Lab results - looking for opinions [PLEASE READ 1ST POST]

vividsailor7 said:You can definitely tell there’s some actual progress being made here. Staying hydrated is honestly one of those things people constantly underestimate, though I suppose it’s easy to forget when you're caught up in the daily grind, but you really need to keep those fluids up—especially now that summer is hitting us with that relentless heat, so aim for something like three liters a day if you want to avoid feeling like a dried-out raisin.
I suppose I should probably mention that thread, though looking back at it feels a bit like staring directly into a sunbeam—it’s blinding, slightly painful, and ultimately leaves you wondering why you didn't just close your eyes in the first place. There was a certain chaotic energy there, wasn't there? A sort of aimless drifting through topics that felt significant at the moment but now seem like nothing more than digital dust settling on an old bookshelf. I can't quite decide if we were actually getting anywhere or if we were all just circling the drain of a very specific, very niche existential crisis. Regardless, it's done now. Moving on, I guess.

Thanks a million.
I went ahead and ran some additional blood work—specifically looking at my bilirubin and iron levels—so if you wouldn't mind taking a look at those results as well, I’d appreciate it.

So, I was looking over my latest labs, and it looks like my total bilirubin came in at 22, which is just a hair above that standard 3 to 20 range they usually give you. Honestly, it’s one of those things where you stare at the numbers on the screen and wonder if you should be calling a doctor or just going about your day, though I suppose I'm always prone to overthinking these little statistical deviations. It’s probably nothing significant, just one of those minor fluctuations that happens when your body is doing its own thing, but still, there's that slight sense of uncertainty that lingers when the results aren't perfectly within the lines.
Iron levels at 27 [Ref range: 11-32].

restlessbadger2 said:Hey there! I’m looking for someone who actually knows their stuff when it comes to interpreting lab results. Could you please give me a hand? I'm 29 years old.
I’m only doing these tests because I’ve been trapped in this endless cycle of vaginal infections for about six months now. Honestly, it's exhausting. Every single time I go in, they throw a different diagnosis at me—first it's vulvovaginitis, then suddenly it's candidiasis... it never ends. The symptoms have become my constant, miserable companions: intense redness across the anogenital mucosa, these bright red erythematous patches on the labia minora (which they claim is just from the Candida), and this burning sensation in the vulva and vagina that is absolutely driving me insane. I can't even tell if the burning is being caused by damaged tissue or if there's something else deeper going on. I have seen several so-called "top-tier" gynecologists, and frankly? None of them have a clue what is actually happening or why I am completely non-responsive to treatment. They just keep cycling through prescriptions like they're candy. I've been forced to use everything under the sun: Polygynax, Canesten, Plymicol, Gynodaktarin, Diflucan, and oral Itraconazole. Then come the various corticosteroid creams, Metronidazole in both vaginal and oral forms, and Dalacin vaginal cream. It is a total nightmare. 😢
For the most part, all my blood work came back looking fine. I’ve been running around like crazy getting everything checked out, but right now, I'm just sitting here waiting on the results from the immunology panel.
To make a long story short, I just got my lab results back, and here they are:

Microbiology report back: Stool tests came in. Both the native preparation and the stained preparation were negative. What does that actually mean? It means there is no Candida in my gut.
Serum testing (bloodwork) for antibodies against Candida spp... they actually ran three different methods on this.
a) IIF - IgG: result is 80 (reference range: 1 to ≤ 80)
b) IHA - IgM/IgG/IgA: Result came back at 160 (Reference range: 1 to ≤ 160)
c) ELISA - IgG: The result came back at 90. Just so everyone knows, that puts it right in that gray area—the cutoff range is between 40 and 100.

These results are right on the edge. I mean, they’re borderline, plain and simple. How much should we actually worry about them being "good" or "bad"? Honestly, the gray area is where things get frustrating. Is there a genuine risk of systemic candidiasis here? That’s the big question hanging over all of this.

