Skip to main content
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2025 Nov 10;68(11):e70129. doi: 10.1111/myc.70129

A High Estimated Prevalence of Onychomycosis Exists Among Danish Children

Tanja Roehmer Wriedt 1,, Lise Heilmann Jensen 2,3, Abdullah Mansouri 2, Kristoffer Nagy Skaastrup 1, Gregor Borut Ernst Jemec 1,3, Maiken Cavling Arendrup 4, Ditte Marie Lindhardt Saunte 1,3,4,5
PMCID: PMC12598667  PMID: 41208736

ABSTRACT

Background

The prevalence of onychomycosis among children is suspected to be increasing. The current global prevalence of paediatric onychomycosis ranges from 0% to 7.7%. Clinical observations in Denmark suggest the same but to our knowledge no study exists estimating the prevalence of onychomycosis among Danish children.

Objective

The aim of the study was therefore to estimate this prevalence.

Methods

Children and their siblings were included upon visiting the Paediatric Department, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark. The children and their legal guardian, if under the age of 15 years, were asked to answer a questionnaire, and the children had their finger‐ and toenails photographed. Children with nail abnormalities suggestive of onychomycosis were offered a referral to the Department of Dermatology, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark for clinical and mycological examination.

Results

A total of 170 children with a mean age of 6.9 years were included. Ninety‐seven (57.1%) were boys and a total of 46.5% of the children were healthy. Twenty‐nine children had nail abnormalities, and 23 accepted a referral to the Department of Dermatology. Four children had onychomycosis, all caused by T. rubrum , resulting in an estimated prevalence of 2.4% (CI 0.6%–5.9%).

Conclusion

The estimated prevalence (2.4%) of onychomycosis among Danish children is higher than expected compared to other European countries, but larger studies are needed to validate these findings. This supports the suggestion of an increasing prevalence of paediatric onychomycosis.

Keywords: child, onychomycosis, paediatrics, prevalence, tinea

1. Introduction

Onychomycosis, a fungal nail infection, is the most prevalent nail disease, with an estimated global prevalence of 10% in the adult population [1]. The prevalence among children varies depending on geographical region with a global prevalence ranging from 0% to 7.7% [2, 3]. It is estimated that 15% of nail dystrophies in children are caused by onychomycosis in contrast to 50% in adults [4, 5]. Several studies from multiple countries suggest that onychomycosis among children is increasing [2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9]. The lower prevalence of onychomycosis in children, as compared with adults, can be explained by several factors. Children are known to have a good peripheral blood supply, a history of fewer nail traumas, faster outgrowth of the nail plate, and they have probably been exposed less to environments with fungal elements [4]. General risk factors for developing tinea unguium are increasing age, male sex, warm and humid environment, using public bathing facilities and comorbidities such as diabetes, vascular disorders, Down syndrome and immunosuppression [10].

Childhood onychomycosis mostly affects toenails distally and laterally [2, 4, 11, 12]. It usually progresses from tinea pedis to the nail plate [13, 14], but the infected nail can also act as a reservoir for tinea pedis [15]. The most common pathogens causing onychomycosis are dermatophytes, especially Trichophyton (T.) rubrum [2, 16]. A study found that non‐dermatophyte onychomycosis in children younger than 3 years is primarily caused by Candida (C.) albicans [8], but C. glabrata has also been described in the literature [2]. The authors do not specify if it is finger or toenails, but a correlation between finger sucking and onychomycosis of the fingernails caused by Candida species has been shown [13].

Early diagnosis and treatment of onychomycosis are key to minimising societal spread. Clinical observations suggest an increased prevalence of onychomycosis among Danish children. However, to our knowledge, no systematic studies of the prevalence of onychomycosis among children exist.

2. Method

This study is cross‐sectional and includes hospitalised children and their siblings visiting the Paediatric Department, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark. Inclusion criteria were age between 4 weeks and 18 years, resident in Region Zealand, Denmark and a signed informed consent by the legal guardian or the patient (if the patient was ≥ 15 years). Children were excluded if they were referred for onychomycosis.

