A Double-Blind Comparison of the Effectiveness of Itraconazole Oral Capsules with Econazole Vaginal Capsules in the Treatment of Vaginal Candidosis

Oral versus intra-vaginal imidazole and triazole anti-fungal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush)

BACKGROUND

Anti-fungals are available for oral and intra-vaginal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review is to assess the relative effectiveness (clinical cure) of oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungals for the treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. Secondary objectives include the assessment of the relative effectiveness in terms of mycological cure, in addition to safety, side effects, treatment preference, time to first relief of symptoms, and costs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers on 29 August 2019 together with reference checking and citation searching.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials published in any language comparing at least one oral anti-fungal with one intra-vaginal anti-fungal in women (aged 16 years or over) with a mycological diagnosis (positive culture, microscopy for yeast, or both) of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. We excluded trials if they solely involved participants who were HIV positive, immunocompromised, pregnant, breast feeding or diabetic.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 26 trials (5007 participants). Eight anti-fungals are represented. All but three trials included participants with acute vulvovaginal candidiasis. Trials were conducted in Europe: UK (3), Croatia (2). Finland (2), the Netherlands (2), Germany (1), Italy (1), Sweden (1) and one trial across multiple European countries, USA (7) Thailand (2), Iran (2), Japan (1) and Africa (Nigeria) (1). The duration of follow-up varied between trials. The overall risk of bias of the included trials was high. There was probably little or no difference shown between oral and intra-vaginal anti-fungal treatment for clinical cure at short-term follow-up (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.43; 13 trials; 1859 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and long-term follow-up (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.50; 9 trials; 1042 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of clinical cure at short-term follow-up with intra-vaginal treatment is 77%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 75% and 83%; if the rate of clinical cure at long term follow-up with intra-vaginal treatment is 84%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 80% and 89%. Oral treatment probably improves mycological cure over intra-vaginal treatment at short term (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.50: 19 trials; 3057 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and long-term follow-up (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.60; 13 trials; 1661 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of mycological cure at short-term follow-up with intra-vaginal treatment is 80%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 80% and 85%; if the rate of mycological cure at long-term follow-up with intra-vaginal treatment is 66%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 67% and 76%. In terms of patient safety, there is a low risk of participants withdrawing from the studies due to adverse drug effects for either treatment (23 trials; 4637 participants; high-certainty evidence). Due to the low certainty of evidence, it is undetermined whether oral treatments reduced the number of side effects compared with intra-vaginal treatments (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.29; 16 trials; 3155 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of side effects with intra-vaginal treatment is 12%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 10% and 15%. We noted that the type of side effects differed, with intra-vaginal treatments being more often associated with local reactions, and oral treatments being more often associated with systemic effects including gastro-intestinal symptoms and headaches. Oral treatment appeared to be the favoured treatment preference over intra-vaginal treatment or no preference (12 trials; 2206 participants), however the data were poorly reported and the certainty of the evidence was low. There was little or no difference in time to first relief of symptoms between oral and intra-vaginal treatments: four trials favoured the oral treatment, four favoured intra-vaginal, one study reported no difference and one was unclear. The measurements varied between the 10 trials (1910 participants) and the certainty of the evidence was low. Costs were not reported in any of the trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral anti-fungal treatment probably improves short- and long-term mycological cure over intra-vaginal treatment for uncomplicated vaginal candidiasis. Oral treatment was the favoured treatment preference by participants, though the certainty of this evidence is low. The decision to prescribe or recommend an anti-fungal for oral or intra-vaginal administration should take into consideration safety in terms of withdrawals and side effects, as well as cost and treatment preference. Unless there is a previous history of adverse reaction to one route of administration or contraindications, women who are purchasing their own treatment should be given full information about the characteristics and costs of treatment to make their own decision. If health services are paying the treatment cost, decision-makers should consider whether the higher cost of some oral anti-fungals is worth the gain in convenience, if this is the patient's preference.

Patient preferences and treatment safety for uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis in primary health care

Background

Vaginitis is a common complaint in primary care. In uncomplicated candidal vaginitis, there are no differences in effectiveness between oral or vaginal treatment. Some studies describe that the preferred treatment is the oral one, but a Cochrane's review points out inconsistencies associated with the report of the preferred way that limit the use of such data. Risk factors associated with recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis still remain controversial.

Methods/Design

This work describes a protocol of a multicentric prospective observational study with one year follow up, to describe the women's reasons and preferences to choose the way of administration (oral vs topical) in the treatment of not complicated candidal vaginitis. The number of women required is 765, they are chosen by consecutive sampling. All of whom are aged 16 and over with vaginal discharge and/or vaginal pruritus, diagnosed with not complicated vulvovaginitis in Primary Care in Madrid.

