-
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2015Vulvovaginal candidiasis is estimated to be the second most common cause of vaginitis after bacterial vaginosis. Candida albicans accounts for 85% to 90% of cases. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Vulvovaginal candidiasis is estimated to be the second most common cause of vaginitis after bacterial vaginosis. Candida albicans accounts for 85% to 90% of cases.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of drug treatments for acute vulvovaginal candidiasis in non-pregnant symptomatic women? What are the effects of alternative or complementary treatments for acute vulvovaginal candidiasis in non-pregnant symptomatic women? What are the effects of treating asymptomatic non-pregnant women with a positive swab for candidiasis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to October 2013 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 23 studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: alternative or complementary treatments; douching; drug treatments; garlic; intravaginal preparations (nystatin, imidazoles, tea tree oil); oral fluconazole; oral itraconazole; and yoghurt containing Lactobacillus acidophilus (oral or intravaginal).
Topics: Antifungal Agents; Candidiasis, Vulvovaginal; Complementary Therapies; Female; Fluconazole; Humans; Itraconazole; Yogurt
PubMed: 25775428
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (RVVC) affects up to 5% of women. No comprehensive systematic review of treatments for RVVC has been published. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (RVVC) affects up to 5% of women. No comprehensive systematic review of treatments for RVVC has been published.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective was to assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for RVVC. The secondary objective was to assess patient preference of treatment options.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted electronic searches of bibliographic databases, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL (search date 6 October 2021). We also handsearched reference lists of identified trials and contacted authors of identified trials, experts in RVVC, and manufacturers of products for vulvovaginal candidiasis.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials evaluating RVVC treatments for at least six months, in women with four or more symptomatic episodes of vulvovaginal candidiasis in the past year. We excluded women with immunosuppressive disorders or taking immunosuppressant medication. We included women with diabetes mellitus and pregnant women. Diagnosis of RVVC must have been confirmed by presence of symptoms and a positive culture and/or microscopy. We included all drug and non-drug therapies and partner treatment, assessing the following primary outcomes: • number of clinical recurrences per participant per year (recurrence defined as clinical signs and positive culture/microscopy); • proportion of participants with at least one clinical recurrence during the treatment and follow-up period; and • adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts to identify eligible trials. Duplicate data extraction was completed independently by two authors. We assessed risk of bias as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used the fixed-effects model for pooling and expressed the results as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where important statistical heterogeneity was present we either did not pool data (I > 70%) or used a random-effects model (I 40-70%). We used the GRADE tool to assess overall certainty of the evidence for the pooled primary outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
Studies: Twenty-three studies involving 2212 women aged 17 to 67 years met the inclusion criteria. Most studies excluded pregnant women and women with diabetes or immunosuppression. The predominant species found on culture at study entry was Candida albicans. Overall, the included studies were small (<100 participants). Six studies compared antifungal treatment with placebo (607 participants); four studies compared oral versus topical antifungals (543 participants); one study compared different oral antifungals (45 participants); two studies compared different dosing regimens for antifungals (100 participants); one study compared two different dosing regimens of the same topical agent (23 participants); one study compared short versus longer treatment duration (26 participants); two studies assessed the effect of partner treatment (98 participants); one study compared a complementary treatment (Lactobacillus vaginal tablets and probiotic oral tablets) with placebo (34 participants); three studies compared complementary medicine with antifungals (354 participants); two studies compared 'dermasilk' briefs with cotton briefs (130 participants); one study examined Lactobacillus vaccination versus heliotherapy versus ciclopyroxolamine (90 participants); one study compared CAM treatments to an antifungal treatment combined with CAM treatments (68 participants). We did not find any studies comparing different topical antifungals. Nine studies reported industry funding, three were funded by an independent source and eleven did not report their funding source. Risk of bias: Overall, the risk of bias was high or unclear due to insufficient blinding of allocation and participants and poor reporting. Primary outcomes: Meta-analyses comparing drug treatments (oral and topical) with placebo or no treatment showed there may be a clinically relevant reduction in clinical recurrence at 6 months (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.63; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 2; participants = 607; studies = 6; I² = 82%; low-certainty evidence) and 12 months (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.89; NNTB = 6; participants = 585; studies = 6; I² = 21%; low-certainty evidence). No study reported on the number of clinical recurrences per participant per year. We are very uncertain whether oral drug treatment compared to topical treatment increases the risk of clinical recurrence at 6 months (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.83 to 3.31; participants = 206; studies = 3; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence) and reduces the risk of clinical recurrence at 12 months (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.27; participants = 206; studies = 3; I² = 10%; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported on the number of clinical recurrences per participant per year. Adverse events were scarce across both treatment and control groups in both comparisons. The reporting of adverse events varied amongst studies, was generally of very low quality and could not be pooled. Overall the adverse event rate was low for both placebo and treatment arms and ranged from less than 5% to no side effects or complications.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In women with RVVC, treatment with oral or topical antifungals may reduce symptomatic clinical recurrences when compared to placebo or no treatment. We were unable to find clear differences between different treatment options (e.g. oral versus topical treatment, different doses and durations). These findings are not applicable to pregnant or immunocompromised women and women with diabetes as the studies did not include or report on them. More research is needed to determine the optimal medication, dose and frequency.
