These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A randomized trial comparing a polyherbal pessary (a complementary and alternative medicine) with Ginlac-V pessary (containing clotrimazole, tinidazole and lactobacilli) for treatment of women with symptomatic vaginal discharge.
    Author: Patel Y, Gopalan S, Bagga R, Sharma M, Chopra S, Sethi S.
    Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2008 Oct; 278(4):341-7. PubMed ID: 18236058.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Most women with abnormal vaginal discharge have infection due to candida species, bacterial vaginosis or trichomoniasis and often seek treatment without laboratory confirmation. In this context, a single agent effective against these infections would be useful. AIM: To compare the efficacy of two such agents: Praneem polyherbal pessary; a complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) with Ginlac-V pessary (containing clotrimazole, tinidazole and lactobacilli) for treatment of abnormal vaginal discharge. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: A randomized study in a tertiary care hospital in North India. METHODS: One hundred women were randomized for treatment with either of the two pessaries. Clinical examination and laboratory evaluation was done before and after treatment. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Mc-Nemar test and Chi-square test. RESULTS: Overall, 82% (82/100) reported symptomatic relief; 78% (39/50) with Praneem and 86% (43/50) with Ginlac-V. Only 36% (18/50 in each group) had laboratory-confirmed infection; 18% (18/100) candidosis, 17% (17/100) bacterial vaginosis, 1% (1/100) both; none had trichomoniasis. Among these, symptomatic improvement was seen in 72% (13/18) and laboratory cure in 78% (14/18) with Praneem; symptomatic improvement in 78% (14/18) and laboratory cure in 78% (14/18) with Ginlac-V. Clinical or laboratory criteria could assess treatment efficacy equally. Neither drug was efficacious in candidosis. Ginlac-V was efficacious in bacterial vaginosis (100%) and though Praneem showed a similar trend, it was not statistically significant. Vaginal irritation was more frequent with Praneem (16% vs 4% with Ginlac-V). CONCLUSION: Both Praneem and Ginlac-V provided symptomatic relief in most of the women. Either clinical or laboratory criteria could assess treatment efficacy of both drugs. Ginlac-V was efficacious for treating bacterial vaginosis.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]