Narrative review uncovers multifactorial drivers and therapeutic gaps in recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis, highlighting the need for individualized, diagnosis-driven care.
Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (RVVC), commonly defined as ≥3 symptomatic episodes per year, affects an estimated 138 million women worldwide. This structured narrative review (PubMed/MEDLINE and open-indexed sources, January 2020–July 2026, as well as selected pre-2020 landmark studies) synthesizes epidemiological and metabolic risk factors (including SGLT2-inhibitor-associated susceptibility), host immunogenetic and vaginal microbiome mechanisms, emerging preventive pharmacotherapies, and patient-reported outcomes within a unified clinical framework. RVVC arises from interacting host, microbial, metabolic, behavioral, and iatrogenic domains—diabetes-related hyperglycemia, innate immune polymorphisms (MBL2, TLR2), altered bacterial–fungal vaginal communities, and non-albicans Candida in difficult-to-treat cases. Fluconazole maintenance remains a guideline-supported suppressive option but relapse after discontinuation is common; oteseconazole and ibrexafungerp expand prevention choices, while probiotics show inconsistent, low-certainty benefit. RVVC consistently impairs health-related quality of life, sexual function, and mental health and imposes substantial economic burden; regional data from Southeastern Europe underscore diagnostic and access gaps. We propose a multifactorial host–pathogen–microbiome model that favors individualized, diagnosis-driven management and routine incorporation of validated patient-reported outcomes. Research priorities include harmonized case definitions, head-to-head trials of new agents, validated quality-of-life instruments, longer post-treatment follow-up, and real-world cost-effectiveness evaluations. Implementation research, equitable access strategies, clinician education, and national health policy are essential to translate evidence into improved patient outcomes globally.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Novak et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: