Athlete's foot
Abstract
Introduction
Around 15% to 25% of people are likely to have athlete's foot at any one time. The infection can spread to other parts of the body and to other people.
Methods and outcomes
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of topical treatments for athlete's foot? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to July 2008 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Results
We found 14 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
Conclusions
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: improved foot hygiene, including socks and hosiery; topical allylamines (naftifine and terbinafine); topical azoles (bifonazole, clotrimazole, econazole nitrate, miconazole nitrate, sulconazole nitrate, and tioconazole); and topical ciclopirox olamine.
Key Points
Fungal infection of the feet can cause white and soggy skin between the toes, dry and flaky soles, or reddening and blistering of the skin all over the foot.
Around 15% to 25% of people are likely to have athlete's foot at any one time.
The infection can spread to other parts of the body and to other people.
Topical allylamines (naftifine and terbinafine), topical azoles (clotrimazole, miconazole nitrate, tioconazole, sulconazole nitrate, bifonazole, and econazole nitrate) and topical ciclopirox olamine are all more likely to cure fungal skin infections compared with placebo.
Topical allylamines seem to have fewer treatment failures compared with topical azoles.
We don't know if any one treatment is more effective than others.
We don't know whether improving foot hygiene or changing footwear can help to cure athlete's foot.
About this condition
Definition
Athlete's foot is a cutaneous fungal infection caused by dermatophyte infection. It is characterised by itching, flaking, and fissuring of the skin. It may manifest in three ways: the skin between the toes may appear macerated (white) and soggy; the soles of the feet may become dry and scaly; and the skin all over the foot may become red, and vesicular eruptions may appear. It is conventional in dermatology to refer to fungal skin infections as superficial in order to distinguish them from systemic fungal infections.
Incidence/ Prevalence
Epidemiological studies have produced various estimates of the prevalence of athlete's foot. Studies are usually conducted in populations of people who attend dermatology clinics, sports centres, or swimming pools, or who are in the military. UK estimates suggest that athlete's foot is present in about 15% of the general population. Studies conducted in dermatology clinics found prevalences of 25% in Italy (722 people) and 27% in China (1014 people). A population-based study conducted in 1148 children in Israel found the prevalence among children to be 30%.
Aetiology/ Risk factors
Swimming-pool users and industrial workers may be at increased risk of fungal foot infection. However, one survey identified fungal foot infection in only 9% of swimmers, with the highest prevalence (20%) being in men aged 16 years and older.
Prognosis
Fungal infections of the foot are not life-threatening in people with normal immune status, but in some people they cause persistent itching and, ultimately, fissuring. Some people are apparently unaware of persistent infection. The infection can spread to other parts of the body and to other individuals.
Aims of intervention
To control symptoms and prevent recurrence, with minimal adverse effects.
Outcomes
Mycological cure rates: Rates of fungal eradication, shown by negative microscopy and culture, and resolution of clinical signs and symptoms at follow-up. We have chosen mycological cure as a primary outcome. This is because clinical cure is not reported consistently in superficial mycology trials. The main systematic review identified by Clinical Evidence has expressed the outcome in terms of treatment failure rates. Microscopy and culture results are the most frequently used efficacy outcomes in athlete's foot research. However, like many other diagnostic tests, microscopy and culture are not absolutely accurate.
