• Users Online: 3461
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

REVIEW ARTICLE Table of Contents  
Ahead of print publication
Evidence-based management of dermatophytosis in India today


1 Department of Dermatology, KPC Medical College, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
2 Belle Vue Clinic, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission03-Nov-2022
Date of Decision08-Dec-2022
Date of Acceptance08-Dec-2022
Date of Web Publication05-Jan-2023
 

  Abstract 


Introduction: Dermatophyte infection has become extremely resistant and widespread in all parts of India during the past decade. A change in the major causative organism has been identified to be a major factor behind the change in the character of the infection. The epidemiological shift has been accompanied by large scale antifungal resistance. This review aims to take a look at the current status of evidence regarding the effectiveness of major antifungal molecules, with particular reference to the current epidemic-like scenario of resistant dermatophytosis in India. Methods: We have searched and included the relevant literature on “Dermatophytosis” from the PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Results: The current situation has also brought into focus the glaring lack of evidence-based guidelines for the management of dermatophytosis. The guidelines available previously had mostly been based on the western literature with the scarcity of studies from tropical countries such as India. Conclusion: The current guidelines of the management of dermatophytosis have lost their relevance in the present scenario and need to be replaced. However, without adequate studies we do not have robust data to formulate the new guidelines.

Keywords: Antifungal susceptibility test, evidence-based management, itraconazole, luliconazole, miconazole, terbinafine, Trichophyton indotinae, upper limit of wild type, voriconazole


How to cite this URL:
Ghosh A, Panda S. Evidence-based management of dermatophytosis in India today. Apollo Med [Epub ahead of print] [cited 2023 Jan 27]. Available from: https://apollomedicine.org/preprintarticle.asp?id=367276





  Introduction Top


In little less than a decade, dermatophytic infection of the skin or tinea has managed to grab the attention of the medical fraternity. Its transformation from an easy-to-treat condition to a disease which is recalcitrant, persistent, and resistant to most treatments has baffled clinicians and scientists alike. Its relative refractoriness to treatment and chronicity leads to increased disease burden in the population and consequent increase in transmission as evidenced by the alarming rise in both the incidence and prevalence of tinea. The changing climatic conditions and misuse of corticosteroids cannot on their own explain the magnitude of this change and, at best, can be contributing factors.

A change in the nature of the causative organism has been suspected and slowly, but surely evidence is accumulating which confirms this suspicion. This change involves the replacement of Trichophyton rubrum, which had till recently been the most common isolate,[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7] by Trichophyton mentagrophytes which now accounts for the majority of cases.[8],[9],[10],[11],[12] T. mentagrophytes as a group is complex with multiple clades which are very similar to each other and difficult to identify based on cultural characteristics alone. In certain studies, the most common organism isolated was labeled as Trichophyton interdigitale,[13],[14] the anthropophilic subtype of T. mentagrophytes. These appear to have been misclassified and were actually T. mentagrophytes ITS genotype VIII,[15] a new subtype of T. mentagrophytes which was identified by rDNA sequencing of the ITS gene. This variant, known as the Indian subtype, appears to be the most common isolate from the subcontinent.[12],[15],[16] Currently, this subtype has been given the status of a new species named Trichophyton indotineae.[17],[18] Its increased transmissibility between humans and ability to survive for longer duration on inanimate objects, making fomites an important mode of transmission explains the explosive increase in the incidence of tinea.[19]

The epidemiological shift in the causative Trichophyton species has been accompanied by another disconcerting phenomenon of antifungal resistance. Antifungal resistance is often difficult to demonstrate or determine due to the lack of established species-specific clinical breakpoints and epidemiologic cutoff values, which hinders the interpretation of the results of antifungal sensitivity test (AFST). The situation is complicated by the discordance between in vivo and in vitro susceptibility to various drugs. Clinical or in vivo resistance is dependent on a lot of host factors such as host immunity, individual pharmacokinetic variations, and compliance and is not a mere reflection of increased minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values. However, AFST for documenting in vitro resistance is logically the first step in predicting an emerging resistance and decreased response to a certain antifungal drug. Along with this, the determination of the resistance conferring genetic mutation and screening of isolates for its presence can go a long way in guiding the clinicians regarding appropriate choice of antifungals for the treatment of difficult-to-treat dermatophytosis. A PubMed search for studies documenting the MIC values to different antifungals among dermatophytes isolated from India using the standard CLSI or EUCAST reference standards yielded studies[12],[13],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28] with a total of 1324 isolates (T. interdigitale-262, T. mentagrophytes-363, T. mentagrophytes interdigitale-547, T. rubrum-152). An increased MIC to various antifungals was noted in a significant number of isolates; however, absence of guidelines regarding the breakpoints and epidemiological cutoff values makes the interpretation of data difficult.

