Cargando…

A comparative study to evaluate efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness between Whitfield's ointment + oral fluconazole versus topical 1% butenafine in tinea infections of skin

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of topical Whitfield's ointment plus oral fluconazole with topical 1% butenafine in tinea infections of the skin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated to the two treatment gro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thaker, Saket J., Mehta, Dimple S., Shah, Hiral A., Dave, Jayendra N., Kikani, Kunjan M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3847256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24347774
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0253-7613.121378
_version_ 1782293575344586752
author Thaker, Saket J.
Mehta, Dimple S.
Shah, Hiral A.
Dave, Jayendra N.
Kikani, Kunjan M.
author_facet Thaker, Saket J.
Mehta, Dimple S.
Shah, Hiral A.
Dave, Jayendra N.
Kikani, Kunjan M.
author_sort Thaker, Saket J.
collection PubMed
description AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of topical Whitfield's ointment plus oral fluconazole with topical 1% butenafine in tinea infections of the skin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated to the two treatment groups and advised to apply either agent topically twice-a-day for 4 weeks on the lesions and fluconazole (150 mg) was administered once a week for 4 weeks in the study group applying Whitfield's ointment. Patients were followed-up at an interval of 10 days for clinical score and global evaluation response was assessed at baseline and during each follow-up. RESULTS: Out of 120 patients enrolled in the study 103 completed the study. Patients treated with Whitfield's ointment and oral fluconazole reduced mean sign and symptom score from 8.81 ± 0.82 to 0.18 ± 0.59 while butenafine treated patients reduced it from 8.88 ± 0.53 to 0.31 ± 0.67 at the end of the treatment. Nearly, 98% patients were completely cleared of the lesion on the 3(rd) follow-up with both treatments. CONCLUSION: Whitfield's ointment with oral fluconazole is as efficacious, safe and cost-effective as compared with 1% butenafine in tinea infections of the skin.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3847256
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38472562013-12-16 A comparative study to evaluate efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness between Whitfield's ointment + oral fluconazole versus topical 1% butenafine in tinea infections of skin Thaker, Saket J. Mehta, Dimple S. Shah, Hiral A. Dave, Jayendra N. Kikani, Kunjan M. Indian J Pharmacol Short Communication AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of topical Whitfield's ointment plus oral fluconazole with topical 1% butenafine in tinea infections of the skin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated to the two treatment groups and advised to apply either agent topically twice-a-day for 4 weeks on the lesions and fluconazole (150 mg) was administered once a week for 4 weeks in the study group applying Whitfield's ointment. Patients were followed-up at an interval of 10 days for clinical score and global evaluation response was assessed at baseline and during each follow-up. RESULTS: Out of 120 patients enrolled in the study 103 completed the study. Patients treated with Whitfield's ointment and oral fluconazole reduced mean sign and symptom score from 8.81 ± 0.82 to 0.18 ± 0.59 while butenafine treated patients reduced it from 8.88 ± 0.53 to 0.31 ± 0.67 at the end of the treatment. Nearly, 98% patients were completely cleared of the lesion on the 3(rd) follow-up with both treatments. CONCLUSION: Whitfield's ointment with oral fluconazole is as efficacious, safe and cost-effective as compared with 1% butenafine in tinea infections of the skin. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2013 /pmc/articles/PMC3847256/ /pubmed/24347774 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0253-7613.121378 Text en Copyright: © Indian Journal of Pharmacology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Short Communication
Thaker, Saket J.
Mehta, Dimple S.
Shah, Hiral A.
Dave, Jayendra N.
Kikani, Kunjan M.
A comparative study to evaluate efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness between Whitfield's ointment + oral fluconazole versus topical 1% butenafine in tinea infections of skin
title A comparative study to evaluate efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness between Whitfield's ointment + oral fluconazole versus topical 1% butenafine in tinea infections of skin
title_full A comparative study to evaluate efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness between Whitfield's ointment + oral fluconazole versus topical 1% butenafine in tinea infections of skin
title_fullStr A comparative study to evaluate efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness between Whitfield's ointment + oral fluconazole versus topical 1% butenafine in tinea infections of skin
title_full_unstemmed A comparative study to evaluate efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness between Whitfield's ointment + oral fluconazole versus topical 1% butenafine in tinea infections of skin
title_short A comparative study to evaluate efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness between Whitfield's ointment + oral fluconazole versus topical 1% butenafine in tinea infections of skin
title_sort comparative study to evaluate efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness between whitfield's ointment + oral fluconazole versus topical 1% butenafine in tinea infections of skin
topic Short Communication
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3847256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24347774
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0253-7613.121378
work_keys_str_mv AT thakersaketj acomparativestudytoevaluateefficacysafetyandcosteffectivenessbetweenwhitfieldsointmentoralfluconazoleversustopical1butenafineintineainfectionsofskin
AT mehtadimples acomparativestudytoevaluateefficacysafetyandcosteffectivenessbetweenwhitfieldsointmentoralfluconazoleversustopical1butenafineintineainfectionsofskin
AT shahhirala acomparativestudytoevaluateefficacysafetyandcosteffectivenessbetweenwhitfieldsointmentoralfluconazoleversustopical1butenafineintineainfectionsofskin
AT davejayendran acomparativestudytoevaluateefficacysafetyandcosteffectivenessbetweenwhitfieldsointmentoralfluconazoleversustopical1butenafineintineainfectionsofskin
AT kikanikunjanm acomparativestudytoevaluateefficacysafetyandcosteffectivenessbetweenwhitfieldsointmentoralfluconazoleversustopical1butenafineintineainfectionsofskin
AT thakersaketj comparativestudytoevaluateefficacysafetyandcosteffectivenessbetweenwhitfieldsointmentoralfluconazoleversustopical1butenafineintineainfectionsofskin
AT mehtadimples comparativestudytoevaluateefficacysafetyandcosteffectivenessbetweenwhitfieldsointmentoralfluconazoleversustopical1butenafineintineainfectionsofskin
AT shahhirala comparativestudytoevaluateefficacysafetyandcosteffectivenessbetweenwhitfieldsointmentoralfluconazoleversustopical1butenafineintineainfectionsofskin
AT davejayendran comparativestudytoevaluateefficacysafetyandcosteffectivenessbetweenwhitfieldsointmentoralfluconazoleversustopical1butenafineintineainfectionsofskin
AT kikanikunjanm comparativestudytoevaluateefficacysafetyandcosteffectivenessbetweenwhitfieldsointmentoralfluconazoleversustopical1butenafineintineainfectionsofskin