| Literature DB >> 32025255 |
Olga S Alyautdina1, Elena V Esina2.
Abstract
Traditional therapy and extensive use of medications and intravaginal autolymphocyte therapy show different results of the treatment of vulvovaginal infections. The purpose of the article was to explore safe and highly effective methods to treat vulvovaginal infections and diseases of the pelvic organs. The standard clinical and laboratory screening of 70 patients of reproductive age was carried out to diagnose the diseases of the reproductive tract. The screening included the description of quantitative and qualitative characteristics of vaginal discharge, examining the mucous covering of the vulva and vagina, microscopic examination of Gram-stained vaginal swabs, endocervical cultures, and diagnosis of sexually transmitted infections using polymerase chain reaction. Intravaginal autolymphocyte therapy was used together with traditionally-accepted treatment schemes (etiotropic antibacterial and antifungal therapy) in the treatment of the main group (40 patients). Traditional treatment methods depending on the etiology of the development of infection were used in the control group (30 patients). The IgM, IgA, and IgG levels were also observed because of the possibility of causing embryo rejection. This study shows that in case of relapsing vulvovaginitis and mixed infections accompanied by disorders of the immune system at different levels, the use of intravaginal autolymphocyte therapy in a comprehensive therapy can be assessed as advisable and pathogenetically substantiated. ©Carol Davila University Press.Entities:
Keywords: IALT - intravaginal autolymphocyte therapy; MALT - mucosal-associated lymphoid; PCR - polymerase chain reaction; STIs - sexually transmitted infections; autolymphocyte therapy; immunotherapy; infertility; pelvic inflammatory diseases; tissue; vulvovaginitis
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 32025255 PMCID: PMC6993294 DOI: 10.25122/jml-2019-0068
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Life ISSN: 1844-122X
Patients’ screening results for STIs; n (%).
| Indicator | Main group | Control group |
|---|---|---|
| 3 (7.5%) | 5 (16.6) | |
| 2 (5.0%) | 3 (10.0%) | |
| 2 (5.0%) | 2 (6.7%) | |
| 8 (20.0%) | 9 (30.0%) | |
| 7 (17.5%) | 5 (16.6%) | |
| 9 (22.5%) | 7 (23.3%) | |
| 1 (2.5%) | 2 (6.7%) | |
| 8 (20.0%) | 6 (20.0%) | |
| 3 (7.5%) | 2 (6.7%) | |
| 5 (12.5%) | 3 (10.0%) |
Clinical presentations of an infectious process; n (%).
| Indicator | Main group | Control group |
|---|---|---|
| 22 (55.0%) | 16 (53.3%) | |
| 9 (22.5%) | 6 (20.0%) | |
| 10 (25.0%) | 7 (23.3%) | |
| 5 (12.5%) | 4 (13.3%) | |
| 2 (5.0%) | 1 (3.3%) | |
| 10 (25.0%) | 6 (20.0%) |
Therapeutic effectiveness of traditional and comprehensive treatment; n (%).
| Treatment Results | 1st control screening | 2nd control screening | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main group | Control group | Main group | Control group | |
| 30 (75.0%) | 18 (60.0%) | 37 (92.5%) | 23 (76.66%) | |
| 6 (15.0%) | 4 (13.33%) | – | – | |
| 4 (10.0%) | 8 (26.66%) | 3 (7.5%) | 7 (23.33%) | |
differences between groups are statistically significant (р<0.05)