The main outcome variable is the preferences of the patients in treatment choice; secondary outcome variables are time to symptoms relief and adverse reactions and the frequency of recurrent vulvovaginitis and the risk factors. In the statistical analysis, for the main objective will be descriptive for each of the variables, bivariant analysis and multivariate analysis (logistic regression).. The dependent variable being the type of treatment chosen (oral or topical) and the independent, the variables that after bivariant analysis, have been associated to the treatment preference.

Discussion

Clinical decisions, recommendations, and practice guidelines must not only attend to the best available evidence, but also to the values and preferences of the informed patient.

Oral versus intra-vaginal imidazole and triazole anti-fungal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush)

BACKGROUND

Anti-fungals are available for oral and intra-vaginal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush).

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to assess the relative effectiveness of oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungals for the treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. The secondary objectives of the review were to assess the cost-effectiveness, safety and patient preference of oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungals.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following sources were searched for the original review: The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 1999), MEDLINE (January 1985 to May 2000), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2000) and the Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials. The manufacturers of anti-fungals available in the UK were contacted. For the update, CENTRAL (January 2000 to August 2006), PUBMED (January 2000 to August 2006), EMBASE (January 2000 to August 2006) and the Cochrane STD Group Specialised Register were searched in August 2006. The reference lists of retrieved articles were reviewed manually.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials published in any language. Trials had to compare at least one oral anti-fungal with one intra-vaginal anti-fungal. Women (aged 16 years or over) with uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. The diagnosis of vulvovaginal candidiasis to be made mycologically (i.e. a positive culture and / or microscopy for yeast). Trials were excluded if they solely involved subjects who were HIV positive, immunocompromised, pregnant, breast feeding or diabetic. The primary outcome measure was clinical cure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts of the electronic search results and full text of potentially relevant papers. Independent duplicate abstraction was performed by two reviewers. Disagreements regarding trial inclusion or data abstraction were resolved by discussion between the reviewers. Odds ratios were pooled using the fixed effects models (except for two analyses when random effects models were used because of potentially important heterogeneity).

MAIN RESULTS

Two new trials reporting three comparisons were found in the update. Nineteen trials are included in the review, reporting 22 oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungal comparisons. No statistically significant differences were shown between oral and intra-vaginal anti-fungal treatment for clinical cure at short term (OR 0.94, 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.17) and long term (OR 1.07, 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.41) follow-up. No statistically significant differences for mycological cure were observed between oral and intra-vaginal treatment at short term (OR 1.15, 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.42). There was a statistically significant difference for long term follow-up (OR 1.29, 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.60) in favour of oral treatment, however the clinical significance of this result is uncertain. Two trials each reported one withdrawal from treatment due to an adverse reaction. Treatment preference data were poorly reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No statistically significant differences were observed in clinical cure rates of anti-fungals administered by the oral and intra-vaginal routes for the treatment of uncomplicated vaginal candidiasis. No definitive conclusion can be made regarding the relative safety of oral and intra-vaginal anti-fungals for uncomplicated vaginal candidiasis. The decision to prescribe or recommend the purchase of an anti-fungal for oral or intra-vaginal administration should take into consideration: safety, cost and treatment preference. Unless there is a previous history of adverse reaction to one route of administration or contraindications, women who are purchasing their own treatment should be given full information about the characteristics and costs of treatment to make their own decision. If health services are paying the treatment cost, decision-makers should consider whether the higher cost of some oral anti-fungals is worth the gain in convenience, if this is the patient's preference.

Oral versus intra-vaginal imidazole and triazole anti-fungal agents for the treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush): a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To compare the relative effectiveness, cost effectiveness and safety of oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungal treatments for uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush) and establish patient preference for the route of anti-fungal administration.

DESIGN

A systematic review of studies comparing oral and intra-vaginal anti-fungal treatments for uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. Standard Cochrane Collaboration methods were used.

DATA SOURCES

The following sources were searched: the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register; the Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Disease review group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials; EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2000); and MEDLINE (January 1985 to May 2000). The reference list of each trial was checked for additional references. The manufacturers of anti-fungal treatments in the UK were asked for information on trials fulfilling the inclusion criteria.

METHODS

There was duplicate, independent examination and selection of the electronic search results followed by duplicate data abstraction. Disagreements regarding inclusion status and data abstraction were resolved by discussion between reviewers and the editor of the Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Disease group. Randomised controlled trials conducted worldwide and published in any language were included. The primary outcome measure was clinical cure. Mycological cure, patient preference and safety were secondary outcome measures.