The current situation has also brought into focus the glaring lack of evidence-based guidelines for management of dermatophytosis. The guidelines available previously had mostly been based on western literature with scarcity of studies from tropical countries such as India. These have lost their relevance in the present scenario and need to be replaced. However, without adequate studies we do not have robust data to formulate the new guidelines. Efforts have been made to streamline and provide a standard guideline for the management of dermatophytosis based mostly on experiences and opinions of experts.[29],[30]


  Terbinafine Top


Terbinafine has, for a long time, been the antifungal of choice for the treatment of tinea.[31],[32],[33],[34] However, the emergence of the newer subtype of T. mentagrophytes ITS VIII and acquisition of a resistance conferring mutation in the squalene epoxidase (SQLE) gene among the various Trichophyton species has rendered this drug ineffective in a large number of cases. In vitro analyses of the fungal isolates from the several parts of the country have shown a high MIC 90 values of 8 mg/l and high percentage (11.4%) of isolates above the upper limit of the wild type (UL-WT) for terbinafine.[26] Resistance rates as high as 72% in T. mentagrophytes ITS type VIII and 44% in T. rubrum have been reported in another large pan India study.[12] Data from various other studies in the Indian population also reflect a similar rise in the MIC values for terbinafine.[13],[20],[21],[22] Several point missense mutations in the SQLE gene have been documented, of which Phe397 Leu substitution and Leu393Phe substitution were found to be associated with the highest MIC values. This phenomenon of increasing in vitro resistance to terbinafine is mirrored in the clinical setting where the cure rates with oral terbinafine have been disappointing in recent studies.[35],[36] The whistle-blower study in this regard was the large prospective cohort study on 500 patients by Singh and Shukla, where an abysmal cure rate of 2% (95% confidence interval 1.0–3.7) was obtained on an intention-to-treat analysis.[37] A daily dose of 500 mg in two divided doses, instead of 250 mg once, did not appear to significantly improve the outcome.[35] A nonblinded randomized trial on patients with recurrent dermatophytosis found that the addition of isotretinoin to terbinafine provided no added benefit.[38] There are conflicting results regarding the efficacy of combined terbinafine 250 mg and itraconazole 200 mg/day, with one randomized controlled trial (RCT) showing significant improvement in clinical cure as compared to itraconazole or terbinafine given alone[36] and another showing no significant difference between groups treated with the combination or itraconazole alone.