Third vaginal swab results are back: the native prep came back positive, the stained prep was also positive, and they actually isolated a culture: *Candida albicans*.
They ran tests on the Candida using all sorts of different chemical compounds, and the results showed sensitivity across the board—meaning those drugs should actually work. But here’s the part that makes absolutely no sense to me: if the lab results say the Candida is sensitive to these medications, why on earth haven't they done a damn thing for my condition? How can the tests show they're effective while I'm still sitting here dealing with this? It just doesn't add up!
Here is the list of chemical substances:
-5 fluorocytosine: S (MIC = 4.000)
Regarding the amphotericin B results: it’s showing sensitivity (MIC = 0.500).
Fluconazole: Susceptible (MIC = 1.000)
Regarding the itraconazole results: it’s showing as Susceptible (MIC = 0.125).
Voriconazole: Susceptible (MIC = 0.060)

What exactly does MIK mean? I'm trying to figure out which of these substances would actually be effective at tackling a Candida infection. Is it that first one listed there with the MIK of 4,000?
My doctor just put me on a regimen of using 3% boric acid twice a week—both as topical compresses and as overnight tampons—to help with the epithelialization of some ulcerated areas on my mucous membrane.
After all that, we'll just have to see how things play out. For now, I'm not using anything at all to fight the Candida.
Does anyone have any actual suggestions on how to properly jumpstart the epithelialization of damaged vaginal mucosa? I feel like I've tried everything, but I'm looking for more ideas to get that tissue actually healing.
Thanks in advance for the response! 🙂

MIC is determined through a dilution procedure.Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC).
In short, that’s the absolute bare minimum dosage required to actually stop those pathogens from multiplying. Anything less and you're just wasting your time.
I’m not going to get into any other topics here—that’s simply not my area of expertise.

redeagle75 As I was saying:
Much appreciated.
I went ahead and ran some extra tests—specifically for bilirubin and iron levels—so feel free to take a look at those as well.

Total Bilirubin: 22 [Ref range: 3-20]
Iron: 27 [Ref range: 11-32]

Everything looks normal here.

vividsailor7 said:MIC is determined through a dilution process—/minimum inhibitory concentration/
Essentially, it’s just the lowest amount of that specific medication required to stop a pathogen from multiplying.
I won't go into further detail since that isn't my area of expertise.

Thanks, doctor! 🙂

Does anyone else here happen to be an expert in this particular medical field? Do we have any other doctors on the forum? Nicholas Myers? Please, I could really use some guidance!

restlessbadger2 As requested:
I’m looking for answers because I’ve been stuck in this cycle of vaginal infections for about six months now. Every time I go in, it’s a different label—first it's vulvovaginitis, then they pivot to candidiasis. The symptoms have become my constant companions: persistent redness of the anogenital mucosa and erythematous patches on the labia minora, which doctors claim is just the yeast. Then there’s the burning sensation in the vulva and vagina. It’s maddening. I can't tell if the burning is a symptom itself or if it's just the result of damaged tissue.

To whom it may concern,

Your situation is highly complex. Even from this point, it is clear that a multidisciplinary approach will be necessary to resolve the issue—essentially, you'll need to coordinate consultations across several different specialists.

There are many variables at play here. As you’ve already noted, a positive Candida culture and a diagnosis of candidiasis might not be the sole explanation for everything you're experiencing.

When considering the causes, one has to look beyond infectious vulvovaginitis to include dermatological conditions and vulvodynia. I see the Women's Health moderators have already taken those factors into account.

I’d suggest scheduling a consultation with specialists beyond just an infectious disease expert—though I agree with Petrov's recommendation to see her. You really need a solid dermatologist on your side too. Given that you mentioned both erosion and redness, we shouldn't rule out a dermatological diagnosis or even those rare skin conditions that aren't immediately obvious. If things don't start improving, one of these experts might eventually suggest a biopsy of the affected areas. That could be the key to getting a definitive diagnosis.

Has anyone here actually consulted a gynecologist working within a major clinical institution? I’m talking about specialists at places like the Mayo Clinic or similar large-scale hospital systems.