RESULTS

Seventeen trials were included in the review, reporting 19 oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungal treatment comparisons. No statistically significant differences were shown between oral and intra-vaginal anti-fungal treatment for clinical or mycological cure. All 10 trials that reported a preference favoured oral treatment (compared with intra-vaginal or no preference). No trials presented cost data.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no difference between the relativeeffectiveness of oral and intra-vaginal anti-fungal treatment for thrush.

Oral versus intra-vaginal imidazole and triazole anti-fungal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush)

BACKGROUND

Anti-fungals are available for oral and intra-vaginal treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush).

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to assess the relative effectiveness of oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungals for the treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. The secondary objectives of the review were to assess the cost-effectiveness, safety and patient preference of oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungals.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following sources were searched: The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 1999), MEDLINE (January 1985 to May 2000), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2000) and the Cochrane Collaboration Sexually Transmitted Disease Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials. The reference lists of retrieved articles were reviewed manually. The manufacturers of anti-fungals available in the UK were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

~Bullet~Randomised controlled trials published in any language. ~Bullet~Trials had to compare at least one oral anti-fungal with one intra-vaginal anti-fungal. ~Bullet~Women (aged 16 years or over) with uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. ~Bullet~The diagnosis of vulvovaginal candidiasis to be made mycologically (i.e. a positive culture and / or microscopy for yeast). ~Bullet~Trials were excluded if they solely involved subjects who were HIV positive, immunocompromised, pregnant, breastfeeding or diabetic. ~Bullet~The primary outcome measure was clinical cure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Duplicate scrutiny was performed of the titles and abstracts of the electronic search results. Full article formats of all selected abstracts were retrieved and independently assessed by two reviewers. Independent duplicate abstraction was performed by four reviewers. Disagreements regarding trial inclusion or data abstraction were resolved by discussion between the reviewers. Odds ratios were pooled using the random effects model. Chi-squared tests with a p-value of less than 0.1 indicated heterogeneity in the results.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen trials are included in the review, reporting 19 oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungal comparisons. No statistically significant differences were shown between oral and intra-vaginal anti-fungal treatment for clinical cure at short term (OR 1.00 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.40)) and long term (OR 1.03 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.49)) follow-up. No statistically significant differences for mycological cure were observed between oral and intra-vaginal treatment at short term (OR 1.20(95% CI, 0.87 to 1.65)) or long term follow-up (OR 1.30 (95% CI, 0.99 to 1.71)). Two trials each reported one withdrawal from treatment due to an adverse reaction. Treatment preference data were poorly reported.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

No differences exist in terms of the relative effectiveness (measured as clinical and mycological cure) of anti-fungals administered by the oral and intra-vaginal routes for the treatment of uncomplicated vaginal candidiasis. No definitive conclusion can be made regarding the relative safety of oral and intra-vaginal anti-fungals for uncomplicated vaginal candidiasis. The oral route of administration is the preferred route for anti-fungals for the treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis. The decision to prescribe or recommend the purchase of an anti-fungal for oral or intra-vaginal administration should take into consideration: safety, cost and treatment preference. Unless there is a previous history of adverse reaction to one route of administration or contraindications: if women are purchasing their own treatment, they should be given full information about the characteristics and costs of treatment to make their own decision. If health services are paying the treatment cost, decision-makers should consider whether the higher cost of oral anti-fungal administration is worth the gain in convenience, if this is the patient's preference.

Itraconazole

Itraconazole is a broad spectrum triazole antifungal agent. It has favourable pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles and is available as both oral and i.v. formulations. Over the last two decades, clinical and animal infection studies have demonstrated the efficacy of itraconazole in a wide range of superficial fungal infections including difficult-to-treat dermatophytoses and onychomycoses. Furthermore, shortened treatment regimens have proven to be effective, ranging from 1-day treatment for vaginal candidosis to 1-week pulse therapy per month, for 2-4 months, in onychomycosis and follicular dermatophytosis. Clinical experience with itraconazole in the treatment of deep mycoses is less comprehensive. However, results in systemic candidosis, sporotrichosis, blastomycosis, paracoccidioiodomycosis, certain types of histoplasmosis and aspergillosis are extremely encouraging. Itraconazole is less effective in the treatment of chromomycosis and coccidioidomycosis. Nevertheless, considering the refractory nature of these diseases, itraconazole has proven to be a valuable addition to the antifungal drugs currently available for treatment. Itraconazole has been well-tolerated with doses of up to 400 mg/day being generally free of serious adverse effects. However, a potential for drug interactions exists, mediated through the cytochrome P450 enzyme 3A4 system, which should be considered when itraconazole is used as part of a multi-drug regimen.