Methods
Clinical Evidence search and appraisal July 2008. The following databases were used to identify studies for this systematic review: Medline 1966 to July 2008, Embase 1980 to July 2008, and The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials 2008, Issue 2 (1966 to date of issue). An additional search was carried out of the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) — for Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA). We also searched for retractions of studies included in the review. Abstracts of the studies retrieved from the initial search were assessed by an information specialist. Selected studies were then sent to the contributor for additional assessment, using pre-determined criteria to identify relevant studies. Study design criteria for inclusion in this review were: published systematic reviews and RCTs in any language, at least single blinded, and containing more than 20 individuals. Trials with any loss to follow-up were sent and there was no minimum length of follow-up required to include studies. We excluded all studies described as “open”, “open label”, or not blinded unless blinding was impossible. Where potentially relevant non-English language references were identified by searches, these have been translated and appraised for inclusion. Studies were not excluded based on high withdrawal rates, as this is a common problem for studies of athlete's foot. We included systematic reviews of RCTs, and RCTs where harms of an included intervention were studied applying the same study design criteria for inclusion as we did for benefits. In addition, we use a regular surveillance protocol to capture harms alerts from organisations such as the FDA and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), which are added to the reviews as required. To aid readability of the numerical data in our reviews, we round many percentages to the nearest whole number. Readers should be aware of this when relating percentages to summary statistics such as relative risks (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs). We have performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions included in this review (see table). The categorisation of the quality of the evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low) reflects the quality of evidence available for our chosen outcomes in our defined populations of interest. These categorisations are not necessarily a reflection of the overall methodological quality of any individual study, because the Clinical Evidence population and outcome of choice may represent only a small subset of the total outcomes reported, and population included, in any individual trial. For further details of how we perform the GRADE evaluation and the scoring system we use, please see our website (www.clinicalevidence.com).
Table.
GRADE Evaluation of interventions for Athlete's foot.
| Important outcomes | Adverse effects, Mycological cure rates | ||||||||
| Studies (Participants) | Outcome | Comparison | Type of evidence | Quality | Consistency | Directness | Effect size | GRADE | Comment |
| What are the effects of topical treatments for athlete's foot? | |||||||||
| 13 (1524) | Mycological cure rates | Topical allylamines versus placebo | 4 | 0 | –1 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Consistency point deducted for heterogeneity among RCTs |
| 1 (68) | Mycological cure rates | Topical allylamines versus each other | 4 | –1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for sparse data |
| 15 (2042) | Mycological cure rates | Topical allylamines versus topical azoles | 4 | 0 | –1 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Consistency point deducted for heterogeneity among RCTs |
| 13 (1259) | Mycological cure rates | Topical azoles versus placebo | 4 | 0 | –1 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Consistency point deducted for conflicting results |
| 9 (1287) | Mycological cure rates | Topical azoles versus each other | 4 | 0 | –1 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Consistency point deducted for conflicting results |
| 1 (87) | Mycological cure rates | Topical azoles versus ciclopirox olamine | 4 | –1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Quality point deducted for sparse data |
| 3 (618) | Mycological cure rates | Topical ciclopirox olamine versus placebo | 4 | 0 | –1 | 0 | 0 | Moderate | Consistency point deducted for heterogeneity among RCTs |
Glossary
-
Moderate-quality evidence
Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this publication is intended for medical professionals. Categories presented in Clinical Evidence indicate a judgement about the strength of the evidence available to our contributors prior to publication and the relevant importance of benefit and harms. We rely on our contributors to confirm the accuracy of the information presented and to adhere to describe accepted practices. Readers should be aware that professionals in the field may have different opinions. Because of this and regular advances in medical research we strongly recommend that readers' independently verify specified treatments and drugs including manufacturers' guidance. Also, the categories do not indicate whether a particular treatment is generally appropriate or whether it is suitable for a particular individual. Ultimately it is the readers' responsibility to make their own professional judgements, so to appropriately advise and treat their patients.To the fullest extent permitted by law, BMJ Publishing Group Limited and its editors are not responsible for any losses, injury or damage caused to any person or property (including under contract, by negligence, products liability or otherwise) whether they be direct or indirect, special, incidental or consequential, resulting from the application of the information in this publication.
References
- 1.Springett K, Merriman L. Assessment of the skin and its appendages. In: Merriman L, Tollafield D, eds. The assessment of the lower limb. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone, 1995:191–225. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Gentles JC, Evans EGV. Foot infections in swimming baths. BMJ 1973;3:260–262. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Aste N, Pau M, Aste N, et al. Tinea pedis observed in Cagliari, Italy, between 1996 and 2000. Mycoses 2003;46:38–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Cheng S, Chong L. A prospective epidemiological study on tinea pedis and onychomycosis in Hong Kong. Chin Med J (Engl) 2002;115:860–865. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Leibovici V, Evron R, Dunchin M, et al. Population-based epidemiologic study of tinea pedis in Israeli children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2002;21:851–854. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Crawford F, Young P, Godfrey C, et al. Oral treatments for toenail onychomycosis. Arch Dermatol 2002;138:811–815. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Crawford F, Hollis S. Topical treatments for fungal infections of the skin and nails of the foot. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2008. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Search date 2005. 17636672 [Google Scholar]
- 8.Daniel CR, Elewski BE. The diagnosis of nail fungus infection revisited. Arch Dermatol 2000;136:1162–1164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Ortonne JP, Korting HC, Viguie-Vallanet C, et al. Efficacy and safety of a new single-dose terbinafine 1% formulation in patients with tinea pedis (athlete's foot): a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2006;20:1307–1313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.James IG, Loria-Kanza Y, Jones TC. Short-duration topical treatment of tinea pedis using terbinafine emulsion gel: results of a dose-ranging clinical trial. J Dermatol Treat 2007;18:163–168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Gupta AK, Skinner AR, Cooper EA. Evaluation of the efficacy of ciclopirox 0.77% gel in the treatment of tinea pedis interdigitalis (dermatophytosis complex) in a randomized double-blind placebo controlled trial. Int J Dermatol 2004;44:590–593 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Crawford F. Athletes foot. In: Williams H, Bigby M, Diepgen T, eds. Evidence based dermatology. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2003. [Google Scholar]
BMJ Clin Evid. 2009 Jul 20;2009:1712.
Summary
Topical allylamines (naftifine and terbinafine) are all more likely to cure fungal skin infections compared with placebo.
Topical allylamines seem to have fewer treatment failures compared with topical azoles .
We found no clinically important results from RCTs about topical allylamines compared with topical ciclopirox olamine in people with athlete's foot.
Benefits and harms
Topical allylamines versus placebo:
We found one systematic review (search date 2005) and two subsequent RCTs assessing the effects of topical allylamines in athlete's foot.
Mycological cure rates
Topical allylamines compared with placebo Topical allylamines used for between 1 and 4 weeks are more effective at curing athlete's foot (defined as negative results on microscopy and no growth of dermatophytes in culture) at 2 to 6 weeks (moderate-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Treatment failure rates | |||||
|
Systematic review |
928 people |
Treatment failure rates
2 weeks
262/476 (55%) with allylamines 355/452 (79%) with placebo |
RR 0.69 95% CI 0.56 to 0.87 |
Small effect size | allylamines |
|
Systematic review |
1116 people |
Treatment failure rates
6 weeks
144/566 (25%) with allylamines 443/550 (81%) with placebo |
RR 0.33 95% CI 0.24 to 0.44 |
Moderate effect size | allylamines |
|
Systematic review |
612 people |
Treatment failure rates
2 weeks
191/314 (61%) with naftifine 243/298 (82%) with placebo |
RR 0.75 95% CI 0.60 to 0.93 |
Small effect size | naftifine |
|
Systematic review |
607 people |
Treatment failure rates
6 weeks
94/309 (30%) with naftifine 245/298 (82%) with placebo |
RR 0.42 95% CI 0.30 to 0.59 |
Moderate effect size | naftifine |
|
Systematic review |
316 people |
Treatment failure rates
2 weeks
71/162 (44%) with terbinafine 112/154 (73%) with placebo |
RR 0.58 95% CI 0.31 to 1.08 |
Not significant | |
|
Systematic review |
40 people |
Treatment failure rates
6 weeks
2/18 (11%) with terbinafine 21/22 (95%) with placebo |
RR 0.17 95% CI 0.05 to 0.57 |
Large effect size | terbinafine |
|
RCT |
324 people with interdigital tinea pedis |
Treatment failure rates
120/190 (63%) with terbinafine 14/83 (17%) with placebo |
P <0.0001 |
Effect size not calculated | terbinafine |
