Comparison between different diagnostic tests used for bacterial vaginosis
Abstract
Background: Bacterial vaginosis is the primary reason for unusual vaginal expulsion in females of fertile age resulting in poor pregnancy ending, pelvic seditious disease, chorioamnioitis, endometritis and increased susceptibility to HIV.As the prevalence is high, and usual investigative tests require laboratory expertise, a future study was therefore performed to compare different diagnostic methods for making an precise diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis.
Materials and Methods: This study was conducted in Department of Microbiology which included females of reproductive age group, attending Obstetrics and Gynaecology OPD of TMMC & RC, Moradabad, over a period of one year (March 2017- March 2018). A total of 400 patients with complaints of vaginal discharge and other associated complaints like pruritus, pain lower back, primary or secondary infertility were included in the study. Diagnosis of Bacterial vaginosis was done by using an array of both conventional techniques which included Gram’s staining, Nugent’s score, vaginal pH etc., and a newer diagnostic technique (OSOM BV Blue test). The patients were also examined PV and the relevant clinical findings were also noted.
Results: Out of a total of 400 patients listed for the study, 240 were diagnosed as having bacterial vaginosis. Comparison of the different methods for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis revealed that bacterial vaginosis could be detected by ‘clue cells’ in 100% patients, by OSOM BV Blue test in 97.6% patients, by Amsel’s criteria in 67.1% patients, and by evaluation of vaginal pH and vaginal amines in 63.4% and 62.2% patients respectively.
Conclusion: Different diagnostic techniques have varied sensitivity and specificity in diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. OSOM B.V. blue test is found to be highly sensitive and can be performed easily in clinical settings where microscopic facilities are not available.
Downloads
References
2. Verstraelen H, Swidsinski A. The biofilm in bacterial vaginosis: implications for epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment: 2018 update. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2019;32(1):38-42. doi: 10.1097/QCO.0000000000000516.
3. Paladine HL, Desai UA. Vaginitis: Diagnosis and Treatment. Am Fam Physician. 2018;97(5):321-329.
4. Ravel J, Gajer P, Abdo Z, Schneider GM, Koenig SS, McCulle SL, et al. Vaginal microbiome of reproductive-age women. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Mar 15;108(1):4680-4687. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1002611107. Epub 2010 Jun 3.
5. Gardner HL, Dukes CD. Haemophilus vaginalis vaginitis: a newly defined specific infection previously classified non-specific vaginitis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1955;69(5):962-976. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(55)90095-8.
6. Rao PS, Devi S, Shriyan A, Rajaram M, Jagdishchandra K. Diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis in a rural setup: comparison of clinical algorithm, smear scoring and culture by semiquantitative technique. Indian J Med Microbiol. 2004;22(1):47-50.
7. Money D. The laboratory diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol. 2005;16(2):77-79. doi: 10.1155/2005/230319.
8. Eschenbach DA, Hillier S, Critchlow C, Stevens C, DeRouen T, Holmes KK. Diagnosis and clinical manifestations of bacterial vaginosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988;158(4):819-828. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(88)90078-6
9. Srinivasan S, Morgan MT, Fiedler TL, Djukovic D, Hoffman NG, Raftery D, et al. Metabolic signatures of bacterial vaginosis. MBio. 2015;6(2). pii: e00204-15. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00204-15.
10. Saleem N, Ali HS, Hussin R. Prevalence of Bacterial Vaginosis in pregnant women and efficacy of rapid diagnostic tests in its diagnosis. Infect Dis J Pakistan. 2006:93-95.
11. Grewal N, Mahajan A, Bajaj JK. The effect of supplementation of standard antibiotic therapy with oral probiotics for bacterial vaginosis. Int J Med Den Sci. 2018;7(1):1628-1631.
12. Prasad JH, Abraham S, Kurz KM, George V, Lalitha MK, John R, et al. Reproductive tract infections among young married women in Tamil Nadu, India. Int Fam Plan Perspect. 2005;31(2):73-82. doi: 10.1363/ifpp.31.73.05.
13. Agarwal S, Sharma V, Sarin R. Reproductive tract infections in women-prevalence HIV seropositivity and role of conventional methods in diagnosis. Ind J Sex Transmit Dis. 2005;26(2):73-77.
14. Bhalla P, Chawla R, Garg S, Singh MM, Raina U, Bhalla R, et al. Prevalence of bacterial vaginosis among women in Delhi, India. Indian J Med Res. 2007;125(2):167-172.
15. Dadhwal V, Hariprasad R, Mittal S, Kapil A. P523 Prevalence of bacterial vaginosis in pregnant women and predictive value of clinical diagnosis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010;281(1):101-104. doi: 10.1007/s00404-009-1089-x. Epub 2009 Apr 19.
16. Naqvi SH, Mirza SH, Masood S, Faheem Q. The Infectious etiologies of vaginitis in patients of vaginal discharge. Pak J Pathol 2007;18(3):79-82.
17. Anh PK, Khanh NT, Ha DT, Chien DT, Thuc PT, Luong PH, et al. Prevalence of lower genital tract infection among women attending maternal and child health and family planning clinics in Hanoi, Vietnam. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2003;34(2):367-373.
18. Jones FR, Miller G, Gadea N, Meza R, Leon S, Perez J, et al. Prevalence of bacterial vaginosis among young women in low-income populations of coastal Peru. Int J STD AIDS. 2007;18(3):188-192. doi: 10.1258/095646207780132505.
19. Sewankambo N, Gray R H, Wawe M J, Paxton L, McNairn D, Wabwire-Mangen F. HIV-1 infection associated with abnormal vaginal flora morphology and bacterial vaginosis. Lancet 1997;350(9077):546-550. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(97)01063-5.
20. Coleman JS, Gaydos CA. Molecular Diagnosis of Bacterial Vaginosis: an Update. J Clin Microbiol. 2018 Aug 27;56(9). pii: e00342-18. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00342-18. Print 2018 Sep.
21. Briselden AM, Moncla BJ, Stevens CE, Hillier SL. Sialidases (neuraminidases) in bacterial vaginosis and bacterial vaginosis-associated microflora. J Clin Microbiol. 1992;30(3):663-666.
22. Tam MT, Yungbluth M, Myles T. Gram stain method shows better sensitivity than clinical criteria for detection of bacterial vaginosis in surveillance of pregnant, low-income women in a clinical setting. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 1998;6(5):204-208. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/S1064744998000416.
23. Nugent RP, Krohn MA, Hillier SL. Reliability of diagnosing bacterial vaginosis is improved by a standardized method of gram stain interpretation. J Clin Microbiol. 1991;29(2):297-301.
24. Shujatullah F, Khan HM, Khatoon R, Rabbani T, Malik A. An evaluation of OSOM BV blue test in the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Asian Pacific J Trop Med. 2010;3(7):574-576. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1995-7645(10)60139-3.
25. Myziuk L, Romanowski B, Johnson SC. BVBlue test for diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41(5):1925-1928. doi: 10.1128/jcm.41.5.1925-1928.2003.
26. Mahajan G, Mahajan A, Chopra S, Chand K. Comparison of Different Diagnostic Methods of Bacterial Vaginosis–Amsel’s vs Neugent. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2017;6(5):1442-1448. doi: https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.605.158.
27. Madhivanan P, Krupp K, Li T, Ravi K, Selezneva J, Srinivas V, et al. Performance of BVBlue rapid test in detecting bacterial vaginosis among women in Mysore, India. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 2014;2014;908313. doi: 10.1155/2014/908313.
28. Khatoon R, Jahan N, Ahmad S, Rabbani T. Comparison of OSOM BV Blue test with conventional methods for diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Af J Microbiol Res. 2013;7(28):3698-3703. doi: 10.5897/AJMR2013.5830.
OAI - Open Archives Initiative
