agents, combined oral antifungal agents with keratolytic agents, or surgical nail avulsion, have been implemented but none has been considered a gold standard protocol in NDMs onychomycosis.
Amphotericin B is the polyene class of antimicrobial compounds. Its properties are fungicidal and have a broad spectrum with a low rate of resistance. In in vitro study, amphotericin B was reported to have better efficacy of treating N. dimidiatum infection followed by terbinafine and voricanazole. The mechanism of action is the interaction with ergosterol of fungi membrane resulting in forming permeable channels in cellular membrane of targeted fungi. This causes impairing membrane barrier function. In addition, it also causes growth inhibition. Amphotericin B is often used in treating disseminated fungal infection and visceral leishmaniasis. However, Amphotericin B can cause several side effects including nephrotocixicity, fever, chills, nausea, vomiting, headache, anemia, electrolytes imbalance (hypokalemia and hypomagnesaemia). Oral amphotercin B has poor bioavailability. Topical forms are not commonly used due to its highly lipophilic property. As a consequence, topical amphotericin B is not well absorbed through mucosa or skin resulting in low efficacy. High dose of topical amphotericin B had been developed but the results didn't work well because it caused severe adverse events such as blistering, itching, redness, peeling or severe irritation of the skin and did not even achieve the goal of treatment.
Dimethylsulphoxide (DMSO) is a promising vehicle to enhance the penetration of the drugs to animal or human skin. In addition, DMSO also has fungicidal activity. In vitro release study of amphotericin B from amphotericin B in 30% DMSO solution conducted in Siriraj Hospital revealed adequate amphotericin B concentration in the nails.
Since skin and nail infections caused by NDMs especially N. dimidiatum has been diagnosed in many countries with the majority cases being reported from Thailand, it could be implied that N. dimidiatum was endemic pathogens in this area. Published data on treatment regimens of NDMs nail infection using amphotericin B are still limited. According to the high antifungal property and low rate of drug resistance of amphotericin B, this randomized control trial study aimed to evaluate effectiveness and safety of amphotericin B in 30% DMSO solution comparing with 30% DMSO solution.
Objectives
- To evaluate effectiveness including mycological cure of amphotericin B in 30% DMSO solution comparing with 30% DMSO solution in NDMs onychomycosis treatment
- To evaluate safety of amphotericin B in 30% DMSO solution comparing with 30% DMSO solution in NDMs onychomycosis treatment
Material and Methods Patients Since there was no previous study that compared amphotericin B in 30% DMSO with pure 30% DMSO in treating of NDMs onychomycosis, this study designated a total of 20 patients into two groups as 10 patients with NDMs onychomycosis treated with 30% DMSO (control group) and another 10 Patients with NDMs onychomycosis treated with amphotericin B in 30% DMSO. NDMs onychomycosis was diagnosed with diagnostic criteria for NDM onychomycosis proposed by Gupta et al. Patients with any systemic or topical antifungal agents at least 3 months prior to the study were excluded from this study.
Design of medication Drugs were prepared in two solutions. First, amphotericin B (Alpharma, Denmark) was mixed with 30% DMSO (Sigma- Aldrich, Buchs, Switzerland) in 50:50 ratio. A final concentration of amphotericin B was 2 mg/ml. Later solution was pure 30% DMSO without amphotericin B. Those two final solutions had the same appearance, odor and texture. The solution will be kept in amber glass bottles with aluminum foil together with dropper. The drug regimen is to apply 1-3 drops of the solution once a day to each affected nail and briefly let the solution evaporate before continuing their usual activities.
Treatment, Follow-up and measurement A randomized control trial study conducted in outpatient nail clinic, Siriraj Hospital. Patients will be divided into two groups by mixed block of randomization. First groups will be treated with amphotericin B in 30% DMSO solution. Another group will be given only 30% DMSO solution. Each patient is subjected to continuously apply his/ her own drugs followed instruction given for 12 weeks. They will be followed up at 12 weeks, 24 weeks and 36 weeks for re-evaluation of clinical, mycological laboratories, adherence to the drug and adverse events. Effectiveness was evaluated by clinical improvement and mycological cure as well as median time to mycological cure. Clinical evaluation would be assessed by two treatment-blind dermatologists. Regarding mycological cure, it was defined as negative KOH and fungal culture. Data were analyzed using PASW Statistics version 18 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
Duration of study: 1 year
Study design: Randomized double blind control trial
- Conditions
- Fungal Infection, Onychomycosis, Fungus, Nail
- Being tested
- amphotericin B in 30% DMSO, 30% DMSO
- Keywords
- fungal infection, onychomycosis, amphotericin B, Dimethylsulphoxide, non-dermatophyte, randomized double blind controlled trial
- Medical subject headings
- Mycoses, Onychomycosis
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
amphotericin B in 30% DMSODrug
amphotericin B in 30% DMSO was given to patients in active comparators group for continuous 12 weeks.