  Itraconazole Top


It is a broad-spectrum triazole antifungal which has emerged as a savior in the current epidemic of terbinafine-resistant tinea. The drug has demonstrated consistently low MIC (0.25–0.5 μg/ml) against all the species of Trichophyton and a low percentage of isolates above the ULWT.[12],[26] Its in vivo efficacy has also been demonstrated in several clinical studies and RCTs with clinical cure or mycological cure in > 90% of cases.[35],[39],[40],[41] In an alarming clinical report from a single center RCT, conducted in India among chronic and chronic relapsing tinea patients, limited effectiveness of all four oral agents: fluconazole, griseofulvin, itraconazole, and terbinafine was the key finding. In terms of cure rate and the number needed to treat itraconazole however was found to be most effective than the rest, followed by fluconazole daily, then terbinafine, and lastly griseofulvin.[42] The combination of terbinafine with itraconazole does not provide any advantage over itraconazole alone.[35] The clinical response to the drug depends on the levels achieved in the serum and skin. Itraconazole, being lipophilic usually shows high concentration in sebum rich area.[43] Increasing the dose of the drug to 400 mg per day as compared to 200 mg per day does increase its serum levels.[40] However, there are conflicting reports from two different RCTs if this increase in dosing leads to any improvement in clinical efficacy.[35],[40] Besides, there are doubts that capsules of 200 mg itraconazole may not be stable and may show an increased tendency to agglutinate. The absorption of itraconazole is unpredictable and shows wide individual variation. To circumvent this problem, newer drug delivery mechanisms have been developed. The super-bioavailable (SUBA) technology utilises the solid dispersion of the drug in a polymer that improves its dissolution as compared to its original crystalline form leading to better absorption and a relative improvement in the bioavailability by 173% as compared to conventional formulation.[44] There is also a 21% decrease in inter-patient variability; however, absorption decreases by 27% when SUBA-itraconazole (S-ITZ) is taken with food.[44],[45] This formulation shows a 22% increase in plasma levels of the drug when co-administered with omeprazole, in stark contrast to the conventional formulation conventional itraconazole (C-ITZ) where omeprazole reduces both the Cmax and mean area under curve (AUC) by more than half.[46] Bioequivalence studies reveal that 58 mg S-ITZ is equivalent to 100 mg of C-ITZ as per the AUC.[45] S-ITZ is marketed in the strengths of 50 mg, 65 mg, 100, and 130 mg. Theoretically, S-ITZ should be effective in dermatophytosis, but there is a lack of adequate evidence to evaluate its appropriate dosing as well as comparative efficacy in the treatment of tinea in the Indian scenario. Till date, there is only one study from India comparing the safety and efficacy of S-ITZ to C-ITZ which concluded that S-ITZ showed better clearance of lesion. Besides being industry funded, the study was an open label one, with doubtful randomization and a high risk of bias, thus translating into poor quality evidence.[47] Currently, the only Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indications for S-ITZ include blastomycosis, histoplasmosis, and aspergillosis in patients intolerant or refractory to amphotericin B.

Resistance to itraconazole has been documented,[12] although the mechanism in T. mentagrophytes ITS type VIII is not known, it may be similar to that seen in T. rubrum where decreased sensitivity to azoles has been attributed to the overexpression of several genes belonging to a superfamily of transporters capable of operating as azole efflux pumps.[48],[49]


  Voriconazole Top


A triazole antifungal very similar to itraconazole reported to have a very low MIC 90 value (0.25 mg/l) against T. mentagrophytes but a relatively high percentage of isolates above the UL-WT MIC (4.8%).[26] In vivo it has been reported to be effective and relatively safe with clinical clearance in 75%–83% of cases after 6 weeks[50],[51] with a low relapse rate. It has been reported to be superior to itraconazole alone or itraconazole with isotretinoin, with respect to clinical and mycological clearance and lower relapse rate.[51] However, similarity to itraconazole explains the phenomenon of cross resistance where strains showing lower sensitivity to itraconazole also have a reduced sensitivity to voriconazole.[12] A particular mutation (Ala448Thr substitution) confers resistance to both itraconazole and voriconazole.[12] Considering the good response of T. mentagrophytes to ITZ and the phenomenon of cross resistance, it would possibly be prudent to avoid the rampant use of voriconazole which is a reserve drug for the treatment of systemic mycoses.

The other systemic antifungals such as griseofulvin and fluconazole have very high MIC values[12] and currently are of limited use in the treatment of dermatophytosis due to very low cure rate, 42% for fluconazole and 14% for griseofulvin as demonstrated in an RCT.[42]


  Luliconazole Top


Luliconazole is an imidazole which inhibits lanosterol-14α-demethylase and consequently blocks ergosterol synthesis. In vitro luliconazole has been shown to have relatively low MICs against Trichophyton compared to most other topical antifungals.[52] In a countrywide study involving 415 isolates, the MIC90 of this molecule was found to be low (0.125), although a high percentage (13.9%) of isolates above the UL-WT MIC was also noted.[26] Compared to 1% terbinafine cream and 1% bifonazole cream, 1% luliconazole cream shows a higher clearance of dermatophytes in certain clinical studies.[53],[54] Amorolfine 0.25% was shown to be equally efficacious as luliconazole.[55] In vitro, luliconazole has been found to have a synergistic effect with itraconazole.[56] Luliconazole is an effective topical treatment in terbinafine-resistant strains of Trichophyton.[53] Newer nanomaterial-based drug delivery systems are being developed which may improve the skin permeation and skin retention of the drug leading to improved efficacy.[57],[58]


  Amorolfine Top


A morpholine derivative, which inhibits both C14 reductase and C7–C8 isomerase activity, it has been reported to have low MIC90 of 0.06 mg/l.[26] Clinically, it has been found to be effective, resulting in mycological cure in almost 80% of patients after 4 weeks of therapy.[59] Comparison with other topical antifungals showed amorolfine to be as effective as luliconazole but slightly inferior to sertaconazole.[55],[59]

Some other effective and safe topical antifungals are eberconazole,[60],[61] ciclopirox olamine,[26] and sertaconazole.[59],[61] Sertaconazole was shown to be more effective in comparison to amorolfine and eberconazole.[59],[61] Interestingly, miconazole an older antifungal was demonstrated to have a very low MIC (0.06 mg/l) against the prevalent Trichophyton species.[26]


  Summary Top


  • T. mentagrophytes ITS type VIII (currently T. indotineae) is the predominant pathogen responsible for the epidemic of dermatophytosis in India.
  • Several point mutations in the SQLE gene promoting resistance to terbinafine have rendered it relatively ineffective in the current scenario.
  • Increasing the daily dose of terbinafine to 500 mg does not appear to significantly improve the outcome. Also, addition of isotretinoin to terbinafine does not provide any added benefit.
  • Itraconazole is the current drug of choice for the treatment of dermatophytosis and shows low MIC and high efficacy.
  • Regarding itraconazole, a dosage of 200 mg daily in two divided doses appears effective. There are no studies to determine the duration of treatment. However, usually, longer duration of 4 weeks to 6 weeks of treatment appears effective.
  • Evidence regarding the efficacy of a daily dose of 400 mg of itraconazole (in two divided doses) is conflicting. However, it is pertinent to note that capsules containing 200 mg itraconazole may not be stable and may show an increased tendency to agglutinate.
  • S-ITZ shows a greater bioavailability compared to the conventional form and remains unaffected by concomitant intake of proton-pump inhibitors. Intake of S-ITZ with food decreases absorption.
  • Studies to prove the superior efficacy of S-ITZ over the conventional drug and to determine the effective and safe dose of S-ITZ for the treatment of dermatophytosis are lacking or are inadequate. Currently, this formulation is not approved by the FDA for treatment of any form of dermatophytosis. Hence, caution must be exercised regarding its use in the treatment of tinea.
  • Resistance to itraconazole has been documented and care must be exercised to prevent its rampant misuse. The use of topical formulations of itraconazole as cream and shampoos is irrational and should be strongly discouraged.[62]
  • There is no conclusive proof regarding the superior efficacy of a combination of terbinafine and itraconazole over monotherapy with itraconazole.
  • Regarding the other systemic antifungals, there are no studies to evaluate the efficacy of simultaneous use of any two systemic antifungals. Neither are there any studies evaluating the safety of such combinations. Hence, the practice of simultaneous administration of two oral antifungals should be avoided.
  • Combination of a systemic and a topical antifungal may be advantageous and certain combinations such as itraconazole with luliconazole or ketoconazole have been shown in vitro to have synergistic effect.[56]


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Funding

Nil.

Authors' contribution

  • Aparajita Ghosh: Drafting, editing, acting as guarantor.
  • Saumya Panda: Drafting, editing, acting as guarantor, corresponding author.




 
  References Top

1.
Venkatesan G, Singh AJ, Murugesan AG, Janaki C, Shankar SG. Trichophyton rubrum – The predominant etiological agent in human dermatophytoses in Chennai, India. Afr J Microbiol Res 2007;1:9-12.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Balakumar S, Rajan S, Thirunalasundari T, Jeeva S. Epidemiology of dermatophytosis in and around Tiruchirapalli, Tamilnadu, India. Asian Pac J Trop Dis 2012;2:286-9.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Kumar K, Kindo AJ, Kalyani J, Anandan S. Clinico-mycological profile of dermatophytic skin infections in a tertiary care Center – A cross sectional study. Sri Ramachandra J Med 2007;1:12-5.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Nawal P, Patel S, Patel M, Soni S, Khandelwal N. A study of superficial mycoses in tertiary care hospital. Nat J Integ Res Med 2012;6:11.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Sehgal VN, Aggarwal AK, Srivastava G, Gupta M, Chaudhary A. Onychomycosis: A 3-year clinicomycologic hospital-based study. Skinmed 2007;6:11-7.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Sarma S, Borthakur AK. A clinico-epidemiological study of dermatophytoses in Northeast India. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2007;73:427-8.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
7.
Bhavsar HK, Modi DJ, Sood NK, Shah HS. A study of superficial mycoses with clinical mycological profile in tertiary care hospital in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. Natl J Med Res 2012;2:160-4.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Kalita JM, Sharma A, Bhardwaj A, Nag VL. Dermatophytoses and spectrum of dermatophytes in patients attending a teaching hospital in Western Rajasthan, India. J Family Med Prim Care 2019;8:1418-21.  Back to cited text no. 8
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
9.
Singh BS, Tripathy T, Kar BR, Ray A. Clinicomycological study of dermatophytosis in a tertiary care hospital in Eastern India: A cross-sectional study. Indian Dermatol Online J 2020;11:46-50.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
10.
Upadhyay V, Kumar A, Singh AK, Pandey J. Epidemiological characterization of dermatophytes at a tertiary care hospital in Eastern Uttar Pradesh, India. Curr Med Mycol 2019;5:1-6.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Nenoff P, Verma SB, Vasani R, Burmester A, Hipler UC, Wittig F, et al. The current Indian epidemic of superficial dermatophytosis due to Trichophyton mentagrophytes – A molecular study. Mycoses 2019;62:336-56.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Ebert A, Monod M, Salamin K, Burmester A, Uhrlaß S, Wiegand C, et al. Alarming India-wide phenomenon of antifungal resistance in dermatophytes: A multicentre study. Mycoses 2020;63:717-28.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Singh A, Masih A, Khurana A, Singh PK, Gupta M, Hagen F, et al. High terbinafine resistance in Trichophyton interdigitale isolates in Delhi, India harbouring mutations in the squalene epoxidase gene. Mycoses 2018;61:477-84.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Ramaraj V, Vijayaraman RS, Hemanth V, Rangarajan S, Kindo AJ. Molecular strain typing of Trichophyton mentagrophytes (T. mentagrophytes var. interdigitale) using non-transcribed spacer region as a molecular marker. Indian J Med Res 2017;146:636-41.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Verma SB, Panda S, Nenoff P, Singal A, Rudramurthy SM, Uhrlass S, et al. The unprecedented epidemic-like scenario of dermatophytosis in India: II. Diagnostic methods and taxonomical aspects. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2021;87:326-32.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Nenoff P, Verma SB, Uhrlaß S, Burmester A, Gräser Y. A clarion call for preventing taxonomical errors of dermatophytes using the example of the novel Trichophyton mentagrophytes genotype VIII uniformly isolated in the Indian epidemic of superficial dermatophytosis. Mycoses 2019;62:6-10.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Kano R, Kimura U, Kakurai M, Hiruma J, Kamata H, Suga Y, et al. Trichophyton indotineae sp. Nov.: A new highly terbinafine-resistant anthropophilic dermatophyte species. Mycopathologia 2020;185:947-58.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Nenoff P, Uhrlaß S, Verma SB, Panda S. Trichophyton mentagrophytes ITS genotype VIII and Trichophyton indotineae: A terminological maze, or is it? Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2022;88:586-9.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Shen JJ, Arendrup MC, Verma S, Saunte DM. The emerging terbinafine-resistant Trichophyton epidemic: What is the role of antifungal susceptibility testing? Dermatology 2022;238:60-79.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Rudramurthy SM, Shankarnarayan SA, Dogra S, Shaw D, Mushtaq K, Paul RA, et al. Mutation in the squalene epoxidase gene of Trichophyton interdigitale and Trichophyton rubrum associated with allylamine resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2018;62:e02522-17.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Khurana A, Masih A, Chowdhary A, Sardana K, Borker S, Gupta A, et al. Correlation of in vitro susceptibility based on MICs and squalene epoxidase mutations with clinical response to terbinafine in patients with tinea corporis/cruris. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2018;62:e01038-18.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Pathania S, Rudramurthy SM, Narang T, Saikia UN, Dogra S. A prospective study of the epidemiological and clinical patterns of recurrent dermatophytosis at a tertiary care hospital in India. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2018;84:678-84.  Back to cited text no. 22
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
23.
Dabas Y, Xess I, Singh G, Pandey M, Meena S. Molecular identification and antifungal susceptibility patterns of clinical dermatophytes following CLSI and EUCAST guidelines. J Fungi (Basel) 2017;3:17.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Sardana K, Kaur R, Arora P, Goyal R, Ghunawat S. Is antifungal resistance a cause for treatment failure in dermatophytosis: A study focused on tinea corporis and cruris from a tertiary Centre? Indian Dermatol Online J 2018;9:90-5.  Back to cited text no. 24
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
25.
Bhatia VK, Sharma PC. Determination of minimum inhibitory concentrations of itraconazole, terbinafine and ketoconazole against dermatophyte species by broth microdilution method. Indian J Med Microbiol 2015;33:533-7.  Back to cited text no. 25
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
26.
Shaw D, Singh S, Dogra S, Jayaraman J, Bhat R, Panda S, et al. MIC and upper limit of wild-type distribution for 13 antifungal agents against a Trichophyton mentagrophytes-Trichophyton interdigitale complex of Indian origin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2020;64:e1964-19.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Shankarnarayan SA, Shaw D, Sharma A, Chakrabarti A, Dogra S, Kumaran MS, et al. Rapid detection of terbinafine resistance in Trichophyton species by amplified refractory mutation system-polymerase chain reaction. Sci Rep 2020;10:1297.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Poojary S, Miskeen A, Bagadia J, Jaiswal S, Uppuluri P. A study of in vitro antifungal susceptibility patterns of dermatophytic fungi at a tertiary care Center in Western India. Indian J Dermatol 2019;64:277-84.  Back to cited text no. 28
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
29.
Rajagopalan M, Inamadar A, Mittal A, Miskeen AK, Srinivas CR, Sardana K, et al. Expert consensus on the management of dermatophytosis in India (ECTODERM India). BMC Dermatol 2018;18:6.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Rengasamy M, Shenoy MM, Dogra S, Asokan N, Khurana A, Poojary S, et al. Indian Association of dermatologists, venereologists and leprologists (IADVL) task force against recalcitrant tinea (ITART) consensus on the management of glabrous tinea (INTACT). Indian Dermatol Online J 2020;11:502-19.  Back to cited text no. 30
  [Full text]  
31.
Drake LA, Dinehart SM, Farmer ER, Goltz RW, Graham GF, Hardinsky MK, et al. Guidelines of care for superficial mycotic infections of the skin: Tinea corporis, tinea cruris, tinea faciei, tinea manuum, and tinea pedis. Guidelines/outcomes committee. American academy of dermatology. J Am Acad Dermatol 1996;34:282-6.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
El-Gohary M, van Zuuren EJ, Fedorowicz Z, Burgess H, Doney L, Stuart B, et al. Topical antifungal treatments for tinea cruris and tinea corporis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;8:CD009992.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Sahoo AK, Mahajan R. Management of tinea corporis, tinea cruris, and tinea pedis: A comprehensive review. Indian Dermatol Online J 2016;7:77-86.  Back to cited text no. 33
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
34.
Rotta I, Sanchez A, Gonçalves PR, Otuki MF, Correr CJ. Efficacy and safety of topical antifungals in the treatment of dermatomycosis: A systematic review. Br J Dermatol 2012;166:927-33.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Singh SK, Subba N, Tilak R. Efficacy of terbinafine and itraconazole in different doses and in combination in the treatment of tinea infection: A randomized controlled parallel group open labeled trial with clinico-mycological correlation. Indian J Dermatol 2020;65:284-9.  Back to cited text no. 35
  [Full text]  
36.
Sharma P, Bhalla M, Thami GP, Chander J. Evaluation of efficacy and safety of oral terbinafine and itraconazole combination therapy in the management of dermatophytosis. J Dermatolog Treat 2020;31:749-53.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Singh S, Shukla P. End of the road for terbinafine? Results of a pragmatic prospective cohort study of 500 patients. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2018;84:554-7.  Back to cited text no. 37
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
38.
Verma KK, Senthilnathan G, Bhatia S, Xess I, Gupta V, Dwivedi SN, et al. Oral isotretinoin combined with oral terbinafine versus oral terbinafine alone to treat recurrent dermatophytosis: An open-label randomised clinical trial. Indian Dermatol Online J 2021;12:820-5.  Back to cited text no. 38
  [Full text]  
39.
Khurana A, Agarwal A, Singh A, Sardana K, Ghadlinge M, Agrawal D, et al. Predicting a therapeutic cut-off serum level of itraconazole in recalcitrant tinea corporis and cruris-A prospective trial. Mycoses 2021;64:1480-8.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Khurana A, Agarwal A, Agrawal D, Panesar S, Ghadlinge M, Sardana K, et al. Effect of different itraconazole dosing regimens on cure rates, treatment duration, safety, and relapse rates in adult patients with tinea corporis/cruris: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol 2022;158:1269-78.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Bhatia A, Kanish B, Badyal DK, Kate P, Choudhary S. Efficacy of oral terbinafine versus itraconazole in treatment of dermatophytic infection of skin – A prospective, randomized comparative study. Indian J Pharmacol 2019;51:116-9.  Back to cited text no. 41
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
42.
Singh S, Chandra U, Anchan VN, Verma P, Tilak R. Limited effectiveness of four oral antifungal drugs (fluconazole, griseofulvin, itraconazole and terbinafine) in the current epidemic of altered dermatophytosis in India: Results of a randomized pragmatic trial. Br J Dermatol 2020;183:840-6.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Sardana K, Mathachan SR. Super bioavailable itraconazole and its place and relevance in recalcitrant dermatophytosis: Revisiting skin levels of itraconazole and minimum inhibitory concentration data. Indian Dermatol Online J 2021;12:1-5.  Back to cited text no. 43
  [Full text]  
44.
Thompson GR 3rd, Lewis P, Mudge S, Patterson TF, Burnett BP. Open-label crossover oral bioequivalence pharmacokinetics comparison for a 3-day loading dose regimen and 15-day steady-state administration of SUBA-itraconazole and conventional itraconazole capsules in healthy adults. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2020;64:e00400-20.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Abuhelwa AY, Foster DJ, Mudge S, Hayes D, Upton RN. Population pharmacokinetic modeling of itraconazole and hydroxyitraconazole for oral SUBA-itraconazole and sporanox capsule formulations in healthy subjects in fed and fasted states. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2015;59:5681-96.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Lindsay J, Mudge S, Thompson GR 3rd. Effects of food and omeprazole on a novel formulation of super bioavailability itraconazole in healthy subjects. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2018;62:e01723-18.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Shenoy M, Dhoot D, Mahajan H, Barkate H. An open-label, randomized, double-arm clinical trial to compare the effectiveness and safety of super bioavailable itraconazole capsules and itraconazole capsules in the management of dermatophytosis in India. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol 2021;14:1367-76.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Fachin AL, Ferreira-Nozawa MS, Maccheroni W, Martinez-Rossi NM. Role of the ABC transporter TruMDR2 in terbinafine, 4-nitroquinoline N-oxide and ethidium bromide susceptibility in Trichophyton rubrum. J Med Microbiol 2006;55:1093-9.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Monod M, Feuermann M, Salamin K, Fratti M, Makino M, Alshahni MM, et al. Trichophyton rubrum Azole Resistance mediated by a new ABC transporter, TruMDR3. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2019;63:e00863-19.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Chandrashekar BS, Poojitha DS. Evaluation of efficacy and safety of oral voriconazole in the management of recalcitrant and recurrent dermatophytosis. Clin Exp Dermatol 2022;47:30-6.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Khattab F, Elkholy BM, Taha M, Abd-Elbaset A, Fawzy M. Voriconazole is superior to combined itraconazole/isotretinoin therapy and itraconazole monotherapy in recalcitrant dermatophytosis. Mycoses 2022;65:1194-201.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Tahiliani S, Saraswat A, Lahiri AK, Shah A, Hawelia D, Shah GK, et al. Etiological prevalence and antifungal sensitivity patterns of dermatophytosis in India – A multicentric study. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2021;87:800-6.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Gnat S, Dyląg M, Łagowski D, Zielinski J. Therapeutic efficacy of topically used luliconazole vs. terbinafine 1% creams. Mycoses 2021;64:967-75.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Feng X, Xie J, Zhuang K, Ran Y. Efficacy and tolerability of luliconazole cream 1% for dermatophytoses: A meta-analysis. J Dermatol 2014;41:779-82.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Javed A, Khajuria V, Tandon VR, Sharma R. Comparative evaluation of efficacy and safety of topical luliconazole and amorolifine in the treatment of tinea corporis. J Adv Med Dent Sci Res 2019;7:85-9.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
Sardana K, Gupta A, Sadhasivam S, Gautam RK, Khurana A, Saini S, et al. Checkerboard analysis to evaluate synergistic combinations of existing antifungal drugs and propylene glycol monocaprylate in isolates from recalcitrant tinea corporis and cruris patients harboring squalene epoxidase gene mutation. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2021;65:e0032121.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.
Mahmood A, Rapalli VK, Gorantla S, Waghule T, Singhvi G. Dermatokinetic assessment of luliconazole-loaded nanostructured lipid carriers (NLCs) for topical delivery: QbD-driven design, optimization, and in vitro and ex vivo evaluations. Drug Deliv Transl Res 2022;12:1118-35.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.
Babu CK, Shubhra, Ghouse SM, Singh PK, Khatri DK, Nanduri S, et al. Luliconazole topical dermal drug delivery for superficial fungal infections: Penetration hurdles and role of functional nanomaterials. Curr Pharm Des 2022;28:1611-20.  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.
Das A, Sil A, Sarkar TK, Sen A, Chakravorty S, Sengupta M, et al. A randomized, double-blind trial of amorolfine 0.25% cream and sertaconazole 2% cream in limited dermatophytosis. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2019;85:276-81.  Back to cited text no. 59
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
60.
Ravichandran M, Srikanth S, Kumar BA, Munusamy R. Efficacy and Safety of Eberconazole versus sertaconazole in localised tinea infection. Indian J Dermatol 2021;66:573.  Back to cited text no. 60
  [Full text]  
61.
Thomas J, Das S, Ghate S, Chatterjee M, Teltumde S, Charugulla SN et al. Effectiveness and safety of eberconazole 1% cream in Indian patients with tinea corporis and tinea cruris: A prospective real-world study. Int J Res Dermatol 2021;7:96-107.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.
Verma SB, Saraswat A, Rao PN, Dogra S. Topical itraconazole formulations: Unscrupulous pharmaceutical companies and lax Indian drug regulators endangering a precious drug. Indian Dermatol Online J 2020;11:806-11.  Back to cited text no. 62
  [Full text]  

Top
Correspondence Address:
Saumya Panda,
Flat No. 1D, Fusion Cooperative, Street No. 97, Action Area IB, BA-002 New Town, Kolkata - 700 163, West Bengal
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/am.am_171_22





 

Top
 
  Search
 
   Ahead Of Print
  
 Article in PDF
     Search Pubmed for
 
    -  Ghosh A
    -  Panda S


Abstract
Introduction
Terbinafine
Itraconazole
Voriconazole
Luliconazole
Amorolfine
Summary
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed183    
    PDF Downloaded9    

Recommend this journal