Anti-athlete's foot test: Winner of Öko-Test
Öko-Test has tested 19 agents for athlete's foot. The tested creams were not only examined for their effectiveness, but also for harmful ingredients. Some athlete's foot products are actually questionable and should be avoided. We will introduce you to the winner and which products still performed very well.
Öko-Test: 14 agents for athlete's foot are convincing
Summer is swimming pool time - and high season for athlete's foot. Since this does not go away on its own, there are numerous non-prescription athlete's foot medications for self-treatment.
- Of the 19 athlete's foot products tested, 14 received the top rating "very good" from Öko-Test (06/2018). With a price of EUR 2.90 for 20 grams, Aliud's Clotrimazole AL 1% Cream is the cheapest among the test winners.
- Not only was the effectiveness of the creams against athlete's foot tested. Declaration deficiencies in the package insert and questionable and controversial auxiliaries in the laboratory test also led to points being deducted.
Test result: Many creams and ointments work "very well" for athlete's foot
Athlete's foot can be treated effectively with almost all ointments and creams tested, according to Öko-Test.
- The Cloderm Cream 1% from Dermapharm is also cheap and "very good". This product also scored "very good" in all areas. Only the price of the cream is slightly higher at around 3.02 euros for 20 grams.
- The Ratiopharm fungicide ratiopharm cream is also a bargain with a price of less than 5 euros and a consistently very good test result.
- All agents rated "very good" contained active substances from the group of azoles or the active substances terbinafine or ciclopirox. The latter are not only characterized by a broad spectrum of activity against fungi, but also act against bacterial pathogens.
- You can read the details of the test at oekotest.de.
For the sake of health: Öko-Test takes a look at the ingredients
All medicines for athlete's foot passed the effectiveness test with "very good". It is therefore worth taking a closer look to see subtle differences:
- The difference in grading was made up of the auxiliary substances that were found in some ointments. MOSH (saturated hydrocarbons) has been detected as an auxiliary in eight products, sometimes in very high concentrations. They are deposited in the organs - studies on the health consequences are still missing.
- Aromatic mineral oil hydrocarbons (MOAH), which are considered carcinogenic even in small quantities, are even more serious. These auxiliaries were found in three athlete's foot preparations tested.
- Neither MOSH nor MOAH was discovered in the Bifon cream from Dermapharm, but the auxiliary chlorhexidine. Although this has an antibacterial effect, it can also trigger allergies. Because of these risks, the product was only rated "good".
- The Infecto thrush zinc ointment from Infectopharm was rated the worst by Öko-Test. At 15.73 euros per 20 grams, it was not only the most expensive ointment in the test. Here, the concentrations of MOSH and MOAH were so high that, despite the good effects, only the grade "satisfactory" could be assigned.
- Tip: This nasty shower mistake often causes athlete's foot
In our next health tip you will find more information about dental supplement insurance at Stiftung Warentest. Which are good and when are they superfluous?