International journal of applied & basic medical research · 2020
Efficacy, Safety, and Cost Evaluation of the Topical Luliconazole Therapy versus Topical Clotrimazole Therapy in Patients with Localized Dermatophytosis in a Tertiary Care Hospital: An Observational Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kaur Mandeep, Gupta Anu, Mahajan Rajiv, Gill Manharan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Dermatophytosis is a superficial fungal infection that has high affinity for keratinized tissues of the body. The treatment of localized dermatophytosis is a major concern for the dermatologist especially in tropical countries like India. Various topical antifungals are available for the treatment of localized uncomplicated dermatophytosis. Luliconazole is an azole antifungal available that has potent activity against dermatophytes.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare two treatment modalities for the treatment of localized dermatophytosis in terms of efficacy, safety, and cost evaluation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective and observational study carried out for 6 months and included 200 patients (luliconazole group [n = 94] and clotrimazole group [n = 106]). Patients were followed up for 2, 4, and 6 weeks. Outcome parameters such as pruritis, erythema, scaling, vesiculations, and global assessment score were noted at 2, 4, and 6 weeks for the assessment of efficacy. The statistical analysis was done using Chi-square and Student's t-test.
RESULTS: Luliconazole and clotrimazole showed 56.38% and 23.58% cure rate at the end of two weeks respectively (P < 0.05). At the end of treatment, the cure rates were 98.93% and 95.28% in luliconazole and clotrimazole, respectively (P > 0.005). Both the drugs were equally safe. On cost-effective analysis, luliconazole was found to be more cost-effective than clotrimazole at the end of 2 weeks.
CONCLUSION: Therapeutic efficacy of luliconazole was more as significant proportion of patients achieved complete clearance of lesions at faster rate within 2 weeks with convenient once daily application.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare two treatment modalities for the treatment of localized dermatophytosis in terms of efficacy, safety, and cost evaluation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective and observational study carried out for 6 months and included 200 patients (luliconazole group [n = 94] and clotrimazole group [n = 106]). Patients were followed up for 2, 4, and 6 weeks. Outcome parameters such as pruritis, erythema, scaling, vesiculations, and global assessment score were noted at 2, 4, and 6 weeks for the assessment of efficacy. The statistical analysis was done using Chi-square and Student's t-test.
RESULTS: Luliconazole and clotrimazole showed 56.38% and 23.58% cure rate at the end of two weeks respectively (P < 0.05). At the end of treatment, the cure rates were 98.93% and 95.28% in luliconazole and clotrimazole, respectively (P > 0.005). Both the drugs were equally safe. On cost-effective analysis, luliconazole was found to be more cost-effective than clotrimazole at the end of 2 weeks.
CONCLUSION: Therapeutic efficacy of luliconazole was more as significant proportion of patients achieved complete clearance of lesions at faster rate within 2 weeks with convenient once daily application.