-
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We considered all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials evaluating RVVC treatments for at least six months, in women with four or more symptomatic episodes of vulvovaginal candidiasis in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 -
BMC Oral Health Mar 2020High incidence of treatable oral conditions has been reported among palliative patients. However, a large proportion of palliative patients lose their ability to...
BACKGROUND
High incidence of treatable oral conditions has been reported among palliative patients. However, a large proportion of palliative patients lose their ability to communicate their sufferings. Therefore, it may lead to under-reporting of oral conditions among these patients. This review systematically synthesized the published evidence on the presence of oral conditions among palliative patients, the impact, management, and challenges in treating these conditions.
METHODS
An integrative review was undertaken with defined search strategy from five databases and manual search through key journals and reference list. Studies which focused on oral conditions of palliative patients and published between years 2000 to 2017 were included.
RESULTS
Xerostomia, oral candidiasis and dysphagia were the three most common oral conditions among palliative patients, followed by mucositis, orofacial pain, taste change and ulceration. We also found social and functional impact of having certain oral conditions among these patients. In terms of management, complementary therapies such as acupuncture has been used but not well explored. The lack of knowledge among healthcare providers also posed as a challenge in treating oral conditions among palliative patients.
CONCLUSIONS
This review is first in its kind to systematically synthesize the published evidence regarding the impact, management and challenges in managing oral conditions among palliative patients. Although there is still lack of study investigating palliative oral care among specific group of patients such as patients with dementia, geriatric or pediatric advanced cancer patients, this review has however provided baseline knowledge that may guide health care professionals in palliative settings.
Topics: Aged; Child; Humans; Mouth Diseases; Oral Health; Oral Ulcer; Palliative Care; Terminally Ill; Xerostomia
PubMed: 32188452
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-020-01075-w -
Clinical and Experimental Dental... Oct 2023The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a respiratory infection that has spread worldwide and... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a respiratory infection that has spread worldwide and is responsible for a high death toll. Although respiratory symptoms are the most common, there is growing evidence that oral signs of COVID-19 can also be seen in children. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the available data on the oral manifestations of COVID-19 in children and to recommend appropriate methods of diagnosis and treatment.
METHODS
A systematic search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was done to discover relevant papers published between their establishment and January 2023. Articles detailing oral symptoms in pediatric patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection were included, and data on clinical characteristics, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes were extracted and evaluated.
RESULTS
A total of 24 studies involving 2112 pediatric patients with COVID-19 were included in the review. The most common presentations are oral lesions, taste and smell disorders, oral candidiasis, hemorrhagic crust, tongue discoloration, lip and tongue fissuring, gingivitis, and salivary gland inflammation. These manifestations were sometimes associated with multi-system inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) or Kawasaki disease (KD). Management strategies varied depending on the severity of the oral manifestation and ranged from symptomatic relief with topical analgesics to systemic medications.
CONCLUSION
Oral symptoms of COVID-19 are relatively prevalent in juvenile patients and can be accompanied by severe systemic diseases, such as MIS-C or Kawasaki illness. Early detection and adequate care of these oral symptoms are critical for the best patient results. Understanding the underlying pathophysiology and developing targeted treatments requires more investigation.
Topics: Child; Humans; COVID-19; Databases, Factual; SARS-CoV-2; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 37602892
DOI: 10.1002/cre2.776 -
Frontiers in Oral Health 2023The aim of this systematic review is to provide a clinical update of the current knowledge on COVID-19 and oral mucosal lesions, to analyze the types and prevalence of... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this systematic review is to provide a clinical update of the current knowledge on COVID-19 and oral mucosal lesions, to analyze the types and prevalence of oral mucosal lesions in patients with COVID-19, and to clarify the potential association between COVID-19 and oral mucosal lesions.
METHODS
The literature search was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and the Cochrane Library, as well as literatures via manual searches of the reference lists of included studies. Studies published in English that mentioned oral mucosal lesions in patients with COVID-19 were included, resulting in a total of 31 studies.
RESULTS
Most of the included studies were considered to have a moderate to high risk of bias according to the Joanna Briggs Institute bias assessment tools. Based on COVID-19 severity, the characteristics and patterns of oral mucosal lesions in COVID-19 patients were described, analyzed and synthesized. Overall, ulcers without specific diagnosis had the highest prevalence in COVID-19 patients, followed by traumatic ulcers, candidiasis, petechiae and aphthous-like lesions. Homogeneity of data cannot be achieved in statical analysis, indicating randomness of outcome (ulcers without specific diagnosis, 95% CI: 28%-96%, = 98.7%).
DISCUSSION
Given the limited evidence from currently available studies, the association between COVID-19 and oral mucosal lesions remains difficult to clarify. Healthcare professionals should be aware of the possible association between COVID-19 and oral mucosal lesions, and we hereby discuss our findings.