30% DMSODrug
30% DMSO was given to patients in placebo comparators group for continuous 12 weeks.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Active comparator | Active comparator | 10 patients with NDMs onychomycosis treated with amphotericin B in 30% DMSO. Receives: Drug: amphotericin B in 30% DMSO |
| control comparator | Placebo comparator | 10 patients with NDMs onychomycosis treated with 30% DMSO. Receives: Drug: 30% DMSO |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Effectiveness of amphotericin B in 30% DMSO solution comparing with 30% DMSO solution in NDMs onychomycosis treatment
Effectiveness was evaluated by patients who had negative on mycological laboratory (mycological cure) as percentage.
Measured: 36 weeks
Median time to mycological cure of patients with amphotericin B in 30% DMSO solution comparing with 30% DMSO solution in NDMs onychomycosis treatment
Median time to mycological cure were defined as time (days, months or years) that had negative on mycological laboratory
Measured: 36 weeks
Secondary outcomes (3)
Clinical cure of amphotericin B in 30% DMSO solution comparing with 30% DMSO solution in NDMs onychomycosis treatment
Clinical cure was defined as the patients had complete clinical improvement or having <10% nail involvement.
Measured: 36 weeks
Median time to clinical cure of patients with amphotericin B in 30% DMSO solution comparing with 30% DMSO solution in NDMs onychomycosis treatment
Median time to clinical cure were defined as time (days, months or years) that had clinical improvement of the affected nails.
Measured: 36 weeks
Evaluate side effects of amphotericin B in 30% DMSO solution comparing with 30% DMSO solution in NDMs onychomycosis treatment
Side effects was assessed by the percentage of patients developed any side effect such as erythema, burning sensation, pain.
Measured: 12 weeks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted24 Jan 2019
- Study start15 Jan 2019
- Primary completion15 Nov 2020
- Study completion30 Nov 2020
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (15)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Fungal InfectionStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Mahidol UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Randomized double blind controlled trial pilot study
- Masking
- Quadruple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 19 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Mahidol University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Sumanas Bunyaratavej, MD, Principal investigator, Mahidol UniversityCharussri Leeyaphan, MD, Study director, Mahidol University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03814343
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 799/2018
- Acronym
- amphotericin
- Status last verified
- Sep 2021
- First submitted
- 16 Jan 2019
- Last updated
- 28 Sep 2021
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Publications
Butani D, Yewale C, Misra A. Amphotericin B topical microemulsion: formulation, characterization and evaluation. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2014 Apr 1;116:351-8. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2014.01.014. Epub 2014 Jan 19.
PubMed 24521698Downs AM, Lear JT, Archer CB. Scytalidium hyalinum onychomycosis successfully treated with 5% amorolfine nail lacquer. Br J Dermatol. 1999 Mar;140(3):555. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2133.1999.02739.x. No abstract available.
PubMed 10233295Cursi IB, Silva RT, Succi IB, Bernardes-Engemann AR, Orofino-Costa R. Onychomycosis due to Neoscytalidium treated with oral terbinafine, ciclopirox nail lacquer and nail abrasion: a pilot study of 25 patients. Mycopathologia. 2013 Feb;175(1-2):75-82. doi: 10.1007/s11046-012-9580-5. Epub 2012 Sep 14.
PubMed 22976905Tosti A, Piraccini BM, Lorenzi S. Onychomycosis caused by nondermatophytic molds: clinical features and response to treatment of 59 cases. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000 Feb;42(2 Pt 1):217-24. doi: 10.1016/S0190-9622(00)90129-4.
PubMed 10642676Welsh O, Vera-Cabrera L, Welsh E. Onychomycosis. Clin Dermatol. 2010 Mar 4;28(2):151-9. doi: 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2009.12.006.
PubMed 20347657Gupta AK, Drummond-Main C, Cooper EA, Brintnell W, Piraccini BM, Tosti A. Systematic review of nondermatophyte mold onychomycosis: diagnosis, clinical types, epidemiology, and treatment. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012 Mar;66(3):494-502. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2011.02.038. Epub 2011 Aug 4.
PubMed 21820203Bunyaratavej S, Prasertworonun N, Leeyaphan C, Chaiwanon O, Muanprasat C, Matthapan L. Distinct characteristics of Scytalidium dimidiatum and non-dermatophyte onychomycosis as compared with dermatophyte onychomycosis. J Dermatol. 2015 Mar;42(3):258-62. doi: 10.1111/1346-8138.12768. Epub 2015 Jan 13.
PubMed 25639524Bunyaratavej S, Leeyaphan C, Rujitharanawong C, Surawan TM, Muanprasat C, Matthapan L. Efficacy of 5% amorolfine nail lacquer in Neoscytalidium dimidiatum onychomycosis. J Dermatolog Treat. 2016 Aug;27(4):359-63. doi: 10.3109/09546634.2015.1109029. Epub 2015 Nov 11.
PubMed 26471716Gupta AK, Paquet M, Simpson FC. Therapies for the treatment of onychomycosis. Clin Dermatol. 2013 Sep-Oct;31(5):544-54. doi: 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2013.06.011.
PubMed 24079583Machouart M, Menir P, Helenon R, Quist D, Desbois N. Scytalidium and scytalidiosis: what's new in 2012? J Mycol Med. 2013 Mar;23(1):40-6. doi: 10.1016/j.mycmed.2013.01.002. Epub 2013 Feb 15.
PubMed 23416171James JE, Santhanam J, Lee MC, Wong CX, Sabaratnam P, Yusoff H, Tzar MN, Razak MF. In Vitro Antifungal Susceptibility of Neoscytalidium dimidiatum Clinical Isolates from Malaysia. Mycopathologia. 2017 Apr;182(3-4):305-313. doi: 10.1007/s11046-016-0085-5. Epub 2016 Nov 4.
PubMed 27815659Lurati M, Baudraz-Rosselet F, Vernez M, Spring P, Bontems O, Fratti M, Monod M. Efficacious treatment of non-dermatophyte mould onychomycosis with topical amphotericin B. Dermatology. 2011;223(4):289-92. doi: 10.1159/000335093. Epub 2012 Jan 10.
PubMed 22236569Hussain A, Samad A, Singh SK, Ahsan MN, Haque MW, Faruk A, Ahmed FJ. Nanoemulsion gel-based topical delivery of an antifungal drug: in vitro activity and in vivo evaluation. Drug Deliv. 2016;23(2):642-47. doi: 10.3109/10717544.2014.933284. Epub 2014 Jul 11.
PubMed 25013957Zaioncz S, Khalil NM, Mainardes RM. Exploring the Role of Nanoparticles in Amphotericin B Delivery. Curr Pharm Des. 2017;23(3):509-521. doi: 10.2174/1381612822666161027103640.
PubMed 27799043Ungpakorn R, Lohaprathan S, Reangchainam S. Prevalence of foot diseases in outpatients attending the Institute of Dermatology, Bangkok, Thailand. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2004 Jan;29(1):87-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2230.2004.01446.x.
PubMed 14723731
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 28 Sep 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparison of Effectiveness of Topical Amphotericin B in 30% Dimethylsulphoxide and 30% Dimethylsulphoxide in Treating of Non-dermatophytes Onychomycosis: Randomized Double Blind Controlled Trial Pilot Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03814343
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- amphotericin / 799/2018
- Conditions
- Fungal Infection, Onychomycosis, Fungus, Nail
- Keywords
- fungal infection, onychomycosis, amphotericin B, Dimethylsulphoxide, non-dermatophyte, randomized double blind controlled trial
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 19 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Mahidol UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 15 Jan 2019 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 15 Nov 2020 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Nov 2020 (actual)
- First posted
- 24 Jan 2019 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The randomized control trial study aimed to evaluate effectiveness and safety of amphotericin B in 30% DMSO solution comparing with 30% DMSO solution in NDMs onychomycosis treatment.
Detailed description
Introduction Onychomycosis caused by non-dermatophyte molds (NDMs) have become more common in clinical practice, particularly in tropical and subtropical area. With worldwide prevalence as high as 10-24% for nail infection, more recent studies have focused on the treatment regimens for NDMs onychomycosis, especially of Neoscytalidium spp and Fusarium spp. etiology. However, there has been no consensus to-date regarding standard treatment of choice for NDMs onychomycosis.
NDMs onychomycosis was considered to be recalcitrant infection. Previous in vitro study in Malaysia reported high susceptibility of Neoscytalidium dimidiatum in amphotericin B, voriconazole, and miconazole treatment.Different therapeutic approaches such as oral antifungal agents, keratolytic agents, combined oral antifungal agents with keratolytic agents, or surgical nail avulsion, have been implemented but none has been considered a gold standard protocol in NDMs onychomycosis.
Amphotericin B is the polyene class of antimicrobial compounds. Its properties are fungicidal and have a broad spectrum with a low rate of resistance. In in vitro study, amphotericin B was reported to have better efficacy of treating N. dimidiatum infection followed by terbinafine and voricanazole. The mechanism of action is the interaction with ergosterol of fungi membrane resulting in forming permeable channels in cellular membrane of targeted fungi. This causes impairing membrane barrier function. In addition, it also causes growth inhibition. Amphotericin B is often used in treating disseminated fungal infection and visceral leishmaniasis. However, Amphotericin B can cause several side effects including nephrotocixicity, fever, chills, nausea, vomiting, headache, anemia, electrolytes imbalance (hypokalemia and hypomagnesaemia). Oral amphotercin B has poor bioavailability. Topical forms are not commonly used due to its highly lipophilic property. As a consequence, topical amphotericin B is not well absorbed through mucosa or skin resulting in low efficacy. High dose of topical amphotericin B had been developed but the results didn't work well because it caused severe adverse events such as blistering, itching, redness, peeling or severe irritation of the skin and did not even achieve the goal of treatment.
Dimethylsulphoxide (DMSO) is a promising vehicle to enhance the penetration of the drugs to animal or human skin. In addition, DMSO also has fungicidal activity. In vitro release study of amphotericin B from amphotericin B in 30% DMSO solution conducted in Siriraj Hospital revealed adequate amphotericin B concentration in the nails.
Since skin and nail infections caused by NDMs especially N. dimidiatum has been diagnosed in many countries with the majority cases being reported from Thailand, it could be implied that N. dimidiatum was endemic pathogens in this area. Published data on treatment regimens of NDMs nail infection using amphotericin B are still limited. According to the high antifungal property and low rate of drug resistance of amphotericin B, this randomized control trial study aimed to evaluate effectiveness and safety of amphotericin B in 30% DMSO solution comparing with 30% DMSO solution.
Objectives
- To evaluate effectiveness including mycological cure of amphotericin B in 30% DMSO solution comparing with 30% DMSO solution in NDMs onychomycosis treatment
- To evaluate safety of amphotericin B in 30% DMSO solution comparing with 30% DMSO solution in NDMs onychomycosis treatment
Material and Methods Patients Since there was no previous study that compared amphotericin B in 30% DMSO with pure 30% DMSO in treating of NDMs onychomycosis, this study designated a total of 20 patients into two groups as 10 patients with NDMs onychomycosis treated with 30% DMSO (control group) and another 10 Patients with NDMs onychomycosis treated with amphotericin B in 30% DMSO. NDMs onychomycosis was diagnosed with diagnostic criteria for NDM onychomycosis proposed by Gupta et al. Patients with any systemic or topical antifungal agents at least 3 months prior to the study were excluded from this study.
Design of medication Drugs were prepared in two solutions. First, amphotericin B (Alpharma, Denmark) was mixed with 30% DMSO (Sigma- Aldrich, Buchs, Switzerland) in 50:50 ratio. A final concentration of amphotericin B was 2 mg/ml. Later solution was pure 30% DMSO without amphotericin B. Those two final solutions had the same appearance, odor and texture. The solution will be kept in amber glass bottles with aluminum foil together with dropper. The drug regimen is to apply 1-3 drops of the solution once a day to each affected nail and briefly let the solution evaporate before continuing their usual activities.
