Background
Objectives
Study Design
Results
Conclusions
Key words
Why was this study conducted?
Key findings
What does this add to what is known?
Materials and Methods
- Binagwaho A.
Diagnostic procedures
Molecular VMB testing
Molecular data processing
Statistical analyses
Ethical statement
Results
Characteristics | Pretreatment (N=68) | Posttreatment (N=68) |
---|---|---|
Sociodemographics and sexual behavior | ||
Age, y, median [IQR] | 31 [27–35] | NA |
Marital status, n (%) | NA | |
Never married | 50 (73.5) | |
Married | 5 (7.4) | |
Divorced | 12 (17.6) | |
Widowed | 1 (1.5) | |
Education level, n (%) | NA | |
No schooling | 14 (20.6) | |
Primary school not completed | 31 (45.6) | |
Primary school completed | 17 (25.0) | |
Secondary school not completed | 6 (8.8) | |
Secondary school completed | 0 | |
Number of sex partners in lifetime, n, median [IQR] | 30 [7–463] | NA |
Number of sex partners in last 12 months (pretreatment) or month (posttreatment), n, median [IQR] | 11 [4–152] | 5 [3–15.5] |
Exchanged sex for money/goods in past month, n (%) | 63 (92.6) | 60 (92.3) |
Vaginal sex frequency last 2 weeks, n, median [IQR] | 12 [8–18] | 11 [8–19] |
Any condom use in past 2 weeks, n (%) | ||
Always | 14 (20.6) | 23 (33.8) |
Sometimes but not always | 51 (75.0) | 36 (52.9) |
Never | 3 (4.4) | 6 (8.8) |
No sex in the past 2 weeks | 0 | 3 (4.4) |
Condom use during last sex act, n (%) | 36 (52.9) | 44 (64.7) |
Currently using hormonal contraception, n (%) | 42 (61.8) | 42 (62.7) |
Currently breastfeeding, n (%) | 14 (21.2) | NA |
Inserted anything inside the vagina in the last 12 months, n (%) | NA | 26 (38.2) |
Had menses in the 7 days prior to the visit, n (%) | NA | 11 (16.2) |
Any current urogenital symptoms (at pretreatment visit, including last 2 weeks), patient-reported, n (%) | 49 (72.1) | 0 |
Current unusual vaginal discharge (at pretreatment visit, including last 2 weeks), patient-reported, n (%) | 13 (26.5) | 0 |
Received antibiotic in addition to metronidazole at pretreatment visit, n (%) | 18 (26.5) | NA |
Received antifungal treatment at pretreatment visit, n (%) | 6 (8.8) | NA |
Laboratory results | ||
HIV by serology, n (%) | 0 | NA |
Positive urine pregnancy test, n (%) | 0 | 0 |
BV by Nugent 7–10, n (%) | 56 (83.6) | 17 (25.8) |
BV by modified Amsel criteria, n (%) | 49 (72.1) | 0 |
Trichomonas vaginalis on wet mount, n (%) | 6 (8.8) | 0 |
T. vaginalis by InPouch culture, n (%) | 11 (16.4) | 0 |
Yeasts on wet mount, n (%) | 6 (8.9) | 4 (5.9) |
Positive urinalysis test, n (%) | 17 (25.0) | 0 |
Syphilis by serology, n (%) | 4 (5.9) | NA |
Positive herpes simplex virus type 2 serology, n (%) | 44 (64.7) | NA |
Chlamydia trachomatis by PCR, n (%) | 20 (29.4) | NA |
Neisseria gonorrhoeae by PCR, n (%) | 13 (19.1) | NA |
VMB outcomes | All participants | Successful treatment b Successful treatment was defined as having a Nugent score of 7–10 before treatment and 0–3 after treatment (n=30), whereas treatment failure was defined as having a Nugent score of 7–10 before treatment and 4–10 after treatment (n=25). Thirteen women were excluded from these analyses because they did not have Nugent 7–10 at the pretreatment visit (n=12) or did not have a valid Nugent result at the posttreatment visit (n=1) | Treatment failure b Successful treatment was defined as having a Nugent score of 7–10 before treatment and 0–3 after treatment (n=30), whereas treatment failure was defined as having a Nugent score of 7–10 before treatment and 4–10 after treatment (n=25). Thirteen women were excluded from these analyses because they did not have Nugent 7–10 at the pretreatment visit (n=12) or did not have a valid Nugent result at the posttreatment visit (n=1) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pretreatment (N=68) | Posttreatment (N=68) | P value | Pretreatment (n=30) | Posttreatment (n=30) | P value | Pretreatment (n=25) | Posttreatment (n=25) | P value | |
Nugent categories (n %) | <.001 | NA | NA | ||||||
0–3 | 5 (7.5) | 36 (54.6) | 0 | 30 (100) | 0 | 0 | |||
4–6 | 6 (9.0) | 13 (19.7) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 (44.0) | |||
7–10 | 56 (83.6) | 17 (25.8) | 30 (100) | 0 | 25 (100) | 14 (56.0) | |||
Mean inverse Simpson diversity index (95% CI) | 0.67 (0.60–0.73) | 0.31 (0.25–0.38) | <.001 | 0.70 (0.61–0.80) | 0.13 (0.06–0.21) | <.001 | 0.77 (0.70–0.85) | 0.47 (0.39–0.56) | .001 |
VMB type, n (%) | <.001 | <.001 | .002 | ||||||
Li | 10 (14.9) | 35 (52.2) | 2 (6.9) | 23 (79.3) | 1 (4.0) | 6 (24.0) | |||
Lo | 0 | 2 (3.0) | 0 | 1 (3.5) | 0 | 0 | |||
LA | 12 (17.9) | 18 (26.9) | 7 (24.1) | 2 (6.9) | 2 (8.0) | 14 (56.0) | |||
BV_GV | 28 (41.8) | 2 (3.0) | 13 (44.8) | 0 | 14 (56.0) | 2 (8.0) | |||
BV_noGV | 8 (11.9) | 0 | 4 (13.8) | 0 | 3 (12.0) | 0 | |||
GV | 8 (11.9) | 4 (6.0) | 3 (10.3) | 1 (3.5) | 5 (20.0) | 2 (8.0) | |||
PB | 1 (1.5) | 6 (9.0) | 0 | 2 (6.9) | 0 | 1 (4.0) | |||
Vaginal pH, median [IQR] | 5.3 [5.0–5.6] | 4.4 [3.6–4.6] | <.001 | 5.3 [5.0–5.6] | 4.1 [3.6–4.4] | <.001 | 5.6 [5.0–5.6] | 4.4 [4.4–4.7] | <.001 |
Vulvovaginal candidiasis, n (%) | 6 (8.8) | 4 (5.9) | .527 | 1 (3.3) | 3 (10.0) | .317 | 1 (4.0) | 1 (4.0) | 1.00 |
Bacterial group relative abundances, mean (95% CI) | |||||||||
Total lactobacilli | 0.24 (0.15–0.32) | 0.72 (0.64–0.80) | <.001 | 0.18 (0.08–0.27) | 0.88 (0.78–0.98) | <.001 | 0.10 (0.02–0.18) | 0.56 (0.45–0.68) | <.001 |
Total BV-anaerobes | 0.75 (0.67–0.83) | 0.23 (0.16–0.30) | <.001 | 0.81 (0.71–0.91) | 0.07 (0–0.15) | <.001 | 0.89 (0.81–0.97) | 0.40 (0.29–0.52) | <.001 |
Total pathobionts | 0.02 (0.01–0.03) | 0.05 (0.02–0.09) | .050 | 0.01 (0–0.02) | 0.05 (–0.02 to 0.11) | .118 | 0.01 (0–0.03) | 0.03 (0.01–0.05) | .173 |
Total other bacteria | 0 (0–0) | 0 (0–0) | .674 | 0 (0–0) | 0 (0–0) | .173 | 0 (0–0) | 0 (0–0) | .764 |