PubMed: 38169876
DOI: 10.3389/froh.2023.1322458 -
Medicine Dec 2021SARS-CoV-2 is the virus responsible for coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) disease, which has been shown to trigger multiple affectations. One of the first tissue areas...
BACKGROUND
SARS-CoV-2 is the virus responsible for coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) disease, which has been shown to trigger multiple affectations. One of the first tissue areas to come into contact with the virus is the oral cavity, which develops various alterations. Hence, the objective of this systematic review was to identify the main signs and symptoms of this disease in the oral cavity, and the following research question was established: What are the main oral signs and symptoms in COVID-19-positive persons?
METHODS
The electronic databases of PUBMED, SCOPUS, and SCIENCE DIRECT were analyzed, the keywords "ORAL DISEASES," "ORAL MANIFESTACTIONS," and "COVID-19" were used taking into account the following inclusion criteria: studies whose main objective was oral manifestations secondary to the confirmation of COVID-19, plus clinical cases, case series, and retrospective or prospective studies. For the assessment of the risk of bias the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Series tool was used.
RESULTS
A total of 18 studies were included, the most common initial signs/symptoms after contagion of SARS-CoV-2 were dysgeusia, dry mouth, and burning mouth, and the main signs/symptoms were the presence of ulcerative lesions, dysgeusia, and Candida albicans infections.
CONCLUSIONS
It is very important to detect any alteration in the mucosa in patients with COVID-19 and to provide assertive treatment to avoid complications, and try to maintain adequate oral hygiene throughout the course of the disease to avoid the colonization of opportunistic microorganisms and to avoid complications both orally and systemically.
Topics: COVID-19; Candidiasis, Oral; Dysgeusia; Humans; Mouth; Mouth Diseases; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34941133
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000028327 -
Life (Basel, Switzerland) Oct 2022Oral candidiasis is the most common opportunistic fungal infection caused by commensal species. Since there are various local and systemic predisposing factors for the... (Review)
Review
Oral candidiasis is the most common opportunistic fungal infection caused by commensal species. Since there are various local and systemic predisposing factors for the disease, the treatment also varies from topical to systemic antifungal agents. Nystatin is a common antifungal agent used topically. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of different antifungal agents and the safety of nystatin in the treatment of oral candidiasis. Three electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing nystatin with other anti-fungal therapies or placebo. Clinical and/or mycological cure was the outcome evaluation. A meta-analysis and descriptive study on the efficacy, treatment protocols, and safety of nystatin was also conducted. The meta-analysis included five studies, which compared the efficacy of nystatin suspensions with photodynamic therapy. A significant difference in the colony-forming units per milliliters (CFU/mL) of species was observed at 60 days intervals for both palatal mucosa and denture surfaces, with both groups favoring nystatin with low heterogeneity at a 95% confidence interval. Nystatin and photodynamic therapy were found to be equally effective for the clinical remission of denture stomatitis as well as a significant reduction of CFU/mL of species from dentures and palatal surfaces of the patients.
PubMed: 36362833
DOI: 10.3390/life12111677 -
Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia... May 2022Oral mucositis is one of the most common side effects in cancer patients receiving systemic antineoplastics. However, the underlying biological mechanisms leading to...
BACKGROUND
Oral mucositis is one of the most common side effects in cancer patients receiving systemic antineoplastics. However, the underlying biological mechanisms leading to this condition are still unclear. For this reason, it has been hypothesised that systemic antineoplastics may cause an imbalance on the oral microbiota that subsequently triggers oral mucosa damage.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic review was performed following the PRISMA protocol and the PICO question established was: patients diagnosed with cancer, who are candidates for receiving systemic antineoplastics (P=Patients), that undergo oral microbiome determinations (I=Intervention), before and after systemic antineoplastics administration (C=Comparison), to analyse changes in the oral microbiome composition (O=Outcome). The bibliographic search was carried out in PubMed and other scientific repositories.
RESULTS
Out of 166 obtained articles, only 5 met eligibility criteria. Acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) was the most frequent type of cancer (40 %) among the participants. Only one of the studies included a control group of healthy subjects. Heterogeneity in the protocols and approaches of the included studies hindered a detailed comparison of the outcomes. However, it was stated that a decrease in bacteria α diversity is often associated with oral mucositis. On the other hand, fungal diversity was not associated with oral mucositis although α diversity was lower at baseline on patients developing oral candidiasis.
CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient scientific evidence of oral microbiological changes in patients undergoing systemic antineoplastics. Further investigations ought to be carried out to identify microorganisms that might play a key role in the pathogenesis of oral mucosa damage in patients undergoing systemic antineoplastics.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Candidiasis, Oral; Humans; Microbiota; Neoplasms; Stomatitis
PubMed: 35368011
DOI: 10.4317/medoral.25121 -
BMC Infectious Diseases May 2024Oral candidiasis (OC) is a prevalent opportunistic infection in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. The increasing resistance to antifungal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Oral candidiasis (OC) is a prevalent opportunistic infection in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. The increasing resistance to antifungal agents in HIV-positive individuals suffering from OC raised concerns. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the prevalence of drug-resistant OC in HIV-positive patients.
METHODS
Pubmed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase databases were systematically searched for eligible articles up to November 30, 2023. Studies reporting resistance to antifungal agents in Candida species isolated from HIV-positive patients with OC were included. Baseline characteristics, clinical features, isolated Candida species, and antifungal resistance were independently extracted by two reviewers. The pooled prevalence with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the random effect model or fixed effect model.
RESULTS
Out of the 1942 records, 25 studies consisting of 2564 Candida species entered the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of resistance to the antifungal agents was as follows: ketoconazole (25.5%, 95% CI: 15.1-35.8%), fluconazole (24.8%, 95% CI: 17.4-32.1%), 5-Flucytosine (22.9%, 95% CI: -13.7-59.6%), itraconazole (20.0%, 95% CI: 10.0-26.0%), voriconazole (20.0%, 95% CI: 1.9-38.0%), miconazole (15.0%, 95% CI: 5.1-26.0%), clotrimazole (13.4%, 95% CI: 2.3-24.5%), nystatin (4.9%, 95% CI: -0.05-10.3%), amphotericin B (2.9%, 95% CI: 0.5-5.3%), and caspofungin (0.1%, 95% CI: -0.3-0.6%). Furthermore, there were high heterogeneities among almost all included studies regarding the resistance to different antifungal agents (I > 50.00%, P < 0.01), except for caspofungin (I = 0.00%, P = 0.65).
CONCLUSIONS
Our research revealed that a significant number of Candida species found in HIV-positive patients with OC were resistant to azoles and 5-fluocytosine. However, most of the isolates were susceptible to nystatin, amphotericin B, and caspofungin. This suggests that initial treatments for OC, such as azoles, may not be effective. In such cases, healthcare providers may need to consider prescribing alternative treatments like polyenes and caspofungin.
REGISTRATION
The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews as PROSPERO (Number: CRD42024497963).
Topics: Humans; Candidiasis, Oral; Antifungal Agents; HIV Infections; Drug Resistance, Fungal; Candida; Prevalence; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; AIDS-Related Opportunistic Infections; Fluconazole
PubMed: 38822256
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-024-09442-6 -
BMC Oral Health Oct 2023To evaluate the clinical efficacy of photodynamic therapy (PDT) as an adjunct or alternative to traditional antifungal drugs in the treatment of oral candidiasis, and to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the clinical efficacy of photodynamic therapy (PDT) as an adjunct or alternative to traditional antifungal drugs in the treatment of oral candidiasis, and to provide evidence-based medical evidence for its use in the treatment of oral candidiasis.
METHODS
Computer combined with manual retrieval of China Academic Journals Full-text Database (CNKI), China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), Wanfang Database, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus retrieval for articles published before January 2023, basic information and required data were extracted according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the Revman V5.4 software was used to conduct Meta-analysis of the included literature.
RESULTS
A total of 11 articles were included, 7 of which used nystatin as an antifungal drug, 2 of which were combined treatment of PDT and nystatin, 2 of the remaining 4 articles were treated with fluconazole, and 2 were treated with miconazole. Meta results showed that PDT was superior to nystatin in reducing the number of oral candida colonies in the palate of patients MD = -0.87, 95%CI = (-1.52,-0.23), P = 0.008, the difference was statistically significant, and the denture site MD = -1.03, 95%CI = (-2.21, -0.15), P = 0.09, the difference was not statistically significant; compared with the efficacy of fluconazole, RR = 1.01, 95%CI = (0.56,1.83), P = 0.96; compared with miconazole RR = 0.55, 95%CI = (0.38, 0.81), P = 0.002; PDT combined with nystatin RR = 1.27, 95%CI = (1.06, 1.52), P = 0.01; recurrence rate RR = 0.28, 95%CI = (0.09, 0.88), P = 0.03.
CONCLUSIONS
PDT was effective in the treatment of oral candidiasis; PDT was more effective than nystatin for the treatment of denture stomatitis in the palate, while there was no significant difference between the two for the denture site; The efficacy of PDT for oral candidiasis was similar to that of fluconazole; PDT was less effective than miconazole for oral candidiasis; Compared with nystatin alone, the combination of PDT and nystatin is more effective in treating oral candidiasis with less risk of recurrence.
Topics: Humans; Candidiasis, Oral; Antifungal Agents; Nystatin; Fluconazole; Miconazole; Photochemotherapy
PubMed: 37884914
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-03484-z