Treatment, Follow-up and measurement A randomized control trial study conducted in outpatient nail clinic, Siriraj Hospital. Patients will be divided into two groups by mixed block of randomization. First groups will be treated with amphotericin B in 30% DMSO solution. Another group will be given only 30% DMSO solution. Each patient is subjected to continuously apply his/ her own drugs followed instruction given for 12 weeks. They will be followed up at 12 weeks, 24 weeks and 36 weeks for re-evaluation of clinical, mycological laboratories, adherence to the drug and adverse events. Effectiveness was evaluated by clinical improvement and mycological cure as well as median time to mycological cure. Clinical evaluation would be assessed by two treatment-blind dermatologists. Regarding mycological cure, it was defined as negative KOH and fungal culture. Data were analyzed using PASW Statistics version 18 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
Duration of study: 1 year
Study design: Randomized double blind control trial
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Quadruple blind (participant, care provider, investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Randomized double blind controlled trial pilot study
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Active comparator | Active comparator | Drug: amphotericin B in 30% DMSO10 patients with NDMs onychomycosis treated with amphotericin B in 30% DMSO. |
| control comparator | Placebo comparator | Drug: 30% DMSO10 patients with NDMs onychomycosis treated with 30% DMSO. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Patients with non-dermatophyte onychomycosis.
- Patients aged more than 18 years.
- Patients has not been treated with any oral/ IV/ topical antifungal therapy within 36 weeks before enrolled.
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Patients had concomitant nail diseases.
- Immunocompromised host.
- Patients with dermatophyte onychomycosis.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| amphotericin B in 30% DMSOamphotericin B in 30% DMSO was given to patients in active comparators group for continuous 12 weeks. | Drug | Active comparator |
| 30% DMSO30% DMSO was given to patients in placebo comparators group for continuous 12 weeks. | Drug | control comparator |
Primary outcome
Effectiveness of amphotericin B in 30% DMSO solution comparing with 30% DMSO solution in NDMs onychomycosis treatment
Time frame: 36 weeks
Effectiveness was evaluated by patients who had negative on mycological laboratory (mycological cure) as percentage.
Median time to mycological cure of patients with amphotericin B in 30% DMSO solution comparing with 30% DMSO solution in NDMs onychomycosis treatment
Time frame: 36 weeks
Median time to mycological cure were defined as time (days, months or years) that had negative on mycological laboratory
3 secondary outcomes
Clinical cure of amphotericin B in 30% DMSO solution comparing with 30% DMSO solution in NDMs onychomycosis treatment
Time frame: 36 weeks
Median time to clinical cure of patients with amphotericin B in 30% DMSO solution comparing with 30% DMSO solution in NDMs onychomycosis treatment
Time frame: 36 weeks
Evaluate side effects of amphotericin B in 30% DMSO solution comparing with 30% DMSO solution in NDMs onychomycosis treatment
Time frame: 12 weeks
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 28 Sep 2021.
- Background: PubMed 24521698Butani D, Yewale C, Misra A. Amphotericin B topical microemulsion: formulation, characterization and evaluation. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2014 Apr 1;116:351-8. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2014.01.014. Epub 2014 Jan 19.
- Results publication: PubMed 10233295Downs AM, Lear JT, Archer CB. Scytalidium hyalinum onychomycosis successfully treated with 5% amorolfine nail lacquer. Br J Dermatol. 1999 Mar;140(3):555. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2133.1999.02739.x. No abstract available.
- Results publication: PubMed 22976905Cursi IB, Silva RT, Succi IB, Bernardes-Engemann AR, Orofino-Costa R. Onychomycosis due to Neoscytalidium treated with oral terbinafine, ciclopirox nail lacquer and nail abrasion: a pilot study of 25 patients. Mycopathologia. 2013 Feb;175(1-2):75-82. doi: 10.1007/s11046-012-9580-5. Epub 2012 Sep 14.
- Results publication: PubMed 10642676Tosti A, Piraccini BM, Lorenzi S. Onychomycosis caused by nondermatophytic molds: clinical features and response to treatment of 59 cases. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000 Feb;42(2 Pt 1):217-24. doi: 10.1016/S0190-9622(00)90129-4.
- Results publication: PubMed 20347657Welsh O, Vera-Cabrera L, Welsh E. Onychomycosis. Clin Dermatol. 2010 Mar 4;28(2):151-9. doi: 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2009.12.006.