| Mycological cure rates | |||||
|
RCT 3-armed trial |
84 people |
Mycological cure rates
5/29 (17%) with terbinafine 1% 4/28 (14%) with terbinafine 3% 3/27 (12%) with placebo |
Significance assessment between groups not reported |
||
|
RCT |
84 people |
Mycological cure rates
4 weeks
18/29 (69%) with terbinafine 1% 4/27 (16%) with placebo |
P <0.0001 |
Effect size not calculated | terbinafine |
|
RCT |
84 people |
Mycological cure rates
4 weeks
18/28 (72%) with terbinafine 3% 4/27 (16%) with placebo |
P <0.0001 |
Effect size not calculated | terbinafine |
|
RCT |
84 people |
Mycological cure rates
6 weeks
25/29 (86%) with terbinafine 1% 3/27 (11%) with placebo |
P <0.0001 |
Effect size not calculated | terbinafine |
|
RCT |
84 people |
Mycological cure rates
6 weeks
9/28 (68%) with terbinafine 3% 3/27 (11%) with placebo |
P <0.0001 |
Effect size not calculated | terbinafine |
Adverse effects
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Adverse effects | |||||
|
Systematic review |
Unclear |
Serious adverse effects
with allylamines with placebo Absolute results not reported |
Two RCTs included in the review reported an increase in liver enzymes with terbinafine cream 1% and with placebo, and one RCT reported neutropenia with placebo (results not reported). The adverse effects reported by RCTs in the review included burning, stinging, and itching sensations (further details not reported) |
||
|
RCT |
324 people with interdigital tinea pedis |
Adverse effects
with terbinafine with placebo Absolute results not reported |
The RCT found no serious adverse effects associated with terbinafine 1% solution. Adverse effects reported included mild burning, moderate peripheral oedema, mild pain, and pruritus (further details not reported) |
||
|
RCT |
84 people |
Adverse effects
with terbinafine 1% or 3% with placebo |
The RCT found no serious adverse effects associated with terbinafine 1% and 3% emulsion gel. Adverse effects reported included burning and stinging sensations, mild desquamation, erythema, and incrustation dryness (further details not reported) |
Topical allylamines versus each other:
The review identified one RCT (62 people) comparing naftifine versus terbinafine. The review found no significant difference in treatment failure between naftifine and terbinafine at 2 and 6 weeks.
Mycological cure rates
Naftifine and terbinafine compared with each other Naftifine and terbinafine seem to be equally effective at curing athlete's foot (defined as negative results on microscopy and no growth of dermatophytes in culture) at 2 to 6 weeks (moderate-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Treatment failure rates | |||||
|
Systematic review |
62 people |
Treatment failure rates
2 weeks
19/29 (66%) with naftifine 22/33 (67%) with terbinafine |
RR 0.98 95% CI 0.69 to 1.41 |
Not significant | |
|
Systematic review |
62 people |
Treatment failure rates
6 weeks
9/29 (31%) with naftifine 5/33 (15%) with terbinafine |
RR 2.05 95% CI 0.77 to 5.42 |
Not significant |
Adverse effects
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Topical allylamines versus topical azoles:
The review assessed treatment failure for short-term, medium-term, and long-term outcomes.
Mycological cure rates
Topical allylamines compared with topical azoles Topical allylamines and topical azoles seem equally effective at curing athlete's foot (defined as negative results on microscopy and no growth of dermatophytes in culture) (moderate-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Treatment failure rates | |||||
|
Systematic review |
1519 people |
Treatment failure rates
2 weeks
272/809 (34%) with allylamines 243/710 (34%) with azoles |
RR 0.86 95% CI 0.70 to 1.06 |
Not significant | |
|
Systematic review |
173 people |
Treatment failure rates
6 weeks
21/102 (21%) with allylamines 40/71 (56%) with azoles |
RR 0.34 95% CI 0.22 to 0.52 |
Moderate effect size | allylamines |
|
Systematic review |
83 people |
Treatment failure rates
6 weeks
7/40 (18%) with terbinafine 21/43 (49%) with clotrimazole |
RR 0.36 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75 |
Moderate effect size | terbinafine |
|
Systematic review |
962 people |
Treatment failure rates
6 weeks
26/488 (5%) with allylamines 38/474 (8%) with azoles |
RR 0.75 95% CI 0.33 to 1.72 |
Not significant | |
|
Systematic review |
1003 people |
Treatment failure rates
6 weeks
102/533 (19%) with allylamines 155/470 (33%) with azoles |
RR 0.63 95% CI 0.42 to 0.94 |
Small effect size | allylamines |
|
Systematic review |
141 people |
Treatment failure rates
12 weeks or above
8/75 (11%) with allylamines 16/66 (24%) with azoles |
RR 0.47 95% CI 0.22 to 1.02 |
Not significant |
Adverse effects
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Topical allylamines versus topical ciclopirox:
We found no RCTs.
Further information on studies
The review reported that there was significant statistical heterogeneity among RCTs included in the meta-analyses of all interventions at all time points (review set statistical heterogeneity as significant if P <0.05). The clinical heterogeneity among the RCTs included in the meta-analysis in language, healthcare systems, dosage, duration of treatment, and study quality may have led to the significant statistical heterogeneity reported by the review.
The systematic review included men and women of any age with a fungal infection of the skin of the foot identified by microscopy and growth of dermatophytes in culture. It calculated treatment failure rates from reported mycological results. Treatment success was defined as negative results on microscopy and no growth of dermatophytes in culture. The review excluded RCTs that did not subject skin samples to potassium hydroxide and culture. It reported outcomes at three different time points: short (2 weeks), medium (6 weeks), and long term (12 weeks or above).
Substantive changes
Topical allylamines (naftifine, terbinafine): One already reported systematic review updated and two RCTs added. The updated review confirmed previous conclusions, and found that naftifine and terbinafine were more effective at curing athlete's foot (defined as negative results on microscopy and no growth of dermatophytes in culture) compared with placebo, but not significantly different compared with each other. It found that the results for cure rates between allylamines and azoles were inconclusive. The RCTs found that topical allylamines were more effective than placebo at curing fungal skin infections. Categorisation unchanged (Beneficial).
BMJ Clin Evid. 2009 Jul 20;2009:1712.
Summary
Topical azoles (clotrimazole, miconazole nitrate, tioconazole, sulconazole nitrate, bifonazole, and econazole nitrate) are all more likely to cure fungal skin infections compared with placebo.
Benefits and harms
Topical azoles versus placebo:
We found one systematic review (search date 2005), assessing the effects of topical azoles in athlete's foot.
Mycological cure rates
Topical azole creams compared with placebo Topical azole creams used for 4 to 6 weeks are more effective at curing athlete's foot (defined as negative results on microscopy and no growth of dermatophytes in culture) at 2 and 6 weeks (moderate-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Treatment failure rates | |||||
|
Systematic review |
329 people |
Treatment failure rates
2 weeks
88/195 (45%) with azoles 95/134 (71%) with placebo |
RR 0.59 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82 |
Small effect size | azoles |
|
Systematic review |
1235 people |
Treatment failure rates
6 weeks
174/695 (25%) with azoles 349/540 (65%) with placebo |
RR 0.40 95% CI 0.35 to 0.46 |
Moderate effect size | azoles |
|
Systematic review |
176 people |
Treatment failure rates
4 to 6 weeks
31/90 (34%) with bifonazole 62/86 (72%) with placebo |
RR 0.52 95% CI 0.37 to 0.73 |
Small effect size | bifonazole |
|
Systematic review |
153 people |
Treatment failure rates
4 to 6 weeks
57/105 (54%) with oxiconazole 33/48 (69%) with placebo |
RR 0.79 95% CI 0.61 to 1.02 |
Not significant | |
|
Systematic review |
182 people |
Treatment failure rates
4 to 6 weeks
20/94 (21%) with bifonazole 55/88 (63%) with placebo |
RR 0.36 95% CI 0.20 to 0.67 |
Moderate effect size | bifonazole |
|
Systematic review |
371 people |
Treatment failure rates
4 to 6 weeks
42/182 (23%) with clotrimazole 108/189 (57%) with placebo |
RR 0.42 95% CI 0.27 to 0.64 |
Moderate effect size | clotrimazole |
|
Systematic review |
54 people |
Treatment failure rates
4 to 6 weeks
7/24 (29%) with miconazole 23/30 (77%) with placebo |
RR 0.41 95% CI 0.14 to 1.14 |
Not significant | |
|
Systematic review |
451 people |
Treatment failure rates
4-6 weeks
78/311 (25%) with oxiconazole 95/140 (68%) with placebo |
RR 0.37 95% CI 0.30 to 0.46 |
Moderate effect size | oxiconazole |
|
Systematic review |
58 people |
Treatment failure rates
4 to 6 weeks
17/54 (31%) with sulconazole 41/63 (65%) with placebo |
RR 0.48 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75 |
Moderate effect size | sulconazole |
|
Systematic review |
60 people |
Treatment failure rates
4 to 6 weeks
10/30 (33%) with tioconazole 27/30 (90%) with placebo |
RR 0.37 95% CI 0.22 to 0.62 |
Moderate effect size | tioconazole |
Adverse effects
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Topical azoles versus each other:
The review identified nine RCTs (1287 people) comparing different azoles versus each other and reported short-term (2 weeks) and medium-term (6 weeks) outcomes.
