4.5 Article

A randomized clinical trial of the efficacy and safety of terconazole vaginal suppository versus oral fluconazole for treating severe vulvovaginal candidiasis

期刊

MEDICAL MYCOLOGY
卷 53, 期 5, 页码 455-461

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mmy/myv017

关键词

vulvovaginal candidiasis; terconazole; fluconazole

资金

  1. Shenzhen Science and Technology [201201001, JCYJ 20140415162338813]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Terconazole is a new, broad-spectrum, triazole antifungal agent. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a 6-day course of a terconazole vaginal suppository (80 mg) with two doses of oral fluconazole (150 mg) for the treatment of severe vulvovaginal candidiasis (SVVC). In this prospective, randomized case-control study, 140 consecutive patients with SVVC were enrolled at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Peking University Shenzhen Hospital from July 1, 2013, through June 31, 2014. Patients with SVVC, initially at a 1:1 ratio, were randomly assigned to receive treatment with either the terconazole vaginal suppository or oral fluconazole. The patients had follow-up visits at 7-14 days and 30-35 days following the last dose of therapy. The clinical cure rates in the terconazole group and the fluconazole group were, respectively, 81.0% (47/58) and 75.8% (50/66) at follow-up day 7-14 and 60.3% (35/58) and 56.1% (37/66) at day 30-35. The mycological cure rates in the two groups were, respectively, 79.3% (46/58) and 71.2% (47/66) at follow-up day 7-14 and 62.1% (36/58) and 53.0% (35/66) at day 30-35 (P > .05 for all). Local irritation was the primary adverse event associated with terconazole, whereas systemic side effects were associated with fluconazole; however, these effects were minimal. This study demonstrated that a terconazole vaginal suppository (80 mg daily for 6 days) was as effective as two dose of oral fluconazole (150 mg) in the treatment of patients with SVVC; as such, terconazole could be a choice for therapy of this disorder.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据