To get straight to the point, I just got my results back:

Microbiology report: stool sample. Native prep came back negative. Stained prep also negative. Conclusion: no Candida in the gut.
Serum testing (bloodwork) for antibodies against Candida spp. This was conducted using three different methodologies.
IIF - IgG: result 80 (reference range: 1 to ≤ 80)
b) IHA - IgM/IgG/IgA: result is 160 (reference range: 1 to ≤ 160)
c) ELISA - IgG: result is 90 (reference range: 40–100)

These results are borderline. How much weight should I give them—are we looking at a red flag or just noise? Is there any actual risk of systemic candidiasis here?

The role of serology in diagnosing candidiasis remains somewhat murky. One has to be incredibly cautious when interpreting these results. Recent infectious disease literature suggests these tests lack sufficient sensitivity and specificity. You shouldn't prescribe therapy based solely on these numbers; instead, treatment decisions should rely on the broader clinical picture and other diagnostic findings.

People dealing with invasive or systemic candidiasis are generally quite ill. We're talking about life-threatening situations where the immune system has been severely compromised—usually due to conditions like HIV/AIDS, cancer, or the fallout from chemotherapy.

Vaginal fungal swab results are in: the native prep came back positive, the stained prep was also positive, and the culture identified *Candida albicans*.
-They treated the yeast with various chemical agents, and it showed sensitivity to all of them—meaning they work. However, I don't understand why none of these medications have helped me if the yeast is sensitive to them.???

Regarding *C. albicans*, it typically doesn't show resistance. This raises the question: did you feel any improvement or reduction in symptoms, even briefly, while using the prescribed therapy?

Here are the chemical substances:
-5-fluorocytosine: S (MIC = 4.000)
-amphotericin B: S (MIC = 0.500)
-fluconazole: S (MIC = 1.000)
-itraconazole: S (MIC = 0.125)
-voriconazole: S (MIC = 0.060)

What does MIC mean? Which of these substances would be best at clearing the yeast? Is it the first one with an MIC of 4.000?

The colleague, vividsailor7, gave you a brief explanation of the definition. Put simply, the lower the MIC value, the more potent the effect. Primarily, the MIC value serves to determine whether a pathogen is sensitive or resistant to a specific drug.

In your specific case, some drugs on this list are off the table. For example, voriconazole (Vfend) is reserved strictly for treating systemic fungal infections in immunocompromised patients, usually within a hospital setting. The same applies to amphotericin.

Fluconazole is Diflucan, and itraconazole is Itraconazole.

As for treating vulvovaginal candidiasis, there are different protocols depending on whether you are dealing with an acute infection or recurrent cases. For recurrent issues, special regimens exist where suppressive therapy (lasting up to 6 months) is applied following the standard treatment.

The critical question remains: did any of the prescribed preparations provide even slight relief?

Best regards. 🙂

Maria Fisher46 said:Dear lady,

Your situation is quite complex, and even from a glance, it seems clear that solving this will require a multidisciplinary approach—which essentially means you'll need to consult several different specialists.
There are many factors at play here. As you correctly noted, finding Candida in a culture and receiving a diagnosis of candidiasis might not be the sole cause of all your symptoms.

Dear Nicholas Myers,
thank you so much for your response, and most of all, for taking the time to thoroughly study my specific case (unfortunate as it may be). If I weren't such a unique case, perhaps doctors would have recognized what was happening on their own. A multidisciplinary approach hasn't exactly lived up to its name; there have been plenty of specialists involved, but they seem to only look at their own narrow field of expertise without any understanding of other areas, nor any desire to view the whole picture. There’s a lack of connection, or even just basic empathy toward my suffering, to help alleviate it.
Since you noticed I am writing about vulvodynia, please take a moment to read through my medical history. You will see everything I've endured over the last six months:

Here are a few posts that might help clarify the situation:

In addition to infectious vulvovaginitis, one must also consider dermatological diseases and vulvodynia; seeing as you moderate the Women's Health threads, I see you have already taken those into account.

