4.2 Article

Vulvovaginal Candidiasis as a Chronic Disease: Diagnostic Criteria and Definition

期刊

JOURNAL OF LOWER GENITAL TRACT DISEASE
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 31-38

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/LGT.0b013e318287aced

关键词

vulvovaginal; candidiasis; chronic; diagnosis; definition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Although recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis is defined as 4 or more discrete attacks of vulvovaginal candidiasis per year, there is no diagnostic nomenclature or definition for the many women who are chronically symptomatic. This study aims to establish and propose a definition and a set of diagnostic criteria, which would enable clinicians to promptly identify and treat women with chronic vulvovaginal candidiasis (CVVC). Design Prospective cohort study. Setting Public and private vulvar dermatology outpatient clinics in Sydney, Australia. Participants Data were obtained prospectively from 50 women with presumptive CVVC and 42 controls. Historical and clinical features of CVVC identified by expert consensus were compared between the 2 groups. Diagnostic criteria were then prospectively applied to a further 163 patients to verify their accuracy. Outcome Measures Signs and symptoms diagnostic of CVVC. Results The following characteristics were found to be significantly more common in women with CVVC compared to controls (p .001): a history of positive vaginal Candida swab, discharge, dyspareunia, soreness, swelling, cyclicity, and exacerbation of symptoms with antibiotics. Conclusions We propose that CVVC can be confidently diagnosed using the major criteria of a chronic nonspecific and nonerosive vulvovaginitis that includes at least 5 or more properties from the following criteria: soreness, dyspareunia, positive vaginal swab either at presentation or in the past, previous response to antifungal medication, exacerbation with antibiotics, cyclicity, swelling, and discharge. This condition responds reliably to oral antifungal medication.

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

4.2
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