4.7 Review

Treatment of Vulvovaginal Candidiasis-An Overview of Guidelines and the Latest Treatment Methods

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 16, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12165376

关键词

vulvovaginal candidiasis; vagina; azoles; oteseconazole; ibrexafungerp; immunotherapy; recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are diverse treatment options for vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC), including oteseconazole and ibrexafungerp. However, there is inconsistency in the latest recommendations and novel treatment options for VVC.
Vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) is a common condition associated with discomfort in affected women. Due to the presence of different forms of the disease, diverse treatment regimens are developed; the newest ones include oteseconazole and ibrexafungerp. Here, we focus on the most up-to-date recommendations regarding VVC treatment, as well as novel treatment options. Topical and oral azoles are the drugs of choice in uncomplicated mycosis. The efficacy of probiotics and substances such as TOL-463 and chlorhexidine is indicated as satisfactory; however, there are no relevant guidelines. Although the majority of researchers agree that the treatment of non-albicans VVC should be long-lasting, the recommendations are inconsistent. Another clinical problem is the treatment of VVC with azole intolerance or resistance, for which literature proposes the use of several drugs including oteseconazole, ibrexafungerp, and voriconazole. The treatment schedules for recurrent VVC include mainly fluconazole; however, alternative options such as immunotherapeutic vaccine (NDV-3A) or designed antimicrobial peptides (dAMPs) were also described. We also focused on VVC affecting pregnant women, which is a substantial challenge in clinical practice, also due to the heterogeneous relevant guidelines. Thus far, few precise recommendations are available in the literature. Future studies should focus on atypical VVC forms to elucidate the inconsistent findings.

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

4.7
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