Association of Atopic Dermatitis With Bacterial, Fungal, Viral, and Sexually Transmitted Skin Infections.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is associated with altered skin barrier, microbiome, and immune dysregulation that may increase risk of skin infections. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine whether AD is associated with skin infections and related outcomes. METHODS: Data from the 2006 to 2012 National Emergency Department Sample were analyzed, including an approximately 20% sample of all US emergency department (ED) visits (N = 198,102,435 adults or children). RESULTS: Skin infections were increased in ED visits of adults (7.14% vs 3.76%) and children (5.15% vs 2.48%) with AD. In multivariable logistic regression models, AD was associated with significantly higher odds of skin infection in adults (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 1.93 [1.89-1.97]) and children (2.23 [2.16-2.31]). Pediatric and adult AD were associated with significantly higher odds of carbuncle/furuncles, impetigo, cellulitis, erysipelas, methicillin-resistant and methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus infections, molluscum contagiosum, cutaneous warts, herpes simplex and zoster viruses, eczema herpeticum, dermatophytosis, and candidiasis of skin/nails and vulva/urogenitals. Adults with AD had significantly higher odds of genital warts (1.51 [1.36-1.52]) and herpes (1.23 [1.11-1.35]). Skin infections were associated with US $19 million excess annual costs of ED care in persons with AD. CONCLUSIONS: Atopic dermatitis patients had higher odds of multiple bacterial, viral, fungal, and sexually transmitted skin infections.

Current concepts in systemic and topical therapy for superficial mycoses.

There presently exists a wide selection of choices in the treatment of superficial mycoses. The main categories of broad-spectrum agents are the allylamines and imidazoles, which have been tried and proven over more than 2 decades of usage with good safety. Nystatin and griseofulvin have even longer experience of about 5 decades but have niche usage for yeasts and dermatophytes, respectively. Although no new therapeutic groups have appeared, extensive development of vehicles and delivery systems has enhanced therapeutic results and increased patient compliance.

Cutaneous fungal infections in the United States: Analysis of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), 1995-2004.

BACKGROUND: Dermatophyte infections lead to high costs and differentially affect certain groups. Previous population studies have been limited in size, duration, and representativeness. METHODS: Using the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) (1995-2004), a cross-sectional analysis of ambulatory visits in the USA was performed. Outpatients presenting with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM)-coded diagnoses of tinea unguium, tinea corporis/manuum, tinea pedis, tinea capitis, and tinea cruris were identified. Trends, descriptive epidemiology, and point prevalence estimates for these conditions were determined using stratification and standardization. RESULTS: There was an estimated average of 4,124,038 +/- 202,977 annual visits for dermatophytoses during the study period. Tinea unguium, tinea corporis, tinea pedis, tinea capitis, and tinea cruris represented 23.2%, 20.4%, 18.8%, 15.0%, and 8.4%, respectively, of such infections; 71.6% of tinea unguium visits occurred among those older than 45 years. Tinea capitis was significantly more common among the black than the white population (prevalence odds ratio = 12.4; 95% confidence interval, 9.9-15.7). Ineffective treatment of tinea pedis, tinea corporis, and tinea cruris with polyenes, such as nystatin, commonly occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Improved healthcare provider education is needed to ensure judicious antidermatophyte drug management. Further studies, including proven diagnoses via fungal microscopy and culture, are needed to explain the prevalence discrepancy of tinea capitis among black children and tinea unguium in older adults, focusing on preventable risk factors.

Clotrimazole/betamethasone diproprionate: a review of costs and complications in the treatment of common cutaneous fungal infections.

The use of antifungal/corticosteroid combinations as topical therapy for dermatophytoses has been criticized as being less effective, more expensive, and the cause of more adverse cutaneous reactions than antifungal monotherapy. The combination of clotrimazole and betamethasone diproprionate (Lotrisone) is a mix of an azole antifungal and a high-potency corticosteroid, and is one of the most widely prescribed of these combinations. Our objective was to describe the beneficial and deleterious effects of Lotrisone in the treatment of common cutaneous fungal infections and its relative cost-effectiveness. We did a literature review documenting clinical trial data and adverse reactions to Lotrisone and collected a cost analysis of topical antifungal prescribing data over a 2-month period from a large midwestern staff-model health maintenance organization (HMO). Lotrisone is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of tinea pedis, tinea cruris, and tinea corporis in adults and children more than 12 years of age. Treatment is limited to 2 weeks in the groin area and 4 weeks on the feet. The most concerning adverse effects of Lotrisone were reported in children and included treatment failure, striae distensae, hirsuitism, and growth retardation. This combination was also reported to have decreased efficacy in clearing candidal and Trichophyton infections as compared to single-agent antifungals. Lotrisone was considerably more expensive than clotrimazole alone and was found to account for more than 50% of topical antifungal expenditures as prescribed by primary care physicians, but only 7% of topical antifungals prescribed by dermatologists. We found that Lotrisone was shown to have the potential to induce many steroid-related side effects and to be less cost effective than antifungal monotherapy. This combination should be used judiciously in the treatment of cutaneous fungal infections and may not be appropriate for use in children.

Terbinafine. A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of its use in superficial fungal infections.

Terbinafine is an orally and topically active allylamine antifungal drug which is an effective and well tolerated therapy for a wide range of superficial dermatophyte infections. In contrast to most other commonly prescribed antifungal agents, terbinafine is fungicidal in vitro and possesses improved pharmacokinetic properties with respect to drug penetration into nail tissue following oral administration. These properties enable terbinafine to achieve high success rates with shortened therapy regimens in the treatment of dermatophyte skin infections and onychomycosis. Pharmacoeconomic analyses have shown that oral terbinafine, with its higher rates of clinical efficacy and lower rates of relapse/reinfection, is less costly and more cost effective than oral griseofulvin, ketoconazole and itraconazole when used as initial therapy in the treatment of onychomycosis. However, some points regarding the clinical efficacy of itraconazole relative to terbinafine and the drug treatment regimens used in these studies need further clarification. In the management of tinea pedis, a cost analysis suggested that initial therapy with terbinafine 1% cream was more costly than initial therapy with miconazole, oxiconazole or clotrimazole. However, in cost-effectiveness studies, terbinafine had a lower cost per disease-free day than ciclopirox, clotrimazole, ketoconazole and miconazole in the treatment of dermatophyte skin infections. In conclusion, available clinical and pharmacoeconomic data support the use of topical terbinafine as first-line treatment of dermatophyte skin infections unless the acquisition cost of terbinafine is markedly greater than that of alternative topical antifungal agents. Oral terbinafine can be recommended as a cost-effective first-line treatment, preferable to oral griseofulvin, ketoconazole and itraconazole, in patients with dermatophyte onychomycosis.

A cost analysis of topical drug regimens for dermatophyte infections.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the extra cost of using higher-priced drugs as initial therapy for dermatophyte infections, because the many available effective drugs vary considerably in cost. DESIGN: Cost analysis from the purchaser's perspective, comparing two prototypical regimens to treat tinea pedis: one in which all patients initially receive a lower-priced drug and those with unresponsive infections receive a higher-priced drug at a follow-up office visit, and one in which all patients receive the higher-priced drug from the outset. The reference drug was miconazole, an imidazole available without a prescription, for which reported overall efficacy rates are 70% to 100%. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The threshold efficacy rate (the efficacy rate of miconazole below which it is always less expensive to use a specific higher-priced drug first) and the extra cost (of beginning therapy with a higher-priced drug). RESULTS: Assuming the Medicare-approved charge for a follow-up visit ($21.98), it is less expensive to begin therapy with a prescription drug only if the efficacy rate of miconazole is less than 55%; this threshold efficacy rate varied from 26% (for a $0 total cost of the follow-up visit) to 79% (for an $89 total cost of the follow-up visit). If the efficacy rate of miconazole is 70%, the extra cost per patient for all patients to receive the least expensive prescription antifungal drug instead of miconazole first was $15.23 and $8.64 if total visit costs were $0 and $21.98; miconazole remained the less expensive alternative as long as the total cost of the follow-up visit was less than $50.76. CONCLUSION: For reported efficacy rates and standard costs of a follow-up office visit, using miconazole first and then treating only those patients with unresponsive infections with a higher-priced prescription drug is less expensive than treating all patients with the higher-priced drug.