As you likely gathered from my posts, I visited the Mayo Clinic to see Dr. Suzana Ljubojević based on a recommendation. She took swabs of the vulva and vagina for mycological testing, which came back negative. Her report noted a faint erythematous area on the left labia without fluorescence in the anogenital region. Yet, when I got home and checked myself in the mirror for the first time, I saw bright red patches on both sides—looking like eroded mucosa—even though her report stated 🙂

I recommend that you undergo a specialist examination or consultation. Beyond an infectious disease expert (Professor Škerk was already recommended to you, and I would personally recommend them as well), you should see a good dermatologist. Given that you mentioned erosions and redness, it is vital to rule out dermatological diagnoses, including rare dermatoses that aren't immediately obvious. Perhaps if the issues persist, one of the experts might suggest a biopsy of the lesions; wouldn't that assist in reaching a definitive diagnosis?

I’ll keep Dr. Škerk in mind, but honestly, I just don’t have the energy to keep bouncing from doctor to doctor anymore. I need a break.
But how am I even supposed to know which dermatologist/venereologist is actually any good? I reached out to Dr. Ivan Manola and sent over my entire medical history via email. She seemed incredibly professional at first. However, after she received all my documentation, she just went completely silent. She never got back to me. Can you imagine? That is a massive strike against someone who has taken the Hippocratic Oath, and an even bigger one considering how poorly it reflects on her private practice, the Manola Clinic. So, my conclusion? She probably looked at my results, realized the case was too complicated for her to handle, and decided to just ghost me. How lovely!
Does anyone have a recommendation? I heard about Dr. Andrew Smith’s office. Apparently, he’s highly skilled. Dr. Michael Skerlev works there as well (he also practices at the Mayo Clinic).
I’m at a total loss as to where to turn next. Not to mention, I can't exactly afford to keep going on these expensive "private excursions" that lead absolutely nowhere.

Have you tried contacting a gynecologist who works within a major clinical institution (like a large hospital system, for instance, Mount Sinai or Johns Hopkins)?

No, because my current gynecologist refuses to give me a referral for something as "benign" as Candida. And I can't exactly just waltz into Mount Sinai like a paratrooper. Who would I even talk to there? When I asked my gynecologist about cytolytic vaginosis or vulvodynia, it was as if she had never even heard those terms exist.

Generally speaking, individuals suffering from invasive or systemic candidiasis are quite ill and life-threatened—usually people with compromised immune systems due to conditions like HIV/AIDS, certain malignancies, or chemotherapy treatments.

I’m currently waiting on the results for my HIV, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C tests. I’ve tested negative for HIV in the past, but my primary care physician insisted I undergo testing again.

Regarding C. albicans, it typically doesn't show resistance. This raises the question: have you ever felt even a slight improvement or a reduction in symptoms while using the prescribed treatment?

Well, looking back at the three times I've dealt with candidiasis in my life, the one symptom that always stood out—the one that truly kills you—is the itching. But back then, that would clear up in three days with some vaginal suppositories, and that was that. What I've been dealing with for the last six months likely started as Candida, but when I described my symptoms, it wasn't itching; it was unbearable burning and stinging in the vagina and vulva, along with redness in the area. It wasn't until I saw a dermatovenerologist that I realized I actually had "sores," meaning my mucous membranes were eroded. Now I'm wondering: can that intense burning cause mucosal damage, or could the damaged membrane be causing the burning?
Using Plymicol and Canesten caused such excruciating burning that I was literally in tears. Both the suppositories and the cream were awful. They even prescribed Octenisept, which burns like hell. In the end, the skin near the vaginal opening actually cracked from using it. I don't use it anymore. Neither do I use the KMnO4 baths. Nothing has helped; it just seems to make things worse.
I haven't felt any relief in my symptoms, except perhaps that the thick discharge has subsided. Otherwise, the other symptoms are still present most of the time.

The real question here is, did any of the prescribed treatments actually provide you with even a modicum of relief?