A questionnaire regarding the child's background information (name, sex, age, and their central person register number (CPR)), familial predisposition to skin diseases (psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, fungal infections), former dermatological diseases (e.g., atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, tinea), and current health status including immunosuppression was completed by the legal guardian and/or the child (if ≥ 15 years old) with assistance from a healthcare professional. All study participants had their finger‐ and toenails photographed, any nail abnormality was noted, and all photos were evaluated by two independent healthcare professionals (TRW and KNS and in cases of disagreement DMS).

All children with nail abnormalities suggesting onychomycosis were offered a referral to the Department of Dermatology, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark for clinical and mycological examination and treatment. Mycological identification was performed as per routine at the national reference laboratory at Statens Serum Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark [14], using microscopy and culture and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis [17, 18, 19].

Children were treated according to Danish and international guidelines, with terbinafine as the first‐line systemic therapy [20, 21, 22]. Systemic antifungals were given for extensive infection and topical therapy for mild disease. All patients were monitored with routine blood tests and mycological follow‐up (culture) as part of standard dermatological care.

2.1. Ethics

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee for Scientific Research in Region Zealand, Denmark (study number SJ‐908 and record number REG‐052‐2021).

2.2. Statistics

A sample size calculation was performed using Epitools (https://epitools.ausvet.com.au/prevalencess) with the assumption that the true prevalence of onychomycosis among children is 0.05% with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The calculated sample size required was 164 children. RStudio version 2022.12.0 was used to perform the statistical analysis. The prevalence of onychomycosis was calculated using binomial tests.

3. Results

A total of 170 children were included from April 2021 to January 2023. The mean age was 6.9 years and 97 (57.1%) were boys. A total of 46.5% of the children included were healthy according to the questionnaire, while the rest were either sick or answered ‘other’ which was often used if the child had no diagnosis and was being assessed by the doctors at the paediatric department. Only one pair of siblings was included, a brother and a sister.

A total of 29 children had nail abnormalities indicating onychomycosis and 23 of them accepted a referral to the Department of Dermatology, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark. Four children were diagnosed with toenail onychomycosis (Table 2). The prevalence of onychomycosis among children was estimated to be 2.4% (95% CI: 0.6%–5.9%). Of the four children with onychomycosis three were male and the average age was 10 years (6–13 years). All were healthy except one who suffered from a rare genetic abnormality affecting the nervous system. One of the four had previously suffered from a dermatological disease (eczema). None reported hereditary dispositions. All nail abnormalities were located on the toenails, especially toenail numbers 3–5 (Table 1).

TABLE 2.

Characteristic of children with onychomycosis and mycology results.

Children ID 9 60 115 123
Sex Female Male Male Male
Age, years (mean 9.75) 10 10 6 13
The child's current condition Healthy Healthy Healthy Rare genetic neurologic disorder
Previous dermatologic disease None Eczema None None
Hereditary dispositions None None None None
Location of nail abnormalities Toenails L3‐L5 Toenails R4‐R5 Toenail L4 Toenails R4 and L4
Microscopy Fungal septate hyphae Fungal septate hyphae Negative Fungal septate hyphae
Culture T. rubrum Negative Negative Negative
Dermatophyte PCR T. rubrum T. rubrum T. rubrum T. rubrum

Abbreviations: ID, identification number; L, left; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; R, right; T., Trichophyton.

TABLE 1.

Children's demography and clinical characteristics.

Characteristics (%) Children included (n a  = 170)
Male sex 97 (57.1%)
Mean age, years (IQR b ) 6.9 (2–11)
The child's current condition
Healthy 79 (46.5%)
Sick 69 (40.6%)
Asthma/allergy 7 (4.1%)
Gastrointestinal diseases 3 (1.8%)
Diabetes type one 21 (12.4%)
Infection 17 (10%)
Urogenital disease 3 (1.8%)
Motor apparatus disease 1 (0.6%)
Neurological disease 5 (2.9%)
Genetic abnormality or syndrome 5 (2.9%)
Psychiatric disease 2 (1.2%)
Other endocrine disorder 2 (1.2%)
Autoimmune disease 2 (1.2%)
Unknown/undiagnosed 2 (1.2%)
Dermatologic condition c , d 5 (2.9%)
Other 22 (12.9%)
Undiagnosed 15 (8.8%)
Conditions parents did not regard a disease 5 (2.9%)
Previous dermatologic disease 45 (26.5%)
Atopic dermatitis 13 (7.6%)
Psoriasis 4 (2.4%)
Tinea 3 (1.8%)
Fungal infections e 4 (2.4%)
Other dermatologic diseases 24 (14.1%)
Hereditary predispositions to dermatologic diseases 70 (77.8%)
Psoriasis 37 (52.9%)
Eczema 41 (58.6%)
Immunosuppression 5 (7.1%)
Innate 3 (4.3%)
Acquired 0
Unknown 2 (2.9%)
Diabetes 27 (38.6%)
Fungal infections in immediate family members 20 (11.8%)
Children with onychomycosis nail abnormalities 29 (17.1%)
Fingernails 1 (0.6%)
Toenails 29 (17.1%)
Both finger& toenails 1 (0.6%)
Children accepting referral for clinical and mycological examination and treatment 23 (13.5%)
Children tested positive for onychomycosis 4 (2.35%)
a