Mycological cure rates
Topical azoles compared with each other Bifonazole, clotrimazole, econazole, miconazole, tioconazole, and sulconazole seem equally effective at curing athlete's foot (defined as negative results on microscopy and no growth of dermatophytes in culture) at 2 and 6 weeks (moderate-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Treatment failure rates | |||||
|
Systematic review |
497 people |
Treatment failure rates
2 weeks (short term)
73/176 (41%) with clotrimazole 103/321 (32%) with econazole |
RR 1.13 95% CI 0.92 to 1.39 |
Not significant | |
|
Systematic review |
41 people |
Treatment failure rates
2 weeks (short term)
6/20 (30%) with miconazole 1/21 (5%) with sulconazole |
RR 6.30 95% CI 0.83 to 47.80 The wide CI suggests that the RCT was likely to have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference between groups |
Not significant | |
|
Systematic review |
105 people |
Treatment failure rates
6 weeks
0/17 (0%) with bifonazole 0/19 (0%) with croconazole |
RR not estimable |
||
|
Systematic review |
264 people |
Treatment failure rates
6 weeks
23/131 (18%) with bifonazole 111/133 (83%) with flutrimazole |
RR 0.21 95% CI 0.14 to 0.31 |
Moderate effect size | bifonazole |
|
Systematic review |
28 people |
Treatment failure rates
6 weeks
4/14 (29%) with bifonazole 5/14 (36%) with miconazole |
RR 0.80 95% CI 0.27 to 2.37 |
Not significant | |
|
Systematic review |
497 people |
Treatment failure rates
6 weeks
64/176 (36%) with clotrimazole 85/321 (26%) with econazole |
RR 0.95 95% CI 0.31 to 2.88 |
Not significant | |
|
Systematic review |
100 people |
Treatment failure rates
6 weeks
19/50 (38%) with clotrimazole 18/50 (36%) with ketoconazole |
RR 1.06 95% CI 0.63 to 1.76 |
Not significant | |
|
Systematic review |
220 people |
Treatment failure rates
6 weeks
21/57 (37%) with miconazole 18/63 (29%) with tioconazole |
RR 1.29 95% CI 0.77 to 2.16 |
Not significant |
Adverse effects
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Topical azoles versus topical allylamines:
See options on topical allylamines.
Adverse effects
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Topical azoles versus ciclopirox olamine:
The systematic review identified one RCT.
Mycological cure rates
Clotrimazole compared with ciclopirox olamine Clotrimazole and ciclopirox olamine seem equally effective at curing athlete's foot (defined as negative results on microscopy and no growth of dermatophytes in culture) at 2 weeks and 4 to 6 weeks (moderate-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Treatment failure rates | |||||
|
Systematic review |
87 people |
Treatment failure rates
2 weeks
13/44 (30%) with clotrimazole 9/43 (21%) with ciclopirox olamine |
RR 1.41 95% CI 0.67 to 2.95 |
Not significant | |
|
Systematic review |
87 people |
Treatment failure rates
4 weeks
7/44 (16%) with clotrimazole 4/43 (9%) with ciclopirox olamine |
RR 1.71 95% CI 0.54 to 5.42 |
Not significant | |
|
Systematic review |
87 people |
Treatment failure rates
6 weeks
8/37 (22%) with clotrimazole 4/33 (12%) with ciclopirox olamine |
RR 1.78 95% CI 0.59 to 5.38 |
Not significant |
Adverse effects
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Further information on studies
None.
