Evidence Hub

Once-weekly repurposed fosravuconazole versus daily itraconazole, with surgery, in patients with eumycetoma in Sudan: a randomised, double-blind, phase 2, proof-of-concept superiority trial

A. Fahal, E. Ahmed, SM Bakhiet, OE Bakheet, LA Fahal, AA Mohamed, Esw Mohhamedelamin, Meishka Bahar et al.

Once-weekly repurposed fosravuconazole versus daily itraconazole, with surgery, in patients with eumycetoma in Sudan: a randomised, double-blind, phase 2, proof-of-concept superiority trial, 2024

36 participants

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Treatment options for the highly neglected fungal tropical disease eumycetoma are limited and poorly adapted to patients’ contexts, with surgery often required. The first-line treatment, itraconazole, thought to be 40% effective, must be taken twice daily for ≥12 months with food, making adherence difficult. An effective, affordable, context-appropriate treatment is urgently needed. The Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (DNDi) repurposed the broad-spectrum antifungal agent fosravuconazole, developed by Eisai Ltd for onychomycosis. We aimed to compare two different doses of weekly fosravuconazole with standard-of-care daily itraconazole in patients with eumycetoma.

METHODS

This phase 2, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, superiority trial was done at the Mycetoma Research Centre, Soba University Hospital, Sudan. Patients aged ≥15 years with a small-to-medium lesion (≥2 to <16 cm) caused by M mycetomatis requiring surgery were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either 300 mg fosravuconazole weekly (group 1), 200 mg fosravuconazole weekly (group 2), or 400 mg itraconazole daily (group 3), for 12 months, together with surgery at 6 months in all groups. The primary efficacy endpoint, assessed in all patients receiving at least one dose of study drug (modified intention to treat), was complete cure at 12 months (absence of eumycetoma mass and sinuses and discharge with normal imaging; or a negative fungal culture if mass present). Safety was assessed…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 36 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free