n = number of children included.

b

IQR: Interquartile range.

c

Including conditions from both “other” and “sick” children in the questionnaire.

d

Hemangioma, Pachyonychia congenita, hives, seborrheic dermatitis and Henoch‐Schönlein purpura.

e

Oral Candida infection, onychomycosis, Candida intertrigo.

3.1. Mycology

T. rubrum was the pathogen in all four cases (Table 2). One additional child (ID number 161) had fungal hyphae detected microscopically, but culture and dermatophyte PCR were negative. The test was repeated after 2 months where no hyphae were detected, and the sample was again culture and PCR negative. When examined clinically a suspicion of nail psoriasis with colonization of an unspecified fungus was raised. The child was therefore registered as a child without onychomycosis.

4. Discussion

The prevalence of onychomycosis was 2.4% (95% CI: 0.6%–5.9%), but may be an underestimate for children in general as the prevalence is increasing with age and the mean age of children in this study was only 6.9 years (inter quartile range at 2–11 years) [11, 12, 23]. Furthermore, children under the age of 2 years rarely have onychomycosis [24]. A systematic review by Vestergaard‐Jensen et al. found that the prevalence of paediatric onychomycosis is increasing and that the latest estimates for paediatric prevalence are much lower (range 0%–0.2%) in other European countries compared to the prevalence found in this study among Danish children [2]. The higher prevalence of toenail onychomycosis as compared with fingernails is in alignment with other studies [2, 12].

When including children from the paediatric department, siblings of these children were also offered a chance to participate in the study. This could affect the prevalence given that the risk of having onychomycosis increases if a family member has the infection [4, 12]. However, only one pair of siblings was included, and they were screened negative. Other potential limitations are that the included children had contact with the healthcare system and therefore, to some extent, had affected health which could influence the prevalence of onychomycosis estimated in this study. The study made use of a screening questionnaire with self‐reported data risking biases, including selective memory and recall bias. Finally, the sample size was relatively small, resulting in a limited number of children with onychomycosis. Consequently, the scope of statistical analysis was restricted, as conducting a χ 2‐test was not feasible in a statistically responsible manner.

It was unexpected to find that none of the children with type 1 diabetes had onychomycosis, despite it being known to be a risk factor in the general population [10]. This finding raises the possibility that diabetes may not be significant for paediatric onychomycosis. A similar conclusion was reported in another study examining onychomycosis in 59 children, in which no association between fungal infection and diabetes was identified [13].

Comparing the results with the prevalence of onychomycosis among Danish adults, the prevalences are surprisingly similar. Twenty years ago Svejgaard et al. estimated the prevalence of onychomycosis among Danish adults to be 4.9%, where the majority were caused by dermatophytes [25]. Given the high prevalence of onychomycosis among children estimated in this study and that the global prevalence for adults is currently estimated to be 10% [1], one would also expect an increased prevalence among Danish adults as well.

Children diagnosed with onychomycosis were all infected with the dermatophyte T. rubrum . Dermatophytes are the most prevalent cause of onychomycosis (and tinea pedis) in both children [2, 12, 16] and adults [26, 27]. In the adult Danish population the prevalence of tinea pedis is estimated to be 4.1% [25]. This indicates that the mycological findings correlate between adults and children.

In conclusion, our study revealed a prevalence of onychomycosis among Danish children at 2.4% (95% CI: 0.6%–5.9%). The prevalence seems high compared to previously published prevalences in other European countries [2], but larger studies are needed to validate these findings.

Author Contributions

Tanja Roehmer Wriedt: writing – review and editing, investigation, writing – original draft, data curation, formal analysis, software. Lise Heilmann Jensen: conceptualization, investigation, writing – review and editing, supervision, visualization. Abdullah Mansouri: conceptualization, investigation, writing – review and editing, visualization. Kristoffer Nagy Skaastrup: conceptualization, investigation, funding acquisition, writing – review and editing. Gregor Borut Ernst Jemec: conceptualization, investigation, writing – review and editing, visualization. Maiken Cavling Arendrup: conceptualization, investigation, methodology, writing – review and editing, visualization, resources. Ditte Marie Lindhardt Saunte: conceptualization, investigation, funding acquisition, writing – review and editing, writing – original draft, supervision, project administration, validation, visualization, data curation.

Conflicts of Interest

L.H.J., A.M., K.N.S.: declare no conflicts of interest. G.B.E.J.: Honoraria from AbbVie, Moonlake, Novartis, UCB, and Union Therapeutics for participation on advisory boards, and grants from Abbvie, CSL, Inflarx, Janssen‐Cilag, Leo Pharma, Moonlake, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi and for participation as an investigator. He has also received unrestricted departmental grants from Novartis. M.C.A. has over the past 5 years received research grants/contract work (paid to the SSI) from Amplyx, Basilea, Cidara, F2G, Gilead, and Scynexis, and speaker honoraria (personal fee) from Astellas, Chiesi, Gilead, MSD, SEGES and F2G. She is the current chairperson of the EUCAST‐AFST. D.M.L.S.: honoraria as a consultant for advisory board meetings by Sanofi, LeoPharma, Novartis, UCB and as a speaker and/or received grants from the following companies: Galderma, Novartis, Sanofi, Jamjoom Pharma and Leo Pharma during the past 3 years.

Acknowledgements

The study did not receive funding and was based on voluntary participation. The authors thank the parents and children for participation and our colleagues at the Department of Paediatrics, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark for their assistance. Susanne Rosthoej from the Biostatistical Department, University of Copenhagen is acknowledged for her statistical guidance.

