4.6 Article

Vaginal colonization by Candida in asymptomatic women with and without a history of recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis

Journal

OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
Volume 95, Issue 3, Pages 413-416

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/S0029-7844(99)00577-3

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The asymptomatic carriage of Candida in the vagina of women with a history of recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis was compared with that of women with no such history. Methods: Vaginal swabs from 50 women with a history of recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis and 45 women with one or fewer episodes of candidal vaginaitis within the past 12 months were evaluated or Candida by wet mount/Gram stain, culture, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). All women were asymptomatic for at least 30 days. Results: Candida was identified in 28 women by PCR, in 14 women by culture, and in 13 women by wet mount/Gram stain. Candida was identified by PCR in a similar proportion of patients with previous recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (30%) and in controls (28.8%). However, Candida was identified by culture in mort! women with previous recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (22%) than in controls (6.6%, P = .04); it also was identified by wet mount/Gram stain in more women with recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (22%) than in controls (4.4%, P = .01). For the recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis patients, culture and wet mount/Gram stain had a sensitivity of 66.6% compared with PCR. For the controls, the sensitivity of the two former assays relative to PCR was only:15.3%. Conclusion: Women with a history of recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis have more easily detectable Candida in their vagina, even when asymptomatic, than do other women. A relative inefficiency in regulating the proliferation of Candida in the vagina may increase susceptibility to periodic symptomatic recurrences. (Obstet Gynecol 2000;95:413-6. (C) 2000 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available