Itraconazole and terbinafine in perspective: from petri dish to patient

[[[ Objective: ]]] To compare the antifungal activity of itraconazole and terbinafine in vitro and to relate them to their experimental in vivo activity and to their efficacy in patients with superficial fungal infections (tinea pedis and onychomycosis). [[[ Results: ]]] Fungal infections such as onychomycosis and tinea pedis are often treated with oral antifungals. With the introduction of newer agents such as terbinafine and itraconazole, efficacy and safety have been improved. In vitro evaluation showed somewhat better results against dermatophytes for terbinafine than for itraconazole, but in vivo results were at least equivalent. Moreover, itraconazole is a broad-spectrum agent with higher cure rates for infections other than dermatophytosis (e.g. for Candida infections) than terbinafine, according to ex vivo studies. A review of all published clinical trials, comparing the efficacy and safety of terbinafine and itraconazole in a meta-analysis revealed similar and high cure rates (>70%) for both antifungal agents and similar adverse event profiles. Both treatments were safe and well tolerated. [[[ Conclusions: ]]] Antifungal research has responded to the challenges of treating superficial infections by developing effective, well-tolerated, fast-acting antifungal therapies. The reduction in treatment duration has also led to improved patient’s compliance. The most noticeable difference between itraconazole and terbinafine is the 1-week pulse concept of itraconazole in contrast to the continuous treatment concept of terbinafine.