Topics: Antifungal Agents; Candidiasis, Oral; Candidiasis, Vulvovaginal; Female; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Pregnancy
PubMed: 35005777
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009151.pub2 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Apr 2021The use of probiotics in reproductive-related dysbiosis is an area of continuous progress due to the growing interest from clinicians and patients suffering from... (Review)
Review
The use of probiotics in reproductive-related dysbiosis is an area of continuous progress due to the growing interest from clinicians and patients suffering from recurrent reproductive microbiota disorders. An imbalance in the natural colonization sites related to reproductive health-vaginal, cervicovaginal, endometrial, and pregnancy-related altered microbiota-could play a decisive role in reproductive outcomes. Oral and vaginal administrations are in continuous discussion regarding the clinical effects pursued, but the oral route is used and studied more often despite the need for further transference to the colonization site. The aim of the present review was to retrieve the standardized protocols of vaginal probiotics commonly used for investigating their microbiota modulation capacities. Most of the studies selected focused on treating bacterial vaginosis (BV) as the most common dysbiosis; a few studies focused on vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) and on pretreatment during in vitro fertilization (IVF). Vaginal probiotic doses administered were similar to oral probiotics protocols, ranging from ≥10 CFU/day to 2.5 × 10 CFU/day, but were highly variable regarding the treatment duration timing. Moderate vaginal microbiota modulation was achieved; the relative abundance of abnormal microbiota decreased and species increased.
PubMed: 33918150
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10071461 -
Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences Sep 2023Vulvovaginal candidiasis is one of the most common vaginal infections worldwide. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effect of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Vulvovaginal candidiasis is one of the most common vaginal infections worldwide. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effect of probiotics in the treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis.
METHODS
A comprehensive search of databases including PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Scientific Information Database (SID), IranMedex, and Google Scholar search engine was performed. The search was conducted from inception to 1 October 2022, to identify published English or Persian language randomized control trials (RCTs) of women with vulvovaginal candidiasis who received probiotics as medical treatment. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine checklist All statistical analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-analysis (CMA) version 2.
RESULTS
Six RCTs were included in this review. The results showed that treatment with probiotic was not different from placebo regarding the rate of positive culture (OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.390 to 3.26, P=0.825); treatment with probiotic was more effective compared to placebo regarding the rate of recurrence. (OR: 0.14; P= 0.01; 95 % CI: 0.028-0.7).
CONCLUSION
Probiotics have a beneficial effect in the treatment of women with vulvovaginal candidiasis. Our results provide evidence for an alternative treatment modality for vaginal candidiasis using probiotics.
