PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9746676

Practical Guide to Diagnosing and Treating Vaginitis.

Abstract

Bacterial vaginosis (BV), candidiasis, and trichomoniasis account for more than 90% of vaginal infections. BV typically is associated with a decrease in commensal, protective lactobacilli and a proliferation of other flora. Mobiluncus is pathognomonic but found in only 20% of cases. Presence of 3 of 4 criteria indicates BV: a homogenous noninflammatory discharge (not many WBCs); pH >4.5; clue cells (bacteria attached to borders of epithelial cells, > 20 % of epithelial cells); and a positive whiff test. New intravaginal BV preparations cause less-adverse systemic effects than oral regimens. Trichomonas vaginalis, a protozoan, appears to be sexually transmitted and causes up to 25% of vaginitis cases. Diagnosis is made by observation of a foul, frothy discharge; pH >4.5 (present in 70% of cases); punctate cervical microhemorrhages (25% of cases); and motile trichomonads on wet mount (50%-75% of cases). Recommended treatment is a single 2g dose of oral metronidazole. Treatment failure is usually due to nontreatment of the male partner. Candidiasis typically presents as a thick, "curdled" white discharge or vulvar pruritus, with a hyperemic vagina and an erythematous and/or excoriated vulva. Vaginal pH is usually in the normal range of 3.8-4.2 in uncomplicated candidiasis. Microscopic examination of the discharge reveals hyphae or budding yeast in 50%-70% of cases. While the most common offender is Candida albicans, Candida tropicalis and Candida glabrata have become increasingly prevalent. Approximately 15% of C albicans organisms are resistant to clotrimazole and miconazole. Recurrent infections may be treated with fluconazole 150mg weekly for up to 12 consecutive weeks.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

DM Plourd. 1997. Practical Guide to Diagnosing and Treating Vaginitis.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9746676/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