Wriedt T. R., Jensen L. H., Mansouri A., et al., “A High Estimated Prevalence of Onychomycosis Exists Among Danish Children,” Mycoses 68, no. 11 (2025): e70129, 10.1111/myc.70129.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  • 1. Maskan Bermudez N., Rodríguez‐Tamez G., Perez S., and Tosti A., “Onychomycosis: Old and New,” Journal of Fungi 9, no. 5 (2023): 559. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Vestergaard‐Jensen S., Mansouri A., Jensen L. H., Jemec G. B. E., and Saunte D. M. L., “Systematic Review of the Prevalence of Onychomycosis in Children,” Pediatric Dermatology 39, no. 6 (2022): 855–865. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Rodríguez‐Pazos L., Pereiro‐Ferreirós M. M., Pereiro M., and Toribio J., “Onychomycosis Observed in Children Over a 20‐Year Period,” Mycoses 54, no. 5 (2011): 450–453. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Gupta A. K., Venkataraman M., Shear N. H., and Piguet V., “Onychomycosis in Children ‐ Review on Treatment and Management Strategies,” Journal of Dermatological Treatment 33, no. 3 (2022): 1213–1224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Gupta A. K., Versteeg S. G., and Shear N. H., “Onychomycosis in the 21st Century: An Update on Diagnosis, Epidemiology, and Treatment,” Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery 21, no. 6 (2017): 525–539. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Gulgun M., Balci E., Karaoglu A., et al., “Prevalence and Risk Factors of Onychomycosis in Primary School Children Living in Rural and Urban Areas in Central Anatolia of Turkey,” Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology 79, no. 6 (2013): 777–782. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Sigurgeirsson B., Kristinsson K. G., and Jonasson P. S., “Onychomycosis in Icelandic Children,” Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 20, no. 7 (2006): 796–799, 10.1111/j.1468-3083.2006.01631.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Lange M., Roszkiewicz J., Szczerkowska‐Dobosz A., Jasiel‐Walikowska E., and Bykowska B., “Onychomycosis Is No Longer a Rare Finding in Children,” Mycoses 49, no. 1 (2006): 55–59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Leibovici V., Evron R., Dunchin M., Westerman M., and Ingber A., “A Population‐Based Study of Toenail Onychomycosis in Israeli Children,” Pediatric Dermatology 26, no. 1 (2009): 95–97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Sasagawa Y., “Internal Environment of Footwear Is a Risk Factor for Tinea Pedis,” Journal of Dermatology 46, no. 11 (2019): 940–946. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Vásquez‐del Mercado E. and Arenas R., “Onychomycosis Among Children. A Retrospective Study of 233 Mexican Cases,” Gaceta Médica de México 144, no. 1 (2008): 7–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Song G., Zhang M., Liu W., and Liang G., “Children Onychomycosis, a Neglected Dermatophytosis: A Retrospective Study of Epidemiology and Treatment,” Mycoses 66, no. 5 (2023): 448–454. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Kim D. M., Suh M. K., and Ha G. Y., “Onychomycosis in Children: An Experience of 59 Cases,” Annals of Dermatology 25, no. 3 (2013): 327–334. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Astvad K. M. T., Hare R. K., Jørgensen K. M., Saunte D. M. L., Thomsen P. K., and Arendrup M. C., “Increasing Terbinafine Resistance in Danish Trichophyton Isolates 2019‐2020,” Journal of Fungi 8, no. 2 (2022): 150. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Tosti A. and Elewski B. E., “Onychomycosis: Practical Approaches to Minimize Relapse and Recurrence,” Skin Appendage Disorders 2, no. 1–2 (2016): 83–87. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Solís‐Arias M. P. and García‐Romero M. T., “Onychomycosis in Children. A Review,” International Journal of Dermatology 56, no. 2 (2017): 123–130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Brillowska‐Dąbrowska A., Saunte D. M., and Arendrup M. C., “Five‐Hour Diagnosis of Dermatophyte Nail Infections With Specific Detection of Trichophyton Rubrum,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology 45, no. 4 (2007): 1200–1204. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Brillowska‐Dabrowska A., Nielsen S. S., Nielsen H. V., and Arendrup M. C., “Optimized 5‐Hour Multiplex PCR Test for the Detection of Tinea Unguium: Performance in a Routine PCR Laboratory,” Medical Mycology 48, no. 6 (2010): 828–831. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Brillowska‐Dabrowska A., Swierkowska A., Lindhardt Saunte D. M., and Arendrup M. C., “Diagnostic PCR Tests for Microsporum Audouinii, M. canis and Trichophyton Infections,” Medical Mycology 48, no. 3 (2010): 486–490. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. “Guidelines for Superficielle Svampeinfektioner,” 2012, http://dds.nu/wp‐content/uploads/2012/08/Guidelines‐for‐superficielle‐svampeinfektioner_version‐2.pdf.
  • 21. Krob A. H., Fleischer A. B., D'Agostino R., and Feldman S. R., “Terbinafine Is More Effective Than Itraconazole in Treating Toenail Onychomycosis: Results From a Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials,” Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery 7, no. 4 (2003): 306–311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Gupta A. K., Ryder J. E., and Johnson A. M., “Cumulative Meta‐Analysis of Systemic Antifungal Agents for the Treatment of Onychomycosis,” British Journal of Dermatology 150, no. 3 (2004): 537–544. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Gupta A. K., Mays R. R., Versteeg S. G., Shear N. H., and Friedlander S. F., “Onychomycosis in Children: Safety and Efficacy of Antifungal Agents,” Pediatric Dermatology 35, no. 5 (2018): 552–559. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Chu D. H. and Rubin A. I., “Diagnosis and Management of Nail Disorders in Children,” Pediatric Clinics of North America 61, no. 2 (2014): 293–308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Svejgaard E. L. and Nilsson J., “Onychomycosis in Denmark: Prevalence of Fungal Nail Infection in General Practice,” Mycoses 47, no. 3–4 (2004): 131–135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Ilkit M. and Durdu M., “Tinea Pedis: The Etiology and Global Epidemiology of a Common Fungal Infection,” Critical Reviews in Microbiology 41, no. 3 (2015): 374–388. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Lipner S. R. and Scher R. K., “Onychomycosis: Clinical Overview and Diagnosis,” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 80, no. 4 (2019): 835–851. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.


Articles from Mycoses are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES