Single-dose oral fluconazole versus single-dose topical miconazole for the treatment of acute vulvovaginal candidosis

Oral versus intra-vaginal imidazole and triazole anti-fungal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush)

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.

Efficacy of antifungal drugs in the treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Antifungal drugs are used frequently in the treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC), but have shown controversial results. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different antifungal drugs in the treatment of VVC and to provide an evidence-based reference for clinical use.

METHODS

The published studies on the effectiveness of antifungal drugs in the treatment of VVC (up to April 2018) were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Clini-calTrials.gov. We sifted through the literature according to Patients, Interventions, Comparisons and Outcomes principle, extracted data on the basic characteristics of the study, and evaluated the quality of included studies. We used R software for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 41 randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis. The relative risk of VVC associated with ten drugs, including placebo, fluconazole, clotrimazole, miconazole, itraconazole, ketoconazole, econazole, butoconazole, terbinafine, and terconazole, was analyzed. The following drugs appeared to show more efficacy than placebo in the treated patients: fluconazole (OR =6.45, 95% CrI 4.42-9.41), clotrimazole (OR =2.99, 95% CrI 1.61-5.55), miconazole (OR =5.96, 95% CrI 3.17-11.2), itraconazole (OR =2.29, 95% CrI 1.21-4.33), ketoconazole (OR =2.40, 95% CrI 1.55-3.71), butoconazole (OR =1.18, 95% CrI 1.06-1.31), and terconazole (OR =5.60, 95% CrI 2.78-11.3). The value of surface under the cumulative ranking curve of each drug was as follows: placebo (0.5%), fluconazole (91.5%), clotrimazole (61.8%), miconazole (33.8%), itraconazole (50.5%), ketoconazole (42.8%), econazole (46.8%), butoconazole (82.2%), terbinafine (20.9%), and terconazole (65.0%).

CONCLUSION

Antifungal drugs are effective in the treatment of VVC. Fluconazole appeared to be the best drug for the treatment of VVC according to our analysis.

Recent advances in delivery of antifungal agents for therapeutic management of candidiasis

Candidiasis is a fungal infection caused by yeasts that belong to the genus Candida. There are over twenty species of Candida yeasts that can cause infection in humans, the most common of which is Candida albicans. Candida yeasts normally reside in the intestinal tract and can be found on mucous membranes and skin without causing infection; however, overgrowth of these organisms can cause symptoms to develop. Presence of other diseases that compromises the patient's immunity makes it more difficult to treat. Candidiasis is majorly divided into superficial infections (oral or vaginal) and systemic infections, also known as invasive candidiasis. The conventional therapeutic modalities used to treat candidiasis are associated with several side effects that limits the dose and dosing frequency. Development of novel drug delivery systems for reduction in dose and alleviation of side effects is an important strategy to improve the clinical efficacy and patient acceptability. This review gives a bird's eye view of the classification and current therapeutic regime of candidiasis. It presents the varied types of drug delivery systems that have been exploited for delivery of antifungal agents with measurable benefits. It also touches upon echinocandins a relatively new class of drugs that are amenable for translation into novel dosage forms with application against biofilm producing and fluconazole resistant strains contributing to a better therapeutic management of candidiasis.

Miconazole nitrate vaginal suppository 1,200 mg versus oral fluconazole 150 mg in treating severe vulvovaginal candidiasis

AIMS

Miconazole is a synthetic imidazole antifungal that has a broad spectrum of activity against Candida albicans and non-albicans Candida species. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of miconazole nitrate vaginal suppository and oral fluconazole in treating severe vulvovaginal candidiasis (SVVC).

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized case control study, 577 cases of consecutive patients with SVVC were studied at the Gynecological Clinic of Peking University Shenzhen Hospital from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2010. Patients with SVVC were treated with two doses of miconazole nitrate vaginal suppository 1,200 mg or two doses of fluconazole 150 mg. The patients were followed up for 7-14 and 30-35 days following the second dose of therapy.

RESULTS

The mycological cure rates of the patients on days 7-14 of follow-up were 75.9% (220/290) and 84.0% (241/287) in the miconazole and fluconazole groups, respectively (p < 0.05). The mycological cure rates of the patients at the second follow-up were 64.8% (188/290) and 69.7% (200/287), respectively, in the two groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrated that two doses of miconazole nitrate vaginal suppository 1,200 mg were as effective as two doses of an oral fluconazole 150 mg regimen in the treatment of patients with SVVC.