Substantive changes
Topical azoles: One already reported systematic review updated, which confirmed previous conclusions. The updated review found that azole preparations were more effective at 4 to 6 weeks at curing athlete's foot (defined as negative results on microscopy and no growth of dermatophytes in culture) compared with placebo. It found that the results for cure rates between allylamines and azoles were inconclusive. The review found insufficient evidence of a difference in cure rates between different azoles at 2 to 6 weeks. It also found no significant difference in cure rates between clotrimazole and ciclopirox olamine. Categorisation unchanged (Beneficial).
BMJ Clin Evid. 2009 Jul 20;2009:1712.
Summary
Topical ciclopirox olamine is more likely to cure fungal skin infections compared with placebo.
We found no clinically important results from RCTs about ciclopirox olamine compared with topical allylamines in people with athlete's foot.
Benefits and harms
Topical ciclopirox olamine versus placebo:
We found one systematic review (search date 2005; 2 RCTs, 485 people), and one additional RCT comparing ciclopirox olamine versus placebo.
Mycological cure rates
Compared with placebo Topical ciclopirox olamine (0.77% or 1%) is more effective at curing athlete's foot (defined as negative results on microscopy and no growth of dermatophytes in culture) at 2 and 6 weeks (moderate-quality evidence).
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Treatment failure rates | |||||
|
Systematic review |
168 people |
Treatment failure rates
2 weeks
18/85 (21%) with ciclopirox olamine 41/83 (49%) with placebo |
RR 0.43 95% CI 0.27 to 0.68 |
Moderate effect size | ciclopirox olamine |
|
Systematic review |
461 people |
Treatment failure rates
4 weeks
38/231 (16%) with ciclopirox olamine 164/230 (71%) with placebo |
RR 0.27 95% CI 0.11 to 0.66 |
Moderate effect size | ciclopirox olamine |
| Mycological cure rates | |||||
|
RCT 3-armed trial |
100 people with interdigital tinea pedis |
Mycological cure rates
4 weeks
82% with ciclopirox olamine once daily 80% with ciclopirox olamine twice daily 43% with placebo Absolute numbers not reported |
P = 0.007 for ciclopirox olamine once daily v placebo P = 0.013 for ciclopirox olamine twice daily v placebo |
Adverse effects
| Ref (type) | Population | Outcome, Interventions | Results and statistical analysis | Effect size | Favours |
| Adverse effects | |||||
|
RCT |
100 people with interdigital tinea pedis |
Adverse effects
4 weeks
58% with ciclopirox olamine 0.77% once daily 65% with ciclopirox olamine 0.77% twice daily 70% with placebo Absolute numbers not reported |
Reported as not significant |
Not significant |
No data from the following reference on this outcome.
Topical ciclopirox olamine versus topical azoles:
See options on topical azoles.
Topical ciclopirox olamine versus topical allylamines:
See options on topical allylamines.
Further information on studies
The review gave no information on adverse effects associated with ciclopirox olamine. However, the RCTs included in the review reported burning, stinging, and itching sensations (no further details reported).
Substantive changes
Topical ciclopirox olamine: One already reported systematic review updated, which confirmed previous conclusions. It found that ciclopirox olamine was more effective at curing athlete's foot (defined as negative results on microscopy and no growth of dermatophytes in culture) at 2 and 4 weeks compared with placebo, but found no significant difference between clotrimazole and ciclopirox olamine. Categorisation unchanged (Beneficial).
BMJ Clin Evid. 2009 Jul 20;2009:1712.
Summary
We don't know whether improving foot hygiene or changing footwear can help to cure athlete's foot.
Benefits and harms
Socks, stocking, foot hygiene:
We found no direct information from RCTs on the effects of foot hygiene and hosiery in the treatment of athlete's foot.
Further information on studies
None.
Substantive changes
No new evidence