As I mentioned earlier, they were somewhat effective at addressing the standard symptoms of a yeast infection—specifically that thick, clumpy discharge—but the burning, the stinging, the redness, and those mucosal ulcerations? Those haven't budged one bit. 😢

Dear restlessbadger2,

I have reviewed the posts you shared.

From what I can gather, your pattern during specialist consultations involves a diagnosis of fungal infection—with one instance involving a suspicion of genital herpes—followed by microbiological swabs and subsequent treatment for Candida.

There is an interesting detail here: if I am reading this correctly, when you saw the dermatologist, you were experiencing active symptoms and visible changes, yet the Candida culture came back negative; at that point, one physician suspected genital herpes due to the ulcerations.

In medical literature regarding recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis, some authors suggest that if two separate cultures fail to detect Candida during an active symptomatic period, Candida should be ruled out as the primary cause, and alternative diagnoses should be explored.

This scenario occurred once in your case, but even that single instance—combined with the fact that none of the prescribed anti-fungal treatments seem to have provided relief (specifically regarding the burning sensation and physical changes)—suggests we should consider whether these issues are truly caused solely by Candida or by something else entirely.

Do you happen to know what the dermatologist noted in her findings once those negative culture results arrived? Specifically, how was that erythema interpreted, or did she offer a specific diagnosis or conclusion following that second examination and the swab results?

While vulvodynia is a possibility, the presence of mucosal and physical changes raises the question of whether there is an underlying organic cause for your symptoms. It is worth noting that contact and allergic dermatitis exist; allergic reactions can often stem from ingredients found in the very creams used to treat Candida.

I also encountered research suggesting that prolonged Candida infections can, in certain instances, lead to alterations in both the mucosa and the nerve endings that innervate the area, which could potentially trigger vulvodynia.

A specialist like Dr. Škerk would need to definitively rule out an infectious basis for your symptoms, especially since current discussions seem heavily focused on an infectious cause, primarily Candida.

Maria Fisher46 said:From what I can gather, the standard operating procedure whenever you visit a specialist seems to be a diagnosis of a fungal infection (with one doctor even suspecting genital herpes), potentially followed by swabs for microbiological testing and a course of anti-yeast medication.
What strikes me as particularly interesting is this: if I have interpreted your timeline correctly, at the time of your dermatology exam, you were experiencing symptoms and visible changes, yet the yeast culture came back negative; furthermore, one physician suspected genital herpes due to the presence of ulcerations.

Here is the breakdown:
1. Private gynecologist, Dec 2011: diagnosed *Candida spp.* via wet mount; treatment: Gynodaktarin vaginal suppositories.
2. Gynecologist (Mayo Clinic), Jan 2012: *Candida* identified solely through visual inspection, no wet mount performed; treatment: Plymicol vaginal suppositories and cream.
3. Private gynecologist, Jan 2012: swabs taken; while waiting for results, I was prescribed a 7-day course of Dalacin vaginal cream. During our discussion, she admitted the entire area was red, yet she insisted there was no *Candida* present and claimed the redness wasn't gynecological in nature—essentially saying it wasn't her department.
4. Public gynecologist, March 2012: *Candida* identified via visual inspection only, no wet mount; treatment: Polygynax suppositories, followed by Plymicol suppositories for four cycles (though I only finished one because the burning sensation became absolutely unbearable).
5. Dermatovenerologist (at a local clinic): April 2012: vaginal and vulvar swabs taken and immediately examined under a microscope; the wet mount was negative; no treatment provided.
6. Virogena Polyclinic (gynecological exam): April 2012: *Candida* identified visually without a wet mount; swabs for HSV 1 and HSV 2 were taken. Ulcerations were noted on the labia minora. While awaiting results, I was prescribed Betadine vaginal ovules combined with Medazol suppositories and tablets. I didn't feel any improvement whatsoever.
7. Public gynecologist, May 2012: *Candida* identified visually without a wet mount; I pointed out the redness and ulcerations (itching was almost never an issue), but she simply told me "whatever you want," claiming this is a normal state during a yeast infection😕 and suggesting I should just avoid oral sex.☕ 🤣
- She ran tests for Trichomonas and aerobic bacteria. The report stated: physiological vaginal flora; microscopic examination showed no PMNs.
The doctor told me the swab would reveal whether *Candida* was present (but how could it, when she ordered a bacterial culture rather than a mycological one?)—so, she diagnosed *Candida* during the exam, even though the culture failed to detect it.🤷
8. In June 2012, I reached out to the Reference Center for Systemic and Disseminated Mycoses, specifically speaking with Dr. Mlinarić-Missoni, a wonderful woman who has been more helpful than all the other doctors combined. I went in for a consultation and underwent all the tests (the ones I mentioned in my first post when seeking clarification on the results). She explained that while *Candida* could be the culprit, the relentless cycle of vaginal suppositories I had been prescribed might actually be causing more harm than good. She advised me to stop the anti-yeast diet, as I am clearly doing myself a disservice—which is true, given that I’ve lost 10 pounds from it—and suggested I avoid seeing a gynecologist for a while until we attempt to heal the damaged mucous membrane using 3% boric acid (daily compresses and a tampon at night for two weeks). I feel like the burning sensation is finally starting to subside.