Patient preferences and treatment safety for uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis in primary health care

Background

Vaginitis is a common complaint in primary care. In uncomplicated candidal vaginitis, there are no differences in effectiveness between oral or vaginal treatment. Some studies describe that the preferred treatment is the oral one, but a Cochrane's review points out inconsistencies associated with the report of the preferred way that limit the use of such data. Risk factors associated with recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis still remain controversial.

Methods/Design

This work describes a protocol of a multicentric prospective observational study with one year follow up, to describe the women's reasons and preferences to choose the way of administration (oral vs topical) in the treatment of not complicated candidal vaginitis. The number of women required is 765, they are chosen by consecutive sampling. All of whom are aged 16 and over with vaginal discharge and/or vaginal pruritus, diagnosed with not complicated vulvovaginitis in Primary Care in Madrid.

The main outcome variable is the preferences of the patients in treatment choice; secondary outcome variables are time to symptoms relief and adverse reactions and the frequency of recurrent vulvovaginitis and the risk factors. In the statistical analysis, for the main objective will be descriptive for each of the variables, bivariant analysis and multivariate analysis (logistic regression).. The dependent variable being the type of treatment chosen (oral or topical) and the independent, the variables that after bivariant analysis, have been associated to the treatment preference.

Discussion

Clinical decisions, recommendations, and practice guidelines must not only attend to the best available evidence, but also to the values and preferences of the informed patient.

Oral versus intra-vaginal imidazole and triazole anti-fungal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush)

BACKGROUND

Anti-fungals are available for oral and intra-vaginal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush).

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to assess the relative effectiveness of oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungals for the treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. The secondary objectives of the review were to assess the cost-effectiveness, safety and patient preference of oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungals.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following sources were searched for the original review: The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 1999), MEDLINE (January 1985 to May 2000), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2000) and the Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials. The manufacturers of anti-fungals available in the UK were contacted. For the update, CENTRAL (January 2000 to August 2006), PUBMED (January 2000 to August 2006), EMBASE (January 2000 to August 2006) and the Cochrane STD Group Specialised Register were searched in August 2006. The reference lists of retrieved articles were reviewed manually.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials published in any language. Trials had to compare at least one oral anti-fungal with one intra-vaginal anti-fungal. Women (aged 16 years or over) with uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. The diagnosis of vulvovaginal candidiasis to be made mycologically (i.e. a positive culture and / or microscopy for yeast). Trials were excluded if they solely involved subjects who were HIV positive, immunocompromised, pregnant, breast feeding or diabetic. The primary outcome measure was clinical cure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts of the electronic search results and full text of potentially relevant papers. Independent duplicate abstraction was performed by two reviewers. Disagreements regarding trial inclusion or data abstraction were resolved by discussion between the reviewers. Odds ratios were pooled using the fixed effects models (except for two analyses when random effects models were used because of potentially important heterogeneity).

MAIN RESULTS

Two new trials reporting three comparisons were found in the update. Nineteen trials are included in the review, reporting 22 oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungal comparisons. No statistically significant differences were shown between oral and intra-vaginal anti-fungal treatment for clinical cure at short term (OR 0.94, 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.17) and long term (OR 1.07, 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.41) follow-up. No statistically significant differences for mycological cure were observed between oral and intra-vaginal treatment at short term (OR 1.15, 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.42). There was a statistically significant difference for long term follow-up (OR 1.29, 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.60) in favour of oral treatment, however the clinical significance of this result is uncertain. Two trials each reported one withdrawal from treatment due to an adverse reaction. Treatment preference data were poorly reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No statistically significant differences were observed in clinical cure rates of anti-fungals administered by the oral and intra-vaginal routes for the treatment of uncomplicated vaginal candidiasis. No definitive conclusion can be made regarding the relative safety of oral and intra-vaginal anti-fungals for uncomplicated vaginal candidiasis. The decision to prescribe or recommend the purchase of an anti-fungal for oral or intra-vaginal administration should take into consideration: safety, 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.

Oral versus intra-vaginal imidazole and triazole anti-fungal agents for the treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush): a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To compare the relative effectiveness, cost effectiveness and safety of oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungal treatments for uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush) and establish patient preference for the route of anti-fungal administration.

DESIGN

A systematic review of studies comparing oral and intra-vaginal anti-fungal treatments for uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. Standard Cochrane Collaboration methods were used.

DATA SOURCES

The following sources were searched: the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register; the Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Disease review group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials; EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2000); and MEDLINE (January 1985 to May 2000). The reference list of each trial was checked for additional references. The manufacturers of anti-fungal treatments in the UK were asked for information on trials fulfilling the inclusion criteria.

METHODS

There was duplicate, independent examination and selection of the electronic search results followed by duplicate data abstraction. Disagreements regarding inclusion status and data abstraction were resolved by discussion between reviewers and the editor of the Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Disease group. Randomised controlled trials conducted worldwide and published in any language were included. The primary outcome measure was clinical cure. Mycological cure, patient preference and safety were secondary outcome measures.

RESULTS

Seventeen trials were included in the review, reporting 19 oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungal treatment comparisons. No statistically significant differences were shown between oral and intra-vaginal anti-fungal treatment for clinical or mycological cure. All 10 trials that reported a preference favoured oral treatment (compared with intra-vaginal or no preference). No trials presented cost data.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no difference between the relativeeffectiveness of oral and intra-vaginal anti-fungal treatment for thrush.

Oral versus intra-vaginal imidazole and triazole anti-fungal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush)

BACKGROUND

Anti-fungals are available for oral and intra-vaginal treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush).

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to assess the relative effectiveness of oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungals for the treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. The secondary objectives of the review were to assess the cost-effectiveness, safety and patient preference of oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungals.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following sources were searched: The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 1999), MEDLINE (January 1985 to May 2000), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2000) and the Cochrane Collaboration Sexually Transmitted Disease Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials. The reference lists of retrieved articles were reviewed manually. The manufacturers of anti-fungals available in the UK were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

~Bullet~Randomised controlled trials published in any language. ~Bullet~Trials had to compare at least one oral anti-fungal with one intra-vaginal anti-fungal. ~Bullet~Women (aged 16 years or over) with uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. ~Bullet~The diagnosis of vulvovaginal candidiasis to be made mycologically (i.e. a positive culture and / or microscopy for yeast). ~Bullet~Trials were excluded if they solely involved subjects who were HIV positive, immunocompromised, pregnant, breastfeeding or diabetic. ~Bullet~The primary outcome measure was clinical cure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Duplicate scrutiny was performed of the titles and abstracts of the electronic search results. Full article formats of all selected abstracts were retrieved and independently assessed by two reviewers. Independent duplicate abstraction was performed by four reviewers. Disagreements regarding trial inclusion or data abstraction were resolved by discussion between the reviewers. Odds ratios were pooled using the random effects model. Chi-squared tests with a p-value of less than 0.1 indicated heterogeneity in the results.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen trials are included in the review, reporting 19 oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungal comparisons. No statistically significant differences were shown between oral and intra-vaginal anti-fungal treatment for clinical cure at short term (OR 1.00 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.40)) and long term (OR 1.03 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.49)) follow-up. No statistically significant differences for mycological cure were observed between oral and intra-vaginal treatment at short term (OR 1.20(95% CI, 0.87 to 1.65)) or long term follow-up (OR 1.30 (95% CI, 0.99 to 1.71)). Two trials each reported one withdrawal from treatment due to an adverse reaction. Treatment preference data were poorly reported.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

No differences exist in terms of the relative effectiveness (measured as clinical and mycological cure) of anti-fungals administered by the oral and intra-vaginal routes for the treatment of uncomplicated vaginal candidiasis. No definitive conclusion can be made regarding the relative safety of oral and intra-vaginal anti-fungals for uncomplicated vaginal candidiasis. The oral route of administration is the preferred route for anti-fungals for the treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis. The decision to prescribe or recommend the purchase of an anti-fungal for oral or intra-vaginal administration should take into consideration: safety, cost and treatment preference. Unless there is a previous history of adverse reaction to one route of administration or contraindications: if women are purchasing their own treatment, they 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 oral anti-fungal administration is worth the gain in convenience, if this is the patient's preference.

Evaluation and management of vaginitis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate recent advances in our understanding of the clinical relevance, diagnosis, and treatment of vaginal infections, and to determine an efficient and effective method of evaluating this clinical problem in the outpatient setting.

