To evaluate the efficacy of topical miconazole or amorolfine compared to placebo for mild to moderately severe onychomycosis.

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, with computer-generated treatment allocation at a 1:1:1 ratio.

Primary care, recruitment from February 2020 to August 2022.

193 patients with suspected mild to moderately severe onychomycosis were recruited via general practices and from the general public, 111 of whom met the study criteria. The mean age of participants was 51 (SD 13.1), 51% were female and onychomycosis was moderately severe (mean OSI 12.1 (SD 8.0)).

Once-daily miconazole 20 mg/g or once-weekly amorolfine 5% nail lacquer solution was compared with placebo (denatonium benzoate solution).

Complete, clinical and mycological cure at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were clinical improvement, symptom burden, quality of life, adverse effects, compliance, patient-perceived improvement and treatment acceptability.

Based on intention-to-treat analysis, none of the participants receiving miconazole or amorolfine reached complete cure compared with two in the placebo group (OR not estimable (n.e.), p=0.493 and OR n.e., p=0.240, respectively). There was no evidence of a significant difference between groups regarding clinical cure (OR n.e., p=0.493 and OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.45, p=0.615) while miconazole and amorolfine were less effective than placebo at reaching both mycological cure (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.98, p=0.037 and OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.92, p=0.029, respectively) and clinical improvement (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.91, p=0.028 and OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.85, p=0.021, respectively). There was no evidence of a significant difference in disease burden, quality of life, adverse reactions, compliance, patient-perceived improvement or treatment acceptability.

Topical miconazole and amorolfine were not effective in achieving a complete, clinical or mycological cure of mild to moderately severe onychomycosis, nor did they significantly alleviate the severity or symptom burden. These treatments should, therefore, not be advised as monotherapy to treat onychomycosis.

WHO ICTRP NL8193.

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated changes to clinical research methodology, with clinical studies being carried out via online/remote means. This mixed-methods study aimed to identify which digital tools are currently used across all stages of clinical research by stakeholders in clinical, health and social care research and investigate their experience using digital tools.

Two online surveys followed by semistructured interviews were conducted. Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.

To explore the digital tools used since the pandemic, survey participants (researchers and related staff (n=41), research and development staff (n=25)), needed to have worked on clinical, health or social care research studies over the past 2 years (2020–2022) in an employing organisation based in the West Midlands region of England (due to funding from a regional clinical research network (CRN)). Survey participants had the opportunity to participate in an online qualitative interview to explore their experiences of digital tools in greater depth (n=8).

Six themes were identified in the qualitative interviews: ‘definition of a digital tool in clinical research’; ‘impact of the COVID-19 pandemic’; ‘perceived benefits/drawbacks of digital tools’; ‘selection of a digital tool’; ‘barriers and overcoming barriers’ and ‘future digital tool use’. The context of each theme is discussed, based on the interview results.

Findings demonstrate how digital tools are becoming embedded in clinical research, as well as the breadth of tools used across different research stages. The majority of participants viewed the tools positively, noting their ability to enhance research efficiency. Several considerations were highlighted; concerns about digital exclusion; need for collaboration with digital expertise/clinical staff, research on tool effectiveness and recommendations to aid future tool selection. There is a need for the development of resources to help optimise the selection and use of appropriate digital tools for clinical research staff and participants.