From what I’ve gathered while digging through the medical literature regarding recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis, there is an interesting point of contention among certain authors. Some experts actually suggest that in cases where... Is it just me, or does it feel like we’re constantly being squeezed between two different types of negative cultures? It’s an interesting thing to ponder, isn't it? On one hand, you have that pervasive atmosphere of negativity that seems to seep into everything, almost like a heavy fog you can't quite shake off. Then, on the other side, there's this entirely different breed of toxic behavior—one that's more active, more aggressive, and frankly, much harder to navigate. How do we even begin to distinguish between them when they both leave us feeling so drained? It makes you wonder if they aren't actually two sides of the same coin, or perhaps two completely separate forces working in tandem to wear us down. I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately, and I'm curious to hear what everyone else thinks. Is it possible to exist comfortably in the space between these two extremes, or are we always destined to be caught in their orbit? When you're dealing with persistent symptoms, isn't it vital to look at the big picture? Before we jump to conclusions, we really ought to rule out Candida as the primary culprit behind everything you're feeling. Once that's off the table, only then can we properly pivot our focus toward exploring other potential diagnoses. It’s all about being methodical, don't you think?

As you all might have gathered from the thread above, they were actually pushing back against my requests to smear the discharge onto a slide. I really wanted to see definitive proof that we were dealing with Candida, but they wouldn't budge. In the end, only the first gynecologist and the dermatologist bothered to actually perform those tests. Everything else in the meantime has just been based on guesswork and rough estimates. Is it really that difficult to be thorough when the stakes are this high?

It seems like everything aligned perfectly for you in just that one instance. But honestly, even that single data point—combined with the fact that none of the standard antifungal treatments prescribed to you so far have actually provided any relief (you know, that persistent burning sensation and the physical changes)—really makes me wonder. Doesn't it make you question whether these symptoms are truly being caused by nothing more than Candida? Or could we be looking at something else entirely?

It actually felt like things were taking a turn for the worse. The redness and irritation in that area just kept intensifying, and I started dealing with this unbearable burning sensation—which was strange, because I almost never experienced actual itching. When I was first diagnosed with Candida, I truly believed that was the culprit, especially since the initial swab confirmed it. But looking back on everything now, I can't help but wonder if I was treated incorrectly. Is it possible that the medications prescribed weren't quite right for my specific situation? I have this nagging feeling that the treatment plan might have been flawed, leading me to develop some kind of allergic reaction or something similar as a result. 😢

Does anyone happen to have the details on what the dermatologist actually wrote in her report once those swabs came back negative for Candida? I’m curious how she interpreted that erythema—did she offer a specific diagnosis or any final conclusions after that second exam and the follow-up results?