DATA SOURCES

Relevant papers on vaginitis limited to the English language obtained through a MEDLINE search for the years 1985 to 1997 were reviewed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Techniques that enable the identification of the various strains of candida have helped lead to a better understanding of the mechanisms of recurrent candida infection. From this information a rationale for the treatment of recurrent disease can be developed. Bacterial vaginosis has been associated with complications, including upper genital tract infection, preterm delivery, and wound infection. Women undergoing pelvic surgery, procedures in pregnancy, or pregnant women at risk of preterm delivery should be evaluated for bacterial vaginosis to decrease the rate of complications associated with this condition. New, more standardized criteria for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis may improve diagnostic consistency among clinicians and comparability of study results. Use of topical therapies in the treatment of bacterial vaginosis are effective and associated with fewer side effects than systemic medication. Trichomonas vaginalis, although decreasing in incidence, has been associated with upper genital tract infection. Therapy of T. vaginalis infection has been complicated by an increasing incidence of resistance to metronidazole.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaginitis is a common medical problem in women that is associated with significant morbidity and previously unrecognized complications. Research in recent years has improved diagnostic tools as well as treatment modalities for all forms of vaginitis.

Clinical pharmacokinetics of fluconazole in superficial and systemic mycoses

The bis triazole agent fluconazole is used widely in the treatment of superficial and deep mycoses. A single oral dose of fluconazole 150 mg gives a mean long term clinical cure rate of 84 +/- 5% and is considered a valuable alternative to other topical antifungal drugs for vaginal candidiasis. A clinical cure rate of 90.4% for oropharyngeal candidiasis was obtained with 100mg daily for a minimum of 14 days; however, as for the other azoles the rate of relapse was large (40%) in immunocompromised patients. A daily dose of 100mg for at last 3 weeks gave satisfying outcomes for oesophageal candidiasis. Most patients (71 to 86%) with signs and symptoms of urinary tract candidiasis show beneficial clinical results when given oral fluconazole 50mg for several weeks. Fluconazole 50 to 150 mg given for weeks or months results in over 90% clinical cure or improvement for cutaneous mycosis including tinea, pityriasis, cryptococcosis and candidiasis. Prolonged (6 to 12 months) fluconazole 150 mg once a week is needed to treat onychomycosis successfully. Higher oral doses (200 to 400 mg daily) for long periods are generally used to treat deep mycoses such as meningitis, ophthalmitis, pneumonia, hepatosplenic mycosis and endocarditis. Fluconazole is effective for treating the fungal peritonitis which can complicate continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD). A regimen of 50 mg intraperitoneally or 100 mg orally was used in these patients with impaired renal function. The dosage schedules used to treat disseminated fungal infections due to systemic mycoses with different or multiple foci of infections vary widely, with doses of 50 to 400 mg given orally or intravenously for between 1 week and several months. The most recent clinical reports have investigated the use of prophylaxis with fluconazole 100 to 400 mg daily, in immunocompromised patients. Fluconazole is found in body fluids such as vaginal secretions, breast milk, saliva, sputum and cerebrospinal fluid at concentrations comparable with those determined in blood after single or multiple doses. There is an excellent linear plasma concentration-dose relationship, but the mycological and clinical responses do not appear to be well correlated with the dose. A total maximum daily dose of 1600 mg is recommended to avoid neurological toxicity. Data from pharmacokinetic studies conducted in patients, mainly those with AIDS, and using a 1-compartment model give very constant parameters similar to those obtained in healthy individuals. Bioavailability, measured in HIV-positive patients and those with AIDS, exceeded 93% for tablets, suspension and suppositories. The time to reach peak plasma concentrations (tmax) was 2.4 to 3.7 hours. The peak plasma drug concentration (Cmax) obtained after a 100 mg oral dose was 2 mg/L. Areas under the concentration-time curve (AUC) obtained in different studies all correlate well with the dose (r = 0.926). The AUC determined after 200 and 25 mg suppositories were similarly well correlated. Hypochlorhydria does not affect the absorption of fluconazole, neither does food intake, race (Japanese or Caucasian) or gastrointestinal resection. Binding to plasma protein is low (11.14%) and is increased to 23% in cancer patients. Fluconazole is rapidly distributed to the tissue, where it accumulates. Tissues fall into 1 of 4 groups of increasing drug concentration: blood, bone and brain have the lowest concentrations, and spleen has the highest. The volume of distribution (Vd) remains stable at 46.3 +/- 7.9L and is considered to be an 'invariant' parameter across species. Fluconazole is poorly metabolised and is mainly eliminated unchanged in the urine. The percentage of the dose recovered in the urine in 48 hours is close to 60%. Concentrations in the urine are high and the half-life (t1/2) is long (37.2 +/- 5.5h) in patients, mainly those with AIDS, which is not significantly different from the t1/2 (31.4 +/- 4.7 hours) in healthy individuals. (ABSTRACT TRUN

