-
PloS One 2020Candida africana is a pathogenic species within the Candida albicans species complex. Due to the limited knowledge concerning its prevalence and antifungal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Candida africana is a pathogenic species within the Candida albicans species complex. Due to the limited knowledge concerning its prevalence and antifungal susceptibility profiles, a comprehensive study is overdue. Accordingly, we performed a search of the electronic databases for literature published in the English language between 1 January 2001 and 21 March 2020. Citations were screened, relevant articles were identified, and data were extracted to determine overall intra-C. albicans complex prevalence, geographical distribution, and antifungal susceptibility profiles for C. africana. From a total of 366 articles, 41 were eligible for inclusion in this study. Our results showed that C. africana has a worldwide distribution. The pooled intra-C. albicans complex prevalence of C. africana was 1.67% (95% CI 0.98-2.49). Prevalence data were available for 11 countries from 4 continents. Iran (3.02%, 95%CI 1.51-4.92) and Honduras (3.03%, 95% CI 0.83-10.39) had the highest values and Malaysia (0%) had the lowest prevalence. Vaginal specimens were the most common source of C. africana (92.81%; 155 out of 167 isolates with available data). However, this species has also been isolated from cases of balanitis, from patients with oral lesions, and from respiratory, urine, and cutaneous samples. Data concerning the susceptibility of C. africana to 16 antifungal drugs were available in the literature. Generally, the minimum inhibitory concentrations of antifungal drugs against this species were low. In conclusion, C. africana demonstrates geographical variation in prevalence and high susceptibility to antifungal drugs. However, due to the relative scarcity of existing data concerning this species, further studies will be required to establish more firm conclusions.
Topics: Antifungal Agents; Candida; Candida albicans; Candidiasis, Vulvovaginal; Drug Resistance, Fungal; Female; Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Prevalence; Vagina
PubMed: 32817677
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237046 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2020Anti-fungals are available for oral and intra-vaginal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Anti-fungals are available for oral and intra-vaginal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of this review is to assess the relative effectiveness (clinical cure) of oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungals for the treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. Secondary objectives include the assessment of the relative effectiveness in terms of mycological cure, in addition to safety, side effects, treatment preference, time to first relief of symptoms, and costs.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers on 29 August 2019 together with reference checking and citation searching.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials published in any language comparing at least one oral anti-fungal with one intra-vaginal anti-fungal in women (aged 16 years or over) with a mycological diagnosis (positive culture, microscopy for yeast, or both) of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. We excluded trials if they solely involved participants who were HIV positive, immunocompromised, pregnant, breast feeding or diabetic.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
This review includes 26 trials (5007 participants). Eight anti-fungals are represented. All but three trials included participants with acute vulvovaginal candidiasis. Trials were conducted in Europe: UK (3), Croatia (2). Finland (2), the Netherlands (2), Germany (1), Italy (1), Sweden (1) and one trial across multiple European countries, USA (7) Thailand (2), Iran (2), Japan (1) and Africa (Nigeria) (1). The duration of follow-up varied between trials. The overall risk of bias of the included trials was high. There was probably little or no difference shown between oral and intra-vaginal anti-fungal treatment for clinical cure at short-term follow-up (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.43; 13 trials; 1859 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and long-term follow-up (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.50; 9 trials; 1042 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of clinical cure at short-term follow-up with intra-vaginal treatment is 77%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 75% and 83%; if the rate of clinical cure at long term follow-up with intra-vaginal treatment is 84%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 80% and 89%. Oral treatment probably improves mycological cure over intra-vaginal treatment at short term (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.50: 19 trials; 3057 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and long-term follow-up (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.60; 13 trials; 1661 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of mycological cure at short-term follow-up with intra-vaginal treatment is 80%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 80% and 85%; if the rate of mycological cure at long-term follow-up with intra-vaginal treatment is 66%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 67% and 76%. In terms of patient safety, there is a low risk of participants withdrawing