Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 177–181 | Cite as

The development of evidence‐ based guidelines for over‐ the‐ counter treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis

  • C.M. Bond
  • DM.C. Watson


Objective: The purpose of this study was to develop evidence‐ based guidelines for over‐ the‐ counter ( OTC) treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis with non‐ prescription anti‐ fungal medicines purchased from community pharmacies.Method: A multidisciplinary guideline development group was recruited from the locality where the guidelines were to be tested. A Nominal Group Technique ( NGT) was used to achieve formal consensus within the group regarding the issues that the guidelines would address. Guideline recommendations were developed from the results of two systematic literature reviews that assessed which symptoms were predictive of vulvovaginal candidiasis ( using data from epidemiological studies) and estimated the relative effectiveness of oral and intra‐ vaginal anti‐ fungals using data from randomised controlled trials. Main outcome measures: Evidence‐ based guideline recommendations. The guideline statements were linked to the evidence using a standard hierarchy.Results: The guideline development group met four times. The use of NGT was an effective way of achieving consensus on guideline content. Two systematic reviews carried out as part of the guideline development process identified evidence for the guidelines on the efficacy of OTC treatments and symptoms suggestive of vulvovaginal candidiasis.The guideline recommendations were presented as a booklet and a laminated algorithm. In summary, the guidelines highlighted symptoms suggestive of vulvovaginal candidiasis, and symptoms associated with other vaginal conditions that should be referred to the GP. The guidelines stated that oral treatment and intra‐ vaginal treatment are equally effective, and that selection of an anti‐ fungal should be based upon safety, cost and patient preference. Many of the recommendations were influenced by OTC licence restrictions of each antifungal product. Contra‐ indications to, and special precautions with, antifungals were also listed. In addition, the guidelines stated that the male sexual partner does not require treatment unless symptomatic. Conclusion: There is sufficient evidence available to develop evidence‐ based guidelines for the treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis in the community pharmacy setting. The NGT is a useful component in the guideline development process.

Community pharmacy Evidence‐ based practice Guidelines United Kingdom Vulvovaginal candidiasis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Department of Health. Pharmacy in the future - Implementing the NHS plan. A programme for pharmacy in the National Health Service. London: Department of Health, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scottish Executive. The right medicine. A strategy for pharmaceutical care in Scotland. Edinburgh: HMSO, 2002.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sobel J, Faro S, Force RW, Foxman B, Ledger WJ, Nyirjesy P et al. Vulvovaginal candidiasis: epidemiologic, diagnostic and therapeutic considerations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 178: 203–11.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nyirjesy P, Weitz M, Grody M, Lorber B. Over-the-counter and alternative medicines in the treatment of chronic vaginal symptoms. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1997; 90: 50–3.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sihvo S, Ahonen R, Mikander H, Hemminki E. Self-medication with vaginal antifungal drugs: physicians' experiences and women's utilization patterns. Fam Pract 2000; 17: 145–9.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Matheson C, Bond CM, Flett G, Kennedy E, Duthie I. Over the counter emergency contraception: a feasible option. Fam Pract 1998; 15: 38–43.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Porteous T, Bond CM, Duthie I, Matheson C. Guidelines for 180 the treatment of self limiting upper respiratory tract ailments. Pharm J 1998; 260: 134–9.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Porteous T, Bond CM, Duthie I, Matheson C. Guidelines for the treatment of hayfever and other allergic conditions of the upper respiratory tract. Pharm J 1997; 259: 62–5.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bond CM. Lower gastrointestinal symptoms. Pharm J 1995; 253: 656–8.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bond CM, Grimshaw J, Taylor RJ, Winfield A. An evaluation of clinical guidelines for community pharmacy. J Soc Admin Pharm 1998; 15: 33–9.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bond CM, Grimshaw J. Multidisciplinary guideline development: a case study from community pharmacy. Health Bull 1995; 53: 26–33.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gallagher M, Hares T, Spencer J, Bradshaw C, Webb I. The nominal group technique: a research tool for general practice? Fam Pract 1993; 10: 76–81.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Watson MC, Bond CM, Grimshaw JM, Mollison J, Ludbrook A, Walker A. Educational strategies to promote evidencebased community pharmacy practice: a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT). Fam Pract 2002; 19: 529–36.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leape LL, Freshour MA, Yntema D, Hsiao W. Small-group judgement methods for determining resource-based relative values. Med Care 1992; 30: ns28–ns39.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Watson MC, Grimshaw JM, Bond CM, Mollison J, Ludbrook A. Oral versus intra-vaginal imidazole and triazole anti-fungal agents for the treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush): a systematic review. BJOG 2002; 109: 85–95.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Watson MC, Grimsha JM, Bond CM, Mollison J, Ludbrook A. Oral versus intra-vaginal imidazole and triazole anti-fungal treatment of acute, uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush) (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library 2, 2001.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Geiger AM, Foxman B, Sobel JD. Chronic vulvovaginal candidiasis: characteristics of women with Candida albicans, C glabrata and no candida. Genitour Med 1995; 71: 304–7.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eckert LO, Hawes SE, Stevens C, Koutsky LA, Eschenbach DA, Holmes KK. Vulvovaginal candidiasis: clinical manifestations, risk factors, management algorithm. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 92: 757–65.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    McCormack WM, Starko KM, Zinner S. Symptoms associated with vaginal colonization with yeast. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 158: 31–3.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mårdh P, Tchoudomirova K, Elshibly S, Hellberg D. Symptoms and signs in single and mixed genital infections. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1998; 63: 145–52.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eschenbach DA, Hillier SL, Critchlow C, Stevens C, DeRouen T, Holmes K. Diagnosis and clinical manifestations of bacterial vaginosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 158: 819–28.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bisschop MPJM, Merkus J, Scheygrond H, Van Cutsem J. Cotreatment of the male partner in vaginal candidosis: a double-blind randomized control study. BJOG 1986; 93: 79–81.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1998 Guidelines for treatment of sexually transmitted disease. MMWR Morb Mortal Weekly Report 47(RR-1), 6–10, 1998.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Clinical Effectiveness Group (Association of Genitourinary Medicine and the Medical Society for the Study of Venereal Diseases). National guideline on the management of vulvovaginal candidiasis. Sex Transm Infect 1999; 75: S19–S20.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fong IW. The value of treating the sexual partners of women with recurrent vaginal candidiasis with ketoconazole. Genitour Med 1992; 68: 174–6.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    O'Dowd T, Parker S, Kelly A. Women's experience of general practitioner management of their vaginal symptoms. BJGP 1996; 46: 415–8.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chaponis R, Bresnick P, Weiss R, Edwards L. Candida vaginitis: Signs and symptoms aid women's self-recognition. J Clin Res Drug Dev 1993; 7: 17–23.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • C.M. Bond
    • 1
  • DM.C. Watson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of General Practice and Primary CareUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK E‐mail

Personalised recommendations