Topics: Candidiasis, Vulvovaginal; Probiotics; Humans; Female; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38784519
DOI: 10.4314/ejhs.v33i5.18 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2017Vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) is estimated to be the second most common form of infection after bacterial vaginosis. The ability of probiotics in maintaining and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) is estimated to be the second most common form of infection after bacterial vaginosis. The ability of probiotics in maintaining and recovering the normal vaginal microbiota, and their potential ability to resist Candidas give rise to the concept of using probiotics for the treatment of VVC.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of probiotics for the treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis in non-pregnant women.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases to October 2017: Sexually Transmitted Infections Cochrane Review Group's Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and eight other databases. We searched in following international resources: World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, Web of Science and OpenGrey. We checked specialty journals, reference lists of published articles and conference proceedings. We collected information from pharmaceutical companies and experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCT) using probiotics, alone or as adjuvants to conventional antifungal drugs, to treat VVC in non-pregnant women. Trials recruiting women with recurrent VVC, coinfection with other vulvovaginal infections, diabetes mellitus, immunosuppressive disorders or taking immunosuppressant medication were ineligible for inclusion. Probiotics were included if they were made from single or multiple species and in any preparation type/dosage/route of administration.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and quality and extracted data. We resolved any disagreements through consensus. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Ten RCTs (1656 participants) met our inclusion criteria, and pharmaceutical industry funded none of these trials. All trials used probiotics as adjuvant therapy to antifungal drugs. Probiotics increased the rate of short-term clinical cure (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.24, 695 participants, 5 studies, low quality evidence) and mycological cure (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.10, 969 participants, 7 studies, low quality evidence) and decreased relapse rate at one month (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.68, 388 participants, 3 studies, very low quality evidence). However, this effect did not translate into a higher frequency of long-term clinical cure (one month after treatment: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.33, 172 participants, 1 study, very low quality evidence; three months after treatment: RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70, 172 participants, one study, very low quality evidence) or mycological cure (one month after treatment: RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.71, 627 participants, 3 studies, very low quality evidence; three months after treatment: RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.35, 172 participants, one study, very low quality evidence). Probiotics use did not increase the frequency of serious (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.94; 440 participants, 2 studies, low quality evidence). We found no eligible RCTs for outcomes as time to first relapse, need for additional treatment at the end of therapy, patient satisfaction and cost effectiveness.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low and very low quality evidence shows that, compared with conventional treatment, the use of probiotics as an adjuvant therapy could increases the rate of short-term clinical and mycological cure and decrease the relapse rate at one month but this did not translate into a higher frequency of long-term clinical or mycological cure. Probiotics use does not seem to increase the frequency of serious or non-serious adverse events. There is a need for well-designed RCTs with standardized methodologies, longer follow-up and larger sample size.
Topics: Administration, Intravaginal; Antifungal Agents; Candidiasis, Vulvovaginal; Clotrimazole; Female; Fluconazole; Humans; Imidazoles; Miconazole; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 29168557
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010496.pub2 -
Journal of Infection in Developing... Aug 2022Vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) is a yeast infection of the vulva, which is caused by Candida species and affects women worldwide. Pregnant women are more vulnerable to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) is a yeast infection of the vulva, which is caused by Candida species and affects women worldwide. Pregnant women are more vulnerable to VVC due to certain risks. Moreover, their offspring are also exposed to the risk of preterm birth. In this context, ascertaining the burden of VVC is of paramount importance and this meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the occurrence of VVC among pregnant women in Africa.
METHODOLOGY
Database search was carried out through PubMed, Scopus, Science-Direct, and Google Scholar from the date of inception until December 2020. All the studies on the prevalence of VVC among African pregnant women were included in the analysis. The pooled prevalence was estimated based on the Random-effect model DerSimonian-Laird approach with Freeman- Tukey double arcsine transformed proportion. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 test and subsequently explored using subgroup and meta-regression analysis.
RESULTS
A total of Sixteen records having a sample size 4,185 were included in this study. The overall prevalence of VVC was pooled at 29.2% (CI 95%: 23.4 - 33.0). Subgroup analysis revealed a higher prevalence in Eastern Africa, followed by Western Africa and North Africa (35%, 28%, and 15% respectively). Moderator analysis indicated that the studies that used advanced methods of detection had a higher prevalence (p = 0.048). In addition, the large sample size was associated with higher prevalence (p ≤ 0.001). No other moderators were found to be statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS
The overall prevalence of VVC among African pregnant women is comparable to other studies worldwide. However, appropriate identification techniques and larger sample size could likely be associated with an increased prevalence. Our findings necessitate the need for further investigations to determine the geographical distribution of VVC across African regions.
Topics: Africa; Candidiasis, Vulvovaginal; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Pregnant Women; Premature Birth; Prevalence
PubMed: 36099366
DOI: 10.3855/jidc.15536 -
Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine... Aug 2022To summarize and evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Redcore lotion on treating vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) using a systematic review and Meta-analysis of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To summarize and evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Redcore lotion on treating vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) using a systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in five English and three Chinese electronic databases up to October 2019. Randomized controlled trials in the treatment for VVC were included; only studies which compared the effectiveness and safety of Redcore lotion plus miconazole with miconazole alone were included. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used in the Meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Seven studies involving 768 patients suffering from VVC were identified; 468 of the patients were pregnant women (60.9%). Combination group (Redcore lotion plus miconazole) was more effective in reduCIng symptomatic episodes of VVC than miconazole alone, with respect to cure rate (RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.09-1.57; P = 0.01), fungal culture negative rate (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.04-1.41; P = 0.01), and effective rate (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05-1.35; P = 0.01). Subgroup analyses for pregnant women also showed that the combination group had superior outcomes with respect to VVC cure rate (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.16-1.88, P < 0.01), fungal culture negative rate (RR, 1.26; 95% CI; 1.09-1.47; P < 0.01), and effective rate (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.42; P < 0.01). Additionally, the observed risk of adverse events was lower in the combination medication group (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.14-0.65; P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
Though overall quality of individual studies was low, Redcore lotion plus miconazole can significantly improve clinical effectiveness and safety compared with miconazole alone.
Topics: Candidiasis, Vulvovaginal; Female; Humans; Miconazole; Pregnancy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35848964
DOI: 10.19852/j.cnki.jtcm.2022.04.001 -
Systematic Reviews Mar 2015Recognition that ascending infection leads to preterm birth has led to a number of studies that have evaluated the treatment of vaginal infections in pregnancy to reduce... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Recognition that ascending infection leads to preterm birth has led to a number of studies that have evaluated the treatment of vaginal infections in pregnancy to reduce preterm birth rates. However, the role of candidiasis is relatively unexplored. Our aim was to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether treatment of pregnant women with vulvovaginal candidiasis reduces preterm birth rates and other adverse birth outcomes.
METHODS
We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which pregnant women were treated for vulvovaginal candidiasis (compared to placebo or no treatment) and where preterm birth was reported as an outcome. Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline and Embase databases to January 2014. Trial eligibility and outcomes were pre-specified. Two reviewers independently assessed the studies against the agreed criteria and extracted relevant data using a standard data extraction form. Meta-analysis was used to calculate pooled rate ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effects model.
RESULTS
There were two eligible RCTs both among women with asymptomatic candidiasis, with a total of 685 women randomised. Both trials compared treatment with usual care (no screening for, or treatment of, asymptomatic candidiasis). Data from one trial involved a post-hoc subgroup analysis (n = 586) of a larger trial of treatment of 4,429 women with asymptomatic infections in pregnancy and the other was a pilot study (n = 99). There was a significant reduction in spontaneous preterm births in treated compared with untreated women (meta-analysis RR = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.17 to 0.75). Other outcomes were reported by one or neither trial.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review found two trials comparing the treatment of asymptomatic vaginal candidiasis in pregnancy for the outcome of preterm birth. Although the effect estimate suggests that treatment of asymptomatic candidiasis may reduce the risk of preterm birth, the result needs to be interpreted with caution as the primary driver for the pooled estimate comes from a post-hoc (unplanned) subgroup analysis. A prospective trial with sufficient power to answer the clinical question 'does treatment of asymptomatic candidiasis in early pregnancy prevent preterm birth' is warranted.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42014009241.
Topics: Adult; Candida; Candidiasis; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth; Vagina
PubMed: 25874659
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-015-0018-2 -
Heliyon Nov 2023Recurrent Vulvovaginal Candidiasis (RVVC) is defined as 3 or more episodes of symptomatic Vulvovaginal Candidiasis (VVC) within a year. Out of 75 % of women with VVC,...
BACKGROUND
Recurrent Vulvovaginal Candidiasis (RVVC) is defined as 3 or more episodes of symptomatic Vulvovaginal Candidiasis (VVC) within a year. Out of 75 % of women with VVC, this debilitating infection is experienced by 9 % of women. Although standard guidelines recommend oral and topical fluconazole as its treatment regimen, approval of another drug Oteseconazole has drawn the attention because of its better safety profile and lower recurrence rate by its use.
AIM
The purpose of our Meta-analysis is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Oteseconazole (Vivjoa) (VT-1161) in the treatment of Recurrent Vulvovaginal Candidiasis (RVVC).
METHODOLOGY
Four databases namely PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane CENTRAL and Clinical Trial.gov were used from inception till June 2023. Studies that met the predefined inclusion criteria were statistically analyzed on RevMan (Version 5.4). A random effect model was used to pool the studies. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant and results were presented as Odds ratio with 95 % Confidence Intervals (CIs).
RESULT
The pooled analysis of our selected studies showed that Oteseconazole was associated with significantly reduced incidence of Recurrent Vulvovaginal Candidiasis (OR = 0.07; 95 % CI = 0.05-0.11; p < 0.00001, I = 0 %) through week 48. Additionally, Vivjoa has also been shown by our analysis to reduce incidence of RVVC through week 24. (OR = 0.05; 95 % CI = 0.03-0.09; p < 0.00001, I = 0 %) Furthermore, Oteseconazole was non-significantly associated with developing serious adverse effects during the treatment for Recurrent Vulvovaginal Candidiasis in comparison to the placebo (OR = 0.79; 95 % CI = 0.33-1.89; p = 0.60, I2 = 0 %).
CONCLUSION
The available evidence suggests Oteseconazole to be safer and more efficacious. However, limited patient population points towards the need of further large and dedicated trials for definitive conclusion.
PubMed: 37920530
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20495 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2015Genital tract infection is associated with preterm birth (before 37 weeks' gestation). Screening for infections during pregnancy may therefore reduce the numbers of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Genital tract infection is associated with preterm birth (before 37 weeks' gestation). Screening for infections during pregnancy may therefore reduce the numbers of babies being born prematurely. However, screening for infections may have some adverse effects, such as increased antibiotic drug resistance and increased cost of treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of antenatal lower genital tract infection screening and treatment programs for reducing preterm birth and subsequent morbidity.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 7) and reference lists of retrieved reports.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials in any language that evaluated any described methods of antenatal lower genital tract infection screening compared with no screening.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
One study (4155 women at less than 20 weeks' gestation) met the inclusion criteria. The intervention group (2058 women) received infection screening and treatment for bacterial vaginosis, trichomonas vaginalis and candidiasis; the control group (2097 women) also received screening, but the results of the screening program were not revealed and women received routine antenatal care. The rate of preterm birth before 37 weeks' gestation was significantly lower in the intervention group (3% versus 5% in the control group) with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 0.75; the evidence for this outcome was graded as of moderate quality). The incidence of preterm birth for infants with a weight equal to or below 2500 g (low birthweight) and infants with a weight equal to or below 1500 g (very low birthweight) were significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.66 and RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.75, respectively; both graded as moderate quality evidence). Based on a subset of costs for preterm births of < 1900 g, the authors reported that for each of those preterm births averted, EUR 60,262 would be saved.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is evidence from one trial that infection screening and treatment programs for pregnant women before 20 weeks' gestation reduce preterm birth and preterm low birthweight. Infection screening and treatment programs are associated with cost savings when used for the prevention of preterm birth. Future trials should evaluate the effects of different types of infection screening programs.
Topics: Candidiasis, Vulvovaginal; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Trichomonas Vaginitis; Vaginosis, Bacterial
PubMed: 25922860
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006178.pub3