I'm just curious about this - it's not my DS (touch wood!) but a friend of a friend has a LO with a nappy rash that wouldn't clear up. She had it a couple of months back and the GP said it was a fungal infection and gave some cream. That didn't really work but the rash eventually went away. Baby has loads of nappy free time, nappy changed as soon as it's dirty etc but rash comes back every so often. The mum has had a little pain in nipples but not much and only after baby has had a few long feeds.
Anyway, rash is back and hasn't cleared up with all the usual creams so she got thinking about it and thought it might be thrush that she and baby have been passing it back and forward to each other. She went to GP who said it is likely to be thrush on baby so gave cream for that. He said that because mum doesn't have any symptoms it isn't worth treating her but gave her a cream to put on nipples to stop infection from baby.
Does this seem right? I don't really know much about it but shouldn't the mother have proper treatment? Wouldn't she need fluconazole or would she only need this if she was showing symptoms?
I'm just really curious about it as I thought she would more than likely have it even if not showing symptoms and therefore should get treated to avoid them continueing to reinfect each other. Maybe GP is right though... Also, would her DH need treated too? or would that only be if she had thrush elswhere?
TIA
Please or to access all these features
Please
or
to access all these features
Get advice and support with infant feeding from other users here.
Infant feeding
thrush query...
7 replies
asur · 23/08/2006 09:41
OP posts:
kayzed ·
28/08/2006 11:07
This reply has been deleted
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Please create an account
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.