- Results publication: PubMed 21820203Gupta AK, Drummond-Main C, Cooper EA, Brintnell W, Piraccini BM, Tosti A. Systematic review of nondermatophyte mold onychomycosis: diagnosis, clinical types, epidemiology, and treatment. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012 Mar;66(3):494-502. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2011.02.038. Epub 2011 Aug 4.
- Results publication: PubMed 25639524Bunyaratavej S, Prasertworonun N, Leeyaphan C, Chaiwanon O, Muanprasat C, Matthapan L. Distinct characteristics of Scytalidium dimidiatum and non-dermatophyte onychomycosis as compared with dermatophyte onychomycosis. J Dermatol. 2015 Mar;42(3):258-62. doi: 10.1111/1346-8138.12768. Epub 2015 Jan 13.
- Results publication: PubMed 26471716Bunyaratavej S, Leeyaphan C, Rujitharanawong C, Surawan TM, Muanprasat C, Matthapan L. Efficacy of 5% amorolfine nail lacquer in Neoscytalidium dimidiatum onychomycosis. J Dermatolog Treat. 2016 Aug;27(4):359-63. doi: 10.3109/09546634.2015.1109029. Epub 2015 Nov 11.
- Results publication: PubMed 24079583Gupta AK, Paquet M, Simpson FC. Therapies for the treatment of onychomycosis. Clin Dermatol. 2013 Sep-Oct;31(5):544-54. doi: 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2013.06.011.
- Results publication: PubMed 23416171Machouart M, Menir P, Helenon R, Quist D, Desbois N. Scytalidium and scytalidiosis: what's new in 2012? J Mycol Med. 2013 Mar;23(1):40-6. doi: 10.1016/j.mycmed.2013.01.002. Epub 2013 Feb 15.
- Results publication: PubMed 27815659James JE, Santhanam J, Lee MC, Wong CX, Sabaratnam P, Yusoff H, Tzar MN, Razak MF. In Vitro Antifungal Susceptibility of Neoscytalidium dimidiatum Clinical Isolates from Malaysia. Mycopathologia. 2017 Apr;182(3-4):305-313. doi: 10.1007/s11046-016-0085-5. Epub 2016 Nov 4.
- Results publication: PubMed 22236569Lurati M, Baudraz-Rosselet F, Vernez M, Spring P, Bontems O, Fratti M, Monod M. Efficacious treatment of non-dermatophyte mould onychomycosis with topical amphotericin B. Dermatology. 2011;223(4):289-92. doi: 10.1159/000335093. Epub 2012 Jan 10.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Fungal Infection
Not yet recruitingPhase 2/3
A Pivotal Safety and Immunogenicity GBS-NN/NN2 Vaccine Maternal Immunisation Trial
Streptococcus Agalactiae Infection, Neonatal Sepsis
RecruitingObservational study
Blood, Urine, and Tissue Collection for Cutaneous Lymphoma, Eczema, and Atopic Dermatitis Research
Cutaneous T-cell Lymphoma, Sezary Syndrome
Active, not recruitingPhase 2
A Study to Learn About How a New Pneumococcal Vaccine Works in Infants
Pneumococcal Disease
Not yet recruiting
Early Pathophysiology of Hidradenitis Suppurativa and Prediction of the Risk of Progression: a Prospective Cohort
Hidradenitis Suppurativa (HS)
Active, not recruitingPhase 2
Dosing of Brentuximab Vedotin for Mycosis Fungoides, Sezary Syndrome Patients
Mycosis Fungoides, Lymphomatoid Papulosis
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Sumanas Bunyaratavej, MD principal investigator
Mahidol University
Charussri Leeyaphan, MD study director
Mahidol University
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 4 study testing amphotericin B in 30% DMSO and 30% DMSO in people with Fungal Infection and Onychomycosis, run by Mahidol University at 1 site in Thailand.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 28 Sep 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Thailand. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 4 studies take place after a treatment is approved, to learn more about its long-term benefits and risks in everyday use.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Effectiveness of amphotericin B in 30% DMSO solution comparing with 30% DMSO solution in NDMs onychomycosis treatment (time frame: 36 weeks). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03814343, which also lists 15 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 28 Sep 2021.