Erratum: Intracutaneous pharmacokinetics of oral antifungals and their relevance in recalcitrant cutaneous dermatophytosis: Time to revisit basics

In the article titled “Intracutaneous pharmacokinetics of oral antifungals and their relevance in recalcitrant cutaneous dermatophytosis: Time to revisit basics” published in pages 730-2, issue 6, vol. 83 of Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology ^[1], the sentence “The time kill combination of concentration-independent killing and prolonged PAFEs suggest that the 24^th AUC/MIC parameter is most closely tied to treatment effect for triazoles.” in the first paragraph under the heading “Pharmacokinetics/Pharmacodynamics of Systemic Antifungals” is written incorrectly. The correct sentence should read as “The time kill combination of concentration-independent killing and prolonged PAFEs suggest that the 24 AUC/MIC parameter is most closely tied to treatment effect for triazoles.”

The sentences “Though TER was comparable to 200 mg/day ITR as an antidermatophyte drug, a dose of ITR of 200 mg twice a day had a faster onset of action than TER” and “This is because the levels achieved in the stratum corneum was the highest for daily FLU (66.4 μ(6gm) as compared to weekly FLU (23.4 ag/gm)” in the first and second paragraphs under the heading “Clinical Relevance of Skin Pharmacology of Systemic Antifungals” are written incorrectly. The correct sentences should read as “Though TER (250 mg/day) was comparable to 200 mg/day ITR as an antidermatophyte drug, a dose of ITR of 200 mg twice a day had a faster onset of action than TER.” and “This is because the levels achieved in the stratum corneum was the highest for daily FLU (66.4 μg/gm) as compared to weekly FLU (23.4 μg/gm).” respectively.