from the studies due to adverse drug effects for either treatment (23 trials; 4637 participants; high-certainty evidence). Due to the low certainty of evidence, it is undetermined whether oral treatments reduced the number of side effects compared with intra-vaginal treatments (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.29; 16 trials; 3155 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of side effects with intra-vaginal treatment is 12%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 10% and 15%. We noted that the type of side effects differed, with intra-vaginal treatments being more often associated with local reactions, and oral treatments being more often associated with systemic effects including gastro-intestinal symptoms and headaches. Oral treatment appeared to be the favoured treatment preference over intra-vaginal treatment or no preference (12 trials; 2206 participants), however the data were poorly reported and the certainty of the evidence was low. There was little or no difference in time to first relief of symptoms between oral and intra-vaginal treatments: four trials favoured the oral treatment, four favoured intra-vaginal, one study reported no difference and one was unclear. The measurements varied between the 10 trials (1910 participants) and the certainty of the evidence was low. Costs were not reported in any of the trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Oral anti-fungal treatment probably improves short- and long-term mycological cure over intra-vaginal treatment for uncomplicated vaginal candidiasis. Oral treatment was the favoured treatment preference by participants, though the certainty of this evidence is low. The decision to prescribe or recommend an anti-fungal for oral or intra-vaginal administration should take into consideration safety in terms of withdrawals and side effects, as well as cost and treatment preference. Unless there is a previous history of adverse reaction to one route of administration or contraindications, women who are purchasing their own treatment should be given full information about the characteristics and costs of treatment to make their own decision. If health services are paying the treatment cost, decision-makers should consider whether the higher cost of some oral anti-fungals is worth the gain in convenience, if this is the patient's preference.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Intravaginal; Administration, Oral; Antifungal Agents; Azoles; Bias; Candidiasis, Vulvovaginal; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Female; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32845024
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002845.pub3 -
Breast Care (Basel, Switzerland) Dec 2020To analyse all available evidence to validate the effectiveness of a local intervention in the treatment of dyspareunia in breast cancer survivors (BCS).
OBJECTIVE
To analyse all available evidence to validate the effectiveness of a local intervention in the treatment of dyspareunia in breast cancer survivors (BCS).
METHODS
We searched the Institute of Scientific Information Web of Knowledge, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for all articles published in peer-reviewed journals up to April 2019. The PICOS standards were: (population) BCS with dyspareunia; (intervention) any type of vulvovaginal treatment; (main outcome) frequency and severity of dyspareunia; (study design) clinical studies.
RESULTS
The literature search strategy identified 252 articles, of which 233 were excluded at various stages of the search. Finally, we systematically reviewed 19 studies, 8 with local hormonal therapies, 7 with local non-hormonal therapies, 3 with laser therapy, and 1 with other interventions. Of the studies, 7 were randomized control trials and 11 were prospective observations. Most of the interventions were shown to be effective and safe in the improvement of dyspareunia.
CONCLUSION
In addition to the traditional options already analysed in other current reviews, other interesting options are highlighted (such as laser or local dehydroepiandrosterone [DHEA]). Further work on dyspareunia should make use of high-quality trials with large numbers of samples to obtain evidence that could adequately demonstrate key methodological characteristics and harmful effects.
PubMed: 33447234
DOI: 10.1159/000506148 -
Ecancermedicalscience 2019Women who have been treated for breast cancer may experience vulvo-vaginal atrophy (VVA)/genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). This is a progressive condition and...
Women who have been treated for breast cancer may experience vulvo-vaginal atrophy (VVA)/genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). This is a progressive condition and will not improve without treatment. Whilst vaginal oestrogen is the most effective treatment for GSM, many breast cancer survivors and clinicians remain reluctant to use it. Laser therapy is emerging as an alternative treatment for this condition but there is little evidence available as to its value in this setting. We undertook a systematic literature review to identify available evidence for the use of laser therapy for VVA in women with breast cancer. There are a number of small studies which suggest an improvement in vaginal health in this group. However, these are all small, non-randomised studies and there are a number of key questions which need to be answered before this treatment can be implemented into practice.
PubMed: 32010212
DOI: 10.3332/ecancer.2019.988