, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp 319–324 | Cite as

Cost Effectiveness of Oral Terbinafine (Lamisil®) Compared with Oral Fluconazole (Diflucan®) in the Treatment of Patients with Toenail Onychomycosis

  • Heini Salo
  • Markku Pekurinen
Original Research Article


Objective: To determine the cost effectiveness of terbinafine (Lamisil®)1 tablets compared with fluconazole (Diflucan® ) capsules in the treatment of patients with toenail onychomycosis.

Methods: Data from a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, multicentre study were used as the basis for this study. Terbinafine 250 mg/day for 12 weeks (n = 48) was compared with fluconazole 150mg once weekly for 12 weeks (n = 45) or 24 weeks (n = 44) in patients with culture-confirmed toenail onychomycosis caused by dermatophyte infection. At the end of the study (week 60), complete clinical cure of the target toenail was achieved in 67% of patients in the terbinafine group, compared with 21 and 32%, respectively, in the 12- and 24-week fluconazole groups. We subsequently used these data to calculate the cost effectiveness of the three treatment regimens, defining cost effectiveness as the cost per complete clinical cure of the target toenail at week 60.

Results: The cost effectiveness of terbinafine for each complete clinical cure was superior to that of either of the fluconazole regimens. Costs per cure were Finnish markka (Fmk) 2824 ($US618) for terbinafine, compared with Fmk3748 ($US820) and Fmk4922 ($US1077), respectively, for the two fluconazole regimens.

Conclusions: The clinical study showed that terbinafine was significantly more effective than fluconazole in the treatment of onychomycosis, achieving statistically higher rates of mycological and clinical cure. We have now shown that terbinafine is also more cost effective. These findings have important implications for both medical and social policy.


Cost Effectiveness Fluconazole Terbinafine Clinical Cure Mycological Cure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This study, and the clinical trial on which it is based, were supported by a grant from Novartis Finland Oy, Espoo, Finland.


  1. 1.
    Scher RK. Onychomycosis is more than a cosmetic problem. Br J Dermatol 1994; 130 Suppl. 43: 15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jaffe R. Onychomycosis: recognition and management. Arch Fam Med 1998; 7: 587–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roberts DT. Prevalence of dermatophyte onychomycosis in the United Kingdom: results of an omnibus survey. Br J Dermatol 1992; 126 Suppl. 39: 23–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sais G, Juggla A, Peyri J. Prevalence of dermatophyte onychomycosis in Spain: a cross-sectional study. Br J Dermatol 1995; 132: 758–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heikkila H, Stubb S. The prevalence of onychomycosis in Finland. Br J Dermatol 1995; 133: 699–703PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elewski BE, Charif MA. Prevalence of onychomycosis in patients attending a dermatology clinic in northeastern Ohio for other conditions [letter]. Arch Dermatol 1997; 133: 1172–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gudnadóttir G, Hilmarsdóttir I, Sigurgeirsson B. Onychomycosis in Icelandic swimmers. Acta Derm Venereol 1999; 79: 376–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Drugs approved by the FDA. Lamisil® (terbinafine hydrochloride) tablets [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2002 Mar 20]Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Scher RK, Breneman D, Rich P, et al. Once-weekly fluconazole (150, 300, or 450 mg) in the treatment of distal subungual onychomycosis of the toenail. J Am Acad Dermatol 1998; 38: 577–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Drake LA. Impact of onychomycosis on quality of life. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 1997; 87: 507–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Havu V, Heikkila H, Kuokkanen K, et al. A double-blind, randomised study to compare the efficacy and safety of terbinafine (Lamisil®) with fluconazole (Diflucan®) in the treatment of onychomycosis. Br J Dermatol 2000; 142: 97–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ryder NS, Favre B. Antifungal activity and mechanism of action of terbinafine. Rev Contemp Pharmacother 1997; 8: 275–87Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roberts DT. Onychomycosis: current treatment and future challenges. Br J Dermatol 1999; 141 Suppl. 56: 1–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Evans EGV. The clinical efficacy of terbinafine in the treatment of fungal infections of the skin. Rev Contemp Pharmacother 1997; 8: 325–41Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roberts DT. The clinical efficacy of terbinafine in the treatment of fungal infections of nails. Rev Contemp Pharmacother 1997; 8: 299–312Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Cuyper C. Long-term evaluation of terbinafine 250 and 500 mg daily in a 16-week oral treatment for toenail onychomycosis. Br J Dermatol 1996; 135: 156–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Drake LA, Shear NH, Arlette JP, et al. Oral terbinafine in the treatment of toenail onychomycosis: North American multicenter trial. J Am Acad Dermatol 1997; 37: 740–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Watson AB, Marley JE, Ellis DH, et al. Terbinafine in onychomycosis of the toenail: a novel treatment protocol. J Am Acad Dermatol 1995; 33: 775–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Faergemann J, Andreson C, Hersle K, et al. Double blind, parallel group comparison of terbinafine and griseofulvin in the treatment of toenail onychomycosis. J Am Acad Dermatol 1995; 32: 750–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hoffman H, Bräutigam M, Weidinger G, et al. Treatment of toenail onychomycosis: a randomized, double-blind study with terbinafine and griseofulvin. Arch Dermatol 1995; 131: 919–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bräutigam M, Nolting S, Schopf RE, et al., for the Seventh Lamisil German Onychomycosis Study Group. Randomised double blind comparison of terbinafine and itraconazole for treatment of toenail tinea infection. BMJ 1995; 311: 919–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    De Backer M, De Keyser P, De Vroey C, et al. A 12-week treatment for dermatophyte toe onychomycosis: terbinafine 250 mg/day vs itraconazole 200 mg/day: a double blind comparative trial. Br J Dermatol 1996; 134 Suppl. 46: 16–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Coldiron B. Recalcitrant onychomycosis of the toenails successfully treated with fluconazole. Arch Dermatol 1992; 18: 909–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Smith SW, Sealy DP, Schneider E, et al. An evaluation of the safety and efficacy of fluconazole in the treatment of onychomycosis. South Med J 1995; 88: 1217–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Grant SM, Clissold SP. Fluconazole: a review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic potential in superficial and systemic mycoses. Drugs 1990; 39: 877–916PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Watson AB, Marley JE, Ellis DH, et al. Long-term follow up of patients with toenail onychomycosis after treatment with terbinafine. Aust J Dermatol 1998; 39: 29–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Heikkila H, Stubb S. Long-term results of patients with onychomycosis treated with itraconazole. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1997; 77: 70–1Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heini Salo
    • 1
  • Markku Pekurinen
    • 1
  1. 1.Health Services Research LtdHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations