A Randomized Control Study of Oral Itraconazole versus Itraconazole with Terbinafine in the Treatment of Dermatophytosis

D. Sharma, Amandeep Saluja, S. Meena, Kalpana Gupta
{"title":"A Randomized Control Study of Oral Itraconazole versus Itraconazole with Terbinafine in the Treatment of Dermatophytosis","authors":"D. Sharma, Amandeep Saluja, S. Meena, Kalpana Gupta","doi":"10.4103/cdr.cdr_117_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Dermatophyte infections are one of the first known fungal infections of humankind and are most common throughout the world. The antifungal therapies over the past 30 years have improved, but the phenomenon of antifungal resistance is still of major concern. Combination therapies can show great promise in overcoming this problem to broaden the spectrum of activity, enhance the rate or extent of killing, and minimize the development of resistance. To find out the therapeutic efficacy of itraconazole versus itraconazole with terbinafine for the treatment of dermatophytosis. A prospective study was conducted for a duration of 1 year on 64 patients diagnosed with dermatophytosis and was randomly divided into two groups. Group A was given oral itraconazole whereas Group B received oral itraconazole and oral terbinafine for 4 weeks along with levocetirizine daily for 2 weeks and miconazole 2% topically for 6 weeks. The measurability criteria were done on detailed clinical examination (itching, erythema, size, number, scaling, and margin) and through photographic assessment. The mean difference and standard deviation of total scores for group A were 10.12 ± 4.09 and for group B were 9.94 and 3.75, respectively. The P value was not significant (P = 0.78). Out of 64 cases, 3 (5%) patients complained of gastric discomfort, 2 (3%) patients complained of nausea, and 1 (1%) of dizziness. This study revealed that there was a highly significant improvement in both groups with no significant difference in their clinical criteria.","PeriodicalId":34880,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Dermatology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Dermatology Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/cdr.cdr_117_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Dermatophyte infections are one of the first known fungal infections of humankind and are most common throughout the world. The antifungal therapies over the past 30 years have improved, but the phenomenon of antifungal resistance is still of major concern. Combination therapies can show great promise in overcoming this problem to broaden the spectrum of activity, enhance the rate or extent of killing, and minimize the development of resistance. To find out the therapeutic efficacy of itraconazole versus itraconazole with terbinafine for the treatment of dermatophytosis. A prospective study was conducted for a duration of 1 year on 64 patients diagnosed with dermatophytosis and was randomly divided into two groups. Group A was given oral itraconazole whereas Group B received oral itraconazole and oral terbinafine for 4 weeks along with levocetirizine daily for 2 weeks and miconazole 2% topically for 6 weeks. The measurability criteria were done on detailed clinical examination (itching, erythema, size, number, scaling, and margin) and through photographic assessment. The mean difference and standard deviation of total scores for group A were 10.12 ± 4.09 and for group B were 9.94 and 3.75, respectively. The P value was not significant (P = 0.78). Out of 64 cases, 3 (5%) patients complained of gastric discomfort, 2 (3%) patients complained of nausea, and 1 (1%) of dizziness. This study revealed that there was a highly significant improvement in both groups with no significant difference in their clinical criteria.
口服伊曲康唑与伊曲康唑联合特比萘芬治疗皮肤癣的随机对照研究
皮肤真菌感染是人类最早已知的真菌感染之一,在世界各地最常见。在过去的30年里,抗真菌治疗有了很大的进步,但抗真菌耐药现象仍然是人们关注的主要问题。联合疗法有望克服这一问题,扩大活性范围,提高杀伤速度或程度,并最大限度地减少耐药性的产生。观察伊曲康唑与伊曲康唑联合特比萘芬治疗皮肤癣的疗效。对64例确诊为皮肤癣的患者进行为期1年的前瞻性研究,随机分为两组。A组给予伊曲康唑口服,B组给予伊曲康唑和特比萘芬口服4周,每日给予左西替利嗪2周,咪康唑2%局部治疗6周。可测量性标准是通过详细的临床检查(瘙痒、红斑、大小、数量、脱屑和边缘)和摄影评估来完成的。A组总分的平均差值为10.12±4.09,B组总分的平均差值为9.94,标准差为3.75。P值无统计学意义(P = 0.78)。64例患者中,3例(5%)患者主诉胃不适,2例(3%)患者主诉恶心,1例(1%)患者主诉头晕。本研究显示两组患者均有显著改善,临床标准无显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
45 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信