Dataset Information

Systematic review of topical treatments for fungal infections of the skin and nails of the feet.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To identify and synthesise the evidence for efficacy and cost effectiveness of topical treatments for superficial fungal infections of the skin and nails of the feet. DESIGN:Systematic review. INTERVENTIONS:Topical treatments for superficial fungal infections. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Cure confirmed by culture and microscopy for skin and by culture for nails in patients with clinically diagnosed fungal infections. RESULTS:Of 126 trials identified in 121 papers, 72 (57.1%) met the inclusion criteria. Placebo controlled trials yielded pooled relative risks of failure to cure skin infections: allylamines (0.30, 95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.38); azoles (0.54, 0.42 to 0.68); undecenoic acid (0.28, 0. 11 to 0.74); and tolnaftate (0.46, 0.17 to 1.22). Although meta-analysis of 11 trials comparing allylamines and azoles showed a relative risk of failure to cure of 0.88 (0.78 to 0.99) in favour of allylamines, there was evidence of language bias. Seven reports in English favoured allylamines (0.79, 0.69 to 0.91), but four reports in foreign languages showed no difference between the two drugs (1. 01, 0.90 to 1.13). Neither trial of nail infections showed significant differences between alternative topical treatments. CONCLUSIONS:Allylamines, azoles, and undecenoic acid were efficacious in placebo controlled trials. There are sufficient comparative trials to judge relative efficacy only between allylamines and azoles. Allylamines cure slightly more infections than azoles but are much more expensive than azoles. The most cost effective strategy is first to treat with azoles or undecenoic acid and to use allylamines only if that fails.

SUBMITTER: Hart R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC28154 | biostudies-literature | 1999 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic review of topical treatments for fungal infections of the skin and nails of the feet.

Hart R R Bell-Syer S E SE Crawford F F Torgerson D J DJ Young P P Russell I I

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 19990701 7202

<h4>Objective</h4>To identify and synthesise the evidence for efficacy and cost effectiveness of topical treatments for superficial fungal infections of the skin and nails of the feet.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review.<h4>Interventions</h4>Topical treatments for superficial fungal infections.<h4>Main outcome measures</h4>Cure confirmed by culture and microscopy for skin and by culture for nails in patients with clinically diagnosed fungal infections.<h4>Results</h4>Of 126 trials identified in 121 ...[more]

PMID: 10398626

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:About 15% of the world population have fungal infections of the feet (tinea pedis or athlete's foot). There are many clinical presentations of tinea pedis, and most commonly, tinea pedis is seen between the toes (interdigital) and on the soles, heels, and sides of the foot (plantar). Plantar tinea pedis is known as moccasin foot. Once acquired, the infection can spread to other sites including the nails, which can be a source of re-infection. Oral therapy is usually used for chronic conditions or when topical treatment has failed. OBJECTIVES:To assess the effects of oral treatments for fungal infections of the skin of the foot (tinea pedis). SEARCH METHODS:For this update we searched the following databases to July 2012: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and CINAHL (from 1981). We checked the bibliographies of retrieved trials for further references to relevant trials, and we searched online trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA:Randomised controlled trials of oral treatments in participants who have a clinically diagnosed tinea pedis, confirmed by microscopy and growth of dermatophytes (fungi) in culture. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two review authors independently undertook study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction. MAIN RESULTS:We included 15 trials, involving 1438 participants. The 2 trials (71 participants) comparing terbinafine and griseofulvin produced a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 2.26 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 3.44) in favour of terbinafine's ability to cure infection. No significant difference was detected between terbinafine and itraconazole, fluconazole and itraconazole, fluconazole and ketoconazole, or between griseofulvin and ketoconazole, although the trials were generally small. Two trials showed that terbinafine and itraconazole were effective compared with placebo: terbinafine (31 participants, RR 24.54, 95% CI 1.57 to 384.32) and itraconazole (72 participants, RR 6.67, 95% CI 2.17 to 20.48). All drugs reported adverse effects, with gastrointestinal effects most commonly reported. Ten of the trials were published over 15 years ago, and this is reflected by the poor reporting of information from which to make a clear 'Risk of bias' assessment. Only one trial was at low risk of bias overall. The majority of the remaining trials were judged as 'unclear' risk of bias because of the lack of clear statements with respect to methods of generating the randomisation sequence and allocation concealment. More trials achieved blinding of participants and personnel than blinding of the outcome assessors, which was again poorly reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:The evidence suggests that terbinafine is more effective than griseofulvin, and terbinafine and itraconazole are more effective than no treatment. In order to produce more reliable data, a rigorous evaluation of different drug therapies needs to be undertaken with larger sample sizes to ensure they are large enough to show any real difference when two treatments are being compared. It is also important to continue to follow up and collect data, preferably for six months after the end of the intervention period, to establish whether or not the infection recurred.