So, here’s what the lab results are actually saying: regarding the dermatological status of the anogenital area, there is some slight redness on the mucosa on the inner side of the labia. Additionally, there is a faint, whitish discharge present within the vagina. Does that make sense? It seems fairly straightforward, but I suppose it's always worth looking closer at those specific details.
So, I just had my mycological vaginal and vulvar swab done—the kind where they look at everything under the microscope right then and there—and the results came back negative. Everything looks clear on that front! Is there anything else I should be keeping an eye on?
She didn't really say much to me right after the exam, mostly because I was already outside waiting to pick up my lab results. But once I actually sat down to read what she wrote, I could hardly believe my eyes. Honestly, I was just stunned. Out of pure curiosity, I decided to take a look at everything myself later that same day—you know, to see exactly where she was seeing this "erythematous area" she mentioned. I grabbed a mirror, took a look, and was absolutely floored. It wasn't just some redness or an erythematous patch; it was actual ulceration. It finally clicked for me: the reason I’ve been feeling that intense burning sensation is likely because of those ulcers. Is it too much to ask for a bit of accuracy? I waited over a month just to get this appointment, only to have her write something so fundamentally incorrect in the report. Does anyone else feel like they have to double-check their doctors' work just to be sure?☕

While vulvodynia is certainly a possibility, we really have to consider whether there might be an underlying organic cause behind both your discomfort and those visible changes to the mucosal tissue. It’s a valid question, isn't it? After all, when you see physical alterations like that, it suggests something more than just nerve sensitivity. The reality is that we have to account for both contact and allergic dermatitis. In many cases, what looks like a primary issue is actually an allergic reaction—specifically a response to certain ingredients found in the very creams used to treat yeast infections. It makes you wonder if the treatment itself might be contributing to the irritation, doesn't it?

It seems like quite a few doctors out there don't actually have a clue when it comes to vulvodynia or any of these other complex conditions. Most of them seem stuck in a loop where they only recognize standard yeast infections or bacterial issues. To them, anything beyond that feels like straight-up science fiction. Is it just me, or does it feel like we're constantly hitting a wall with medical professionals who refuse to look past the basics?
Could anyone please recommend an exceptional dermatologist or venereologist who might be able to help me? Perhaps someone like Dr. Stanimirovic or Dr. Skerlev?
Does anyone know of a specialist in the US who actually deals with vulvodynia? I honestly find it hard to believe how many women suffer through this, only to be mismanaged because of medical negligence or a simple lack of specialized knowledge.😢
Are we really just expected to navigate this all on our own?

I also came across some information in the medical literature suggesting that a prolonged infection with Candida can, in certain instances, lead to changes not just in the mucous membrane, but also in the nerve endings that innervate the area, which could potentially trigger vulvodynia.

That isn't exactly a comforting thought, is it?😢 I’ve spent quite a bit of time digging through various sources—reading just about everything I could find—and I stumbled upon research indicating that improper treatment of a yeast infection (specifically when Candida isn't actually the primary culprit) can frequently lead to the development of vulvodynia.

Dr. Škerk should definitely rule out any infectious basis for your symptoms, especially since most clinicians seem to focus heavily on an infectious cause, primarily Candida.

Once I have gathered all my test results together, I’ll reach out to her; I don't really see any other way forward.

restlessbadger2, I'll follow up with you via DM. 🙂

To whom it may concern, I received my CBC results today. Everything looks normal—some values are right on the edge of the reference range, but still within limits—with the exception of my MPV, which is 6.2.
I decided to get this checked because I’ve been dealing with bruising on my legs along my veins for a while now. Over the last month, I've also noticed tiny red spots that disappear after two or three days (similar to small hemorrhages), and occasionally some small blue dots. Within this same month, I also had two instances of minor nosebleeds. My coagulation profile, including both large and small panels, came back normal. Is a low MPV linked to bruising and petechiae, or is it irrelevant since the rest of my CBC is fine?

Thanks. 🙂

(29 years old)

Transcribe the entire report. 😉

WBC (Lkc) 5.5 / 3.4 -9.7
RBC (Erc) 4.50 / 3.86- 5.08
Hemoglobin (Hb) 124 /119 -157
Hematocrit (Hct) 0.378 / L/L 0.356 -0.470
MCV 83.8 / fL 83.0 -97.2
MCH 27.6 / pg 27.4- 33.9
MCHC 329 / g/L 320 -345
RDW 10.7 / % 9.0 -15.0
Platelets (Trc) 262 / x109 /L 158 -424
MPV 6.2 L / fL 6.8 -10.4

CBC

Neutrophils 3.05 / x109 /L 2.06 -6.49
Lymphocytes 1.81/ x109 /L 1.19 -3.35
Monocytes 0.42 / x109 /L 0.12 -0.84
Eosinophils 0.16 / x109 /L 0.00- 0.43
Basophils 0.06 / x109 /L 0.00- 0.06
Neutrophils 55.5 / rel % 44- 72
Lymphocytes 32.9/ rel % 20- 46
Monocytes 7.7 / rel % 2 -12
Eosinophils 2.9 / rel % 0- 7
Basophils 1.0/ rel % 0-1

It’s been three weeks since I was bitten by a tick, and I finally had my blood drawn today to check my IgG and IgM levels. Is it standard to have to wait eight days for those results to come back?

I also went ahead and got my liver enzymes checked:

ALT -23 (30-36)
AST- 25 (8-30)

GGT -10 (9-35)

Everything looks fine on that front.

Sandra Rivera37 said:White Blood Cells (WBC) 5.5 / 3.4 - 9.7
Erythrocytes (RBC) 4.50 / 3.86 - 5.08
Hemoglobin (Hb) 124 / 119 - 157
Hematocrit (Hct) 0.378 / L/L 0.356 - 0.470
MCV 83.8 / fL 83.0 - 97.2
MCH 27.6 / pg 27.4 - 33.9
MCHC 329 / g/L 320 - 345
RDW 10.7 / % 9.0 - 15.0
Platelets (PLT) 262 / x109 /L 158 - 424
MPV 6.2 L / fL 6.8 - 10.4

CBC

Neutrophils (seg) 3.05 / x109 /L 2.06 - 6.49
Lymphocytes 1.81 / x109 /L 1.19 - 3.35
Monocytes 0.42 / x109 /L 0.12 - 0.84
Eosinophils 0.16 / x109 /L 0.00 - 0.43
Basophils 0.06 / x109 /L 0.00 - 0.06
Neutrophils (seg) 55.5 / rel % 44 - 72
Lymphocytes 32.9 / rel % 20 - 46
Monocytes 7.7 / rel % 2 - 12
Eosinophils 2.9 / rel % 0 - 7
Basophils 1.0 / rel % 0 - 1

Sandra Rivera37 said:I also went ahead and ran my liver panel:

ALT - 23 (30 - 36)
AST - 25 (8 - 30)

GGT - 10 (9 - 35)

everything looks fine there.

Everything looks normal.

vividsailor7 said:The results look normal.

thanks 🙂

The spontaneous bruising and blood spots are what's actually bothering me, even though my labs say everything is fine. Then there's the headaches, nausea, and fatigue. Every time I try to ask my doctor a question, she gives me less and less information. Does anyone know what could be causing these bruises? Or at least, who should I talk to for actual help?

Maybe you should just ask for a referral to a hematologist. 🤷

melloworca6 said:Maybe you should just ask for a referral to a hematologist. 🤷

I suppose I had to.

I recall seeing a woman on an earlier thread with lab results similar to mine. Someone replied to her saying that if she isn't dealing with bruising or petechiae, the results are fine—even though her MPV was also low. I'm curious about what that might actually signify. 🙂

Honestly, you’re better off just getting a referral to a hematologist. Take those lab results with you and see what they say. They’ll probably order more tests anyway—doctors don't usually just brush off random bruising and hemorrhages like it's nothing. You need to find out what's actually going on.

Eh, the doctor just waved me off because my labs look fine. She claims that MPV doesn't mean a thing if everything else is within range.
She isn't giving much weight to those specific levels as long as my platelets and PV are normal.