Fluconazole. An update of its antimicrobial activity, pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic use in vaginal candidiasis

Fluconazole is a bis-triazole antifungal drug which has a pharmacokinetic profile characterised by its high water solubility, low affinity for plasma proteins, and metabolic stability. After a single 150 mg oral dose, therapeutic concentrations in vaginal secretions are rapidly achieved and are sustained for a duration sufficient to produce high clinical and mycological responses in nonimmunocompromised patients with vaginal candidiasis (candidosis). At this dosage, clinical and mycological responses have compared favourably with responses achieved after multiple dose regimens of other oral and intravaginal antifungal agents. Clinical efficacy rates have ranged between 92 and 99% at short term evaluation (5 days post-treatment). At 80 to 100 days post-treatment clinical efficacy rates of 91% have been reported. In addition, limited data indicate that fluconazole is more effective than placebo as prophylactic treatment of frequently recurring vaginal candidiasis. Single oral doses of fluconazole 150 mg are well tolerated. Most frequently observed adverse events are gastrointestinal symptoms, which are generally mild and transient in nature. Thus, fluconazole is a valuable alternative to established systemic and intravaginal azole antifungal drugs which are used to treat vaginal candidiasis. Moreover, in view of its favourable patient acceptability and compliance profile compared with alternative treatments, single-dose oral fluconazole should be considered as a first-line therapeutic choice for the treatment of women with vaginal candidiasis.

Single oral dose fluconazole compared with conventional clotrimazole topical therapy of Candida vaginitis. Fluconazole Vaginitis Study Group

OBJECTIVES

Candida vaginitis is currently treated with a wide range of intravaginal preparations usually prescribed over several days. Fluconazole with its marked activity against Candida species and favorable pharmacokinetics offered a safe, effective, and convenient alternative to topical therapy in a single-dose regimen.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a multicenter, randomized, prospective, single-blinded study of 429 patients with acute Candida vaginitis, comparing the efficacy and safety of a single oral 150 mg dose of fluconazole with 7-day clotrimazole 100 mg vaginal treatment. Posttherapy evaluations and mycologic eradication rates were conducted.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were seen between fluconazole and clotrimazole in the clinical, mycologic, or therapeutic responses. At the 14-day evaluation clinical cure or improvement was seen in 94% of fluconazole-treated patients and 97% of clotrimazole-treated patients. Mycologic and therapeutic cures were seen in 77% and 76% of the fluconazole and 72% of the clotrimazole groups, respectively. At the 35-day evaluation 75% of both groups remained clinically cured, and 56% of the fluconazole and 52% of the clotrimazole group were considered therapeutic cures. In both treatment groups patients with a history of recurrent vaginitis (33/84) compared with those without a history of recurrent vaginitis (177/266) were significantly less likely to respond clinically and mycologically (p < 0.001). Twenty-seven percent of the fluconazole-treated patients and 17% of the clotrimazole-treated patients reported mild side effects only.

CONCLUSION

Fluconazole administered as a single 150 mg oral dose proved to be as safe and effective as 7 days of intravaginal clotrimazole therapy for Candida vaginitis. Therapy of vaginitis should be individualized, taking into consideration severity of disease, history of recurrent vaginitis, and patient preference.

A randomized, comparative study of a single oral dose of fluconazole versus a single topical dose of clotrimazole in the treatment of vaginal candidosis among general practitioners and gynaecologists

OBJECTIVES

To compare efficacy, acceptability and patient preference of a single oral dose of fluconazole with a single intravaginal dose of 500 mg clotrimazole (medication groups) in women with vaginal candidosis visiting gynaecologists or general practitioners (study groups).

DESIGN

A comparative, randomized multicenter study. EVENTS: Baseline visit and treatment, short-term follow-up after 1 week and long-term follow-up after 4 weeks. At each visit, symptoms were graded and cultures were obtained.

RESULTS

Symptomatic and mycological efficacy did not differ statistical significant in the medication groups or study groups. A complicated history regarding vaginal candidosis was more often found among gynaecologists, yielding poorer results of treatment. Patients preferred oral treatment over intra-vaginal treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

No differences were found in the clinical and mycological efficacy of both drugs. Clinical results were related to parameters originating from the patients history, resulting in less favourable results in the study group of gynaecologists.