HEALTH OF WOMAN. 2016.3(109):123–125 
 

The vaginal dysbiosis: a modern view to a permanent problem

Cozack A. V.

A.A. Bogomolets National Medical University, Kiev

Objective: evaluation of treatment effect Evkolek when used in correction of vaginal dysbiosis.

Materials and methods. They were examined and treated 153 patients (102 women and 51 primary – the comparison group) with complaints of vaginal discomfort. For the treatment of the main group were used vaginal suppositories Evkolek, the comparison group – the traditional treatment of complex multicomponent + candles.

Results. In the treatment of subjective improvement of 4 days use of candles Evkolek noted 89% of patients of the main group.

As a result of the treatment of women's core group of side effects (burning sensation) were observed in 9 women (8.8%). In the comparison group, the side effects were observed in 8 patients (15.7%).

Conclusion. Evkolek candles showed good efficacy in treatment dysbiotic conditions such as bacterial vaginosis. Evkolek drug is well tolerated, side effects were observed in a small number of patients in a short burning sensation that did not require discontinuation of therapy.

Key words: drug Evkolek, vaginal discomfort, side effects.

REFERENCES

1. Ankirskaya AS. 2000. Nespetsificheskie vaginityi. Meditsina dlya vseh 2;17.

2. Evropeyskie standartyi diagnostiki i lecheniya zabolevaniy, peredavaemyih polovyim putem. M, «Meditsinskaya literatura». 2004:272.

3. Kisina VI, Zabirov KI. 2005. Urogenitalnyie infektsii u zhenschin. Klinika, diagnostika, lechenie. M:276.

4. Kira EF. 1995. Bakterialnyiy vaginoz: klinika, diagnostika, lechenie. Avtoref. diss. d-ra med. nauk. SPb:297.

5. Voroshilina ES, Tumbinskaya LV, Donnikov AE, Plotko EE, Hayutin LV. 2011. Biotsenoz vlagalischa s tochki zreniya kolichestvennoy polimeraznoy tsepnoy reaktsii: chto est norma? Akusherstvo i ginekologiya 1:57–65.

6. Tsvelev YuV, Kocherovets VI, Kira EF, Baskakov VP. 1995. Anaerobnaya infektsiya v akushersko-ginekologicheskoy praktike. SPb:313.

7. Rodkina RA, Davidyan LYu, Bogdasarov AYu, Tselkovich LS, Tselkovich RB. 2002. Sravnitelnaya effektivnost kompleksnoy terapii giperplasticheskih protsessov endometriya u bolnyih s raz-lichnoy tehnogennoy nagruzkoy sredyi prozhivaniya. Akusherstvo i ginekologiya 1:52–54.

8. Bayo M, Berlanga M, Agut M. 2002. Vaginal microbiota in healthy pregnant women and prenatal screening of group В Streptococci (GBS). Int. Microbiol. 5;2:87–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10123-002-0064-1; PMid:12180784

9. Eschenbach DA. 1993. History and riview of bacterial vaginosis. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 169;2:441–445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(93)90337-I

10. Hughes VL, Hillier SL. 1990. Microbiological characteristics of Lactobacillus products used for colonization of the vagina. Obstet. Gynecol. 75:244–288.

11. Mehta A, Talwalkar J, Shetty CV et al. 1995. Microbial flora of the vagina. Microecology and Therapy 23:1–7.

12. Reid G, Bruce AW. 2003. Urogenital infections in women Can probiotics help? Postgraduate Medical J. 79:429–432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/pmj.79.934.428; PMCid:PMC1742800