-
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 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2010Vulvovaginal 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 a male sexual partner to resolve symptoms and prevent recurrence in non-pregnant women with symptomatic acute vulvovaginal candidiasis? What are the effects of alternative or complementary treatments for symptomatic recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis in non-pregnant women? What are the effects of treating a male sexual partner in non-pregnant women with symptomatic recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis? 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 March 2009 (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 61 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational 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 (boric acid, nystatin, imidazoles, tea tree oil); oral fluconazole; oral itraconazole; treating a male sexual partner; and yoghurt containing Lactobacillus acidophilus (oral or vaginal).
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Candida albicans; Candidiasis, Vulvovaginal; Evidence-Based Medicine; Fluconazole; Humans; Itraconazole; Vaginosis, Bacterial
PubMed: 21718579
DOI: No ID Found -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
BioMed Research International 2014Mannose-binding lectin (MBL) plays a key role in the human innate immune response. It has been shown that polymorphisms in the MBL2 gene, particularly at codon 54... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Mannose-binding lectin (MBL) plays a key role in the human innate immune response. It has been shown that polymorphisms in the MBL2 gene, particularly at codon 54 (variant allele B; wild-type allele designated as A), impact upon host susceptibility to Candida infection. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to assess the association between MBL2 codon 54 genotype and vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) or recurrent VVC (RVVC). Studies were searched in MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and ISI Web of Science until April 2013. Five studies including 704 women (386 cases and 318 controls) were part of the meta-analysis, and pooled ORs were calculated using the random effects model. For subjects with RVVC, ORs of AB versus AA and of BB versus AA were 4.84 (95% CI 2.10-11.15; P for heterogeneity = 0.013; I(2) = 68.6%) and 12.68 (95% CI 3.74-42.92; P for heterogeneity = 0.932, I(2) = 0.0%), respectively. For subjects with VVC, OR of AB versus AA was 2.57 (95% CI 1.29-5.12; P for heterogeneity = 0.897; I (2) = 0.0%). This analysis indicates that heterozygosity for the MBL2 allele B increases significantly the risk for both diseases, suggesting that MBL may influence the women's innate immunity in response to Candida.
Topics: Adult; Candidiasis, Vulvovaginal; Case-Control Studies; Codon; Female; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Humans; Mannose-Binding Lectin; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide
PubMed: 25143944
DOI: 10.1155/2014/738298 -
Revista Da Associacao Medica Brasileira... Feb 2022
Meta-Analysis
Topics: Administration, Oral; Antifungal Agents; Candidiasis, Vulvovaginal; Female; Humans; Recurrence; Vagina
PubMed: 35239893
DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.20210916