Project description:Evidence for the effectiveness of topical treatments, in providing symptomatic relief from ocular allergy, remains uncertain.To assess the effectiveness and relative efficacy of topical treatments for the management of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.A systematic review and meta-analysis.A literature search of the Cochrane Library, Medline, and EMBASE bibliographic databases.Double-masked randomised controlled trials were identified, that compared the use of topical mast cell stabilisers (sodium cromoglycate, nedocromil, lodoxamide) with placebo, topical antihistamines with placebo, and topical mast cell stabilisers with topical antihistamines.A meta-analysis of six trials showed that patients using sodium cromoglycate were 17 times (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4 to 78) more likely to perceive benefit compared with those using a placebo, although this estimate may be partially influenced by publication bias. Five trials indicated that those patients using nedocromil were 1.8 times (95% CI = 1.3 to 2.6) more likely to perceive their allergy to be moderately or totally controlled than those using a placebo. Four trials showed that those using antihistamines were 1.3 times (95% CI = 0.8 to 2.2) more likely to perceive a 'good' treatment effect than those using mast cell stabilisers, although this beneficial effect was not statistically significant. Limited evidence suggests that antihistamines might have a faster therapeutic effect compared to mast cell stabilisers.Overall, these findings confirm the benefit of topical mast cell stabilisers and antihistamines over placebo for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. There is, however, insufficient evidence to recommend the use of one type of medication over another. Treatment preferences should therefore be based on convenience of use (with reduced frequency of instillation for some preparations), patient preference, and costs, especially as important side effects were not reported with any medication.

Project description:BackgroundPsoriatic disease (PsD) is a complex systemic disorder with cutaneous and musculoskeletal manifestations. Current evidence on pharmacological interventions, effective across the spectrum of clinical manifestations of early, systemic treatment-naïve PsD, is limited. This review aims to appraise such evidence.MethodsThis systematic review examined seven patient-intervention-comparator-outcome research questions to address the efficacy of the interventions on the following: across the spectrum of clinical manifestations PsD activity; peripheral arthritis; dactylitis; spondylitis; enthesitis; skin; and nails. Early PsD was defined as a disease duration of ?2?years, except for studies investigating outcomes restricted to the skin. Eligible references were clinical trials or well-designed prospective studies/series reporting on adult humans, untreated, with cutaneous and/or musculoskeletal features of PsD.ResultsNine references (out of 160?319, publication range 1946-2019) fulfilled the eligibility criteria. No study adopted comprehensive (that is, simultaneous assessment of different PsD manifestations) composite indices as primary outcome measures. Individual studies reported that apremilast and biologics successfully improved outcomes (disease activity index for PsA, minimal disease activity, PsA DAS, psoriasis area and severity index, PsA response criteria) when efficacy analyses were restricted to single manifestations of untreated PsD. Only qualitative synthesis of evidence was possible, owing to the following factors: data heterogeneity (disease classification criteria, outcome measures); unavailable data subsets (focused on early, untreated PsD) at the single study level; and insufficient data on the exposure of participants to previous treatment.ConclusionEffective interventions, albeit limited in scope, were found for early, treatment-naïve PsD. No study provided evidence about the management of co-occurring cutaneous and musculoskeletal manifestations in early, treatment-naïve PsD. This review highlights an unmet need in research on early PsD.

Dataset Information

Systematic review of topical treatments for fungal infections of the skin and nails of the feet.

Publications

Systematic review of topical treatments for fungal infections of the skin and nails of the feet.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets