Efficacy and Safety of Luliconazole (1%) Cream Versus Clotrimazole (1%) Cream in Tinea Infections of Skin
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF LULICONAZOLE (1%) CREAM VERSUS CLOTRIMAZOLE (1%) CREAM IN TINEA INFECTIONS OF SKIN A COMPARATIVE STUDY. DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE TAMILNADU DR.M.G.R MEDICAL UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF MEDICINE IN PHARMACOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACOLOGY TIRUNELVELI MEDICAL COLLEGE TIRUNELVELI – 11 APRIL 2017 BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the dissertation entitled “EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF LULICONAZOLE (1%) CREAM VERSUS CLOTRIMAZOLE (1%) CREAM IN TINEA INFECTIONS OF SKIN - A COMPARATIVE STUDY” submitted by DR.LAKSHMI PRABHA M to the Tamilnadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai, in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the Degree of Doctor of Medicine in Pharmacology during the academic period 2014 – 2017 is a bonafide research work carried out by her under direct supervision & guidance. PROFESSOR AND H.O.D. DEAN Department of Pharmacology, Tirunelveli Medical College, Tirunelveli Medical College, Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli. CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the dissertation entitled “EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF LULICONAZOLE (1%) CREAM VERSUS CLOTRIMAZOLE (1%) CREAM IN TINEA INFECTIONS OF SKIN - A COMPARATIVE STUDY” submitted by DR.LAKSHMI PRABHA M is an original work done by her in the Department of Pharmacology, Tirunelveli Medical College, Tirunelveli for the award of the Degree of Doctor of Medicine in Pharmacology during the academic period of 2014-2017. Place : Tirunelveli GUIDE Date : Department of Pharmacology Tirunelveli Medical College Tirunelveli. DECLARATION I solemnly declare that the dissertation titled “EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF LULICONAZOLE (1%) CREAM VERSUS CLOTRIMAZOLE (1%) CREAM IN TINEA INFECTIONS OF SKIN-A COMPARATIVE STUDY” is done by me in the Department of Pharmacology, Tirunelveli Medical College, Tirunelveli. The dissertation is submitted to The Tamilnadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University in partial fulfillment for the award of the degree of Doctor of Medicine in Pharmacology. Place: Tirunelveli DR. LAKSHMI PRABHA. M, Date: Postgraduate student, M.D Pharmacology, Department of Pharmacology, Tirunelveli Medical College, Tirunelveli-627011. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT First of all, I am grateful to the Almighty for the good health and wellbeing that were necessary to complete this research work. I am greatly indebted to Dr. K. Sithy Athiya Munavarah MD., Dean, Tirunelveli Medical College and Dr. S.M. Kannan MD., Vice Principal, Tirunelveli Medical College, Tirunelveli for their valuable support and generous permission for doing this research work. I wish to thank with due respect and deep gratitude to Dr. J.Ezhil Ramya M.D., Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Pharmacology for her inspiration, guidance and kind help rendered in completing this dissertation. I would like to express my deepest thanks to my guide Dr.B.Meenakshi M.D., Associate Professor for giving kind advices, aspiring guidance, motivation and encouragement throughout the research. I sincerely thank Dr.P. Nirmala Devi , M.D, Professor and HOD, Department of Dermatology for her support. With deep sense of gratitude, I thank the faculties of the department of dermatology and microbiology for sharing their implicit knowledge, support and encouragement during the course of this research work. I am immensely grateful to Dr. A. Dulcie Celia M.D., Assistant Professor, Dr.A.Geetha Rani M.D., Assistant Professor, & Dr. M. Shanthi M.D., Assistant Professor for their support and advice provided during the research work. I would like to thank the post graduates of Department of Pharmacology, for their friendly advice and sharing their illuminating views related to this study. I also express my sincere thanks to my family members for their moral support and encouragement to carry out this research successful as a postgraduate. CONTENTS S.No. Topics Page No. 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 4 3. AIM OF THE STUDY 60 4. METHODOLOGY 61 5. RESULTS 69 6. DISCUSSION 93 7. CONCLUSION 98 8. APPENDIX I. Informed Consent Form II. Study Proforma III. Master Chart 9. BIBILIOGRAPHY INTRODUCTION Dermatophytosis is a common superficial fungal infection of the stratum corneum, hair and nails which contain keratin (1, 2). The fungi causing dermatophytosis belongs to the genera Trichophyton, Microsporum and Epidermophyton (3, 4). The specific causative agents of tinea corporis and tinea cruris most commonly are Trichophyton mentagrophytes, Trichophyton rubrum and Microsporum canis (5). The prevalence of dermatophytosis is around 20-25% worldwide, and its incidence continues to rise (6). Age, sex, host factors, immunological factors, environmental conditions and variety of other epidemiological factors contribute to the development of dermatophyte infections. Direct microscopic examination with potassium hydroxide (KOH) mount and culture of dermatophytes in suitable media are the two most common investigations that can be done to establish the diagnosis of dermatophytosis. Pottasium hydroxide mount aids in the detection of fungal hyphal elements while the culture aids in the identification of species of dermatophytes (7, 8). The pathogenesis of dermatophytosis is unique because the fungi do not invade the living tissues. Dermatophytes can form colonies only in the keratin containing tissues of the host but the mere presence of dermatophytes or its products elicits an allergic and an inflammatory response in the host .The host response developed vary in type and severity according to the nature of the 1 particular species of dermatophyte causing the infection. The dermatophytes remain as the only fungi to be dependent on human or animal hosts for their survival and dissemination (9). Topical therapy is sufficient for the treatment of tinea infections however systemic agents are needed when the area of involvement is large or when there is secondary infection and also in immuno-compromised individuals(5). At present, topical azoles and allylamines remain as the treatment of dermatophytosis. The main disadvantage with those agents is long duration of therapy, which results in poor compliance and a high rate of relapse. Many newer agents are introduced with advantages like once-daily application, short duration of therapy and hence lower relapse rates (10).The traditional imidazole antifungal agent Clotrimazole is effective in the treatment of dermatophytosis with cure rate of 60-100% on applying twice daily for 4 weeks (11). The vast majority of antifungals are applied twice daily, although the newer ones introduced are applied only once daily. At present the research is focused towards shortening the frequency of application of antifungals and the duration of therapy in order to increase the patient compliance, to increase the cure rates and to decrease the relapse rates. In the past few years, many new extended-spectrum topical antifungals have been introduced into the market. Luliconazole is one among those drugs which offers a good efficacy and tolerability with a short duration of treatment (12). 2 Luliconazole is topical imidazole antifungal agent which inhibits the ergosterol biosynthesis more effectively. It requires only once daily application because the reservoir property in the stratum corneum is greater for luliconazole (13). The present study was done to compare the efficacy and safety of topical luliconazole versus topical clotrimazole in tinea infections of skin. 3 REVIEW OF LITERATURE HISTORY: Dermatophytes were the earliest fungi discovered to cause infection in human beings and this discovery marked the beginning of medical mycology(14).Dermatophytes were found to cause superficial skin infections.Greek Physicians were aware of ring worm infections. The earliest records of dermatophytosis were in 16th century by the Dutch explorers (14). Robert Remak (1835 )was the first person to identify the fungi isolated from the lesions by observing via the microscope as rods and cones(15).But the mycotic nature of these was described by Schonlein in 1839.The clinical features of dermatophyte infection was first described by David Gruby and he also demonstrated that dermatophytosis is contagious in nature(16). Raymond Sabouraud, a french dermatologist had classified the dermatophytes into four genera namely Achorion, Epidermophyton, Microsporum and Trichophyton. He published his work ‘Les Teignes’ in 1910.He was the person who described about the methods to culture dermatophytes and also about the therapy for such infection. Then Emmons eliminated the genus Achorion and modified the taxonomy to lay out the current classification of dermatophytes which includes only three genera (15). 4 NOMENCLATURE: The word 'Tinea' or 'dermatophytosis' refers to infections caused by dermatophytes. The word “Tinea” is derived from Latin and it means worm or ‘clothes moth’(15).The tinea infections are commonly referred as ringworm lesions due to the distinct ring shaped lesions(17).The tinea infections are usually named in accordance with the anatomic sites involved(18). CLASSIFICATION: Ecological classfication: Ecological classification of dermatophytosis is based on the host preference of these pathogenic fungi. The variation in keratin composition leads to the difference in their host preference (19). The three types of dermatophytes according to their host preference are as follows: Anthrophiles: The primary host of these fungi is human beings. These fungi might also affect animals. The primary mode of transmission is from human to human. Some examples for anthrophiles are Trichophyton