Trial reportPloS one2026
Vaginal chlorhexidine gluconate versus fluconazole for recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis: A randomized noninferiority trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (RVVC) is a common condition characterized by frequent relapses, often without a clearly identifiable cause. Fluconazole (FLZ) is the standard treatment but concerns about emerging resistance and drug interaction highlight the need for alternative therapies. Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG), known for its antifungal and biofilm-disrupting properties, has been proposed as a potential alternative.
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and microbiome impact of a vaginal CHG formulation compared to oral FLZ in the treatment of RVVC caused by Candida albicans.
methodsAn open label randomized non-inferiority trial was conducted to compare vaginal CHG and FLZ treatments. Primary outcome was negative cultures for C. albicans. Resistance profiles and changes in the vaginal microbiome composition were also assessed.
resultsThe study was terminated early due to local irritation associated with CHG and the study design was transitioned into a pilot study. CHG treatment showed comparable efficacy to FLZ in clearing C. albicans infections and preventing recurrences, although the sample size was limited. All 11 participants in the FLZ group cleared the infection after one week treatment, compared to 9 out 11 in the CHG group. No harmful changes to the vaginal microbiome were observed in the CGH or FLZ group. FLZ promoted a shift toward Lactobacillus crispatus dominance, unlike CHG. Notably, 16% of C. albicans isolates exhibited reduced susceptibility or resistance to FLZ.
conclusionDue to the limited number of participants, we cannot conclusively determine whether CHG is non-inferior to FLZ in terms of efficacy for clearing acute C. albicans infections or preventing recurrences. While the current CHG formulation caused local irritation and is not suitable for clinical use, its antifungal and biofilm-inhibiting properties remain promising. Further development of less irritative CHG formulations may offer a valuable alternative for RVVC treatment, particularly in the context of rising FLZ resistance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.