Bacterial group concentrations in log10 cells/μL, mean (95% CI) | |||||||||
Total bacteria | 6.59 (6.39–6.78) | 5.85 (5.66–6.04) | <.001 | 6.59 (6.31–6.86) | 5.65 (5.38–5.91) | <.001 | 6.68 (6.36–7.01) | 6.23 (5.93–6.54) | .028 |
Total lactobacilli | 4.98 (4.61–5.35) | 5.56 (5.34–5.78) | .017 | 4.92 (4.36–5.49) | 5.47 (5.16–5.77) | .124 | 4.62 (3.92–5.31) | 5.80 (5.38–6.21) | .001 |
Total BV-anaerobes | 6.23 (5.88–6.57) | 4.55 (4.14–4.95) | <.001 | 6.46 (6.14–6.78) | 3.81 (3.23–4.38) | <.001 | 6.62 (6.26–6.97) | 5.79 (5.45–6.13) | .003 |
Total pathobionts | 1.92 (1.36–2.48) | 2.01 (1.48–2.54) | .939 | 1.09 (0.32–1.87) | 1.48 (0.74–2.21) | .649 | 2.30 (1.40–3.19) | 2.66 (1.65–3.66) | .637 |
Total other bacteria | 1.85 (1.36–2.35) | 1.46 (1.01–1.92) | .176 | 1.71 (0.96–2.45) | 0.91 (0.36–1.47) | .043 | 2.44 (1.56–3.31) | 2.34 (1.41–3.27) | .525 |
Individual bacteria concentrations in log10 cells/μL, mean (95% CI) | |||||||||
L. iners | 4.81 (4.38–5.24) | 5.28 (4.94–5.62) | .072 | 4.91 (4.34–5.48) | 5.10 (4.54–5.65) | .501 | 4.27 (3.89–5.14) | 5.63 (5.10–6.17) | <.001 |
L. crispatus | 0.15 (–0.02 to 0.33) | 0.51 (0.16–0.85) | .089 | 0 (0–0) | 0.47 (–0.08 to 1.01) | .083 | 0.25 (–0.12 to 0.62) | 0.55 (–0.08 to 1.19) | .330 |
Other lactobacilli | 1.46 (0.97–1.94) | 3.03 (2.57–3.48) | <.001 | 0.67 (0.15–1.19) | 2.62 (1.93–3.31) | <.001 | 1.18 (0.45–1.91) | 3.31 (2.45–4.17) | .001 |
Gardnerella vaginalis | 5.62 (5.20–6.03) | 4.12 (3.63–4.61) | <.001 | 6.00 (5.69–6.31) | 3.29 (2.62–3.96) | <.001 | 6.11 (5.74–6.47) | 5.66 (5.30–6.01) | .115 |
Atopobium vaginae | 4.58 (4.00–5.16) | 1.54 (1.06–2.02) | <.001 | 4.91 (4.14–5.67) | 1.44 (0.76–2.11) | <.001 | 5.43 (4.83–6.03) | 1.76 (0.78–2.73) | <.001 |
Prevotella species | 4.67 (4.18–5.16) | 1.35 (0.90–1.79) | <.001 | 5.07 (4.59–5.55) | 1.31 (0.71–1.90) | <.001 | 5.24 (4.47–6.00) | 1.62 (0.69–2.54) | <.001 |
Sneathia species | 4.18 (3.63–4.73) | 1.08 (0.63–1.54) | <.001 | 4.38 (3.64–5.14) | 1.10 (0.45–1.76) | <.001 | 4.90 (4.16–5.63) | 1.43 (0.51–2.36) | <.001 |
Megasphaera species | 3.17 (2.56–3.79) | 0.22 (-0.01–0.44) | <.001 | 3.96 (3.10–4.81) | 0 (0–0) | <.001 | 3.34 (2.32–4.35) | 0.55 (–0.09 to 1.18) | .001 |
Veillonella species | 2.37 (1.75–3.00) | 0.28 (0.01–0.56) | <.001 | 1.85 (0.89–2.81) | 0.27 (–0.12 to 0.66) | .005 | 2.83 (1.79–3.87) | 0.22 (–0.24 to 0.68) | .002 |
BVAB1 | 1.76 (1.11–2.42) | 0.46 (0.15–0.77) | <.001 | 2.08 (0.97–3.19) | 0.34 (0.01–0.67) | .002 | 2.00 (0.84–3.15) | 0.75 (–0.02 to 1.53) | .067 |
Fusobacterium species | 0.53 (0.17–0.89) | 0 (0–0) | .008 | 0.44 (–0.06 to 0.95) | 0 (0–0) | .008 | 0.68 (0.02–1.34) | 0 (0–0) | .046 |
Streptococcus species | 1.47 (0.92–2.02) | 1.34 (0.84–1.85) | .453 | 0.83 (0.10–1.55) | 0.85 (0.18–1.52) | .286 | 1.76 (0.83–2.68) | 2.05 (1.06–3.05) | .767 |
Staphylococcus species | 0.26 (0.05–0.47) | 0.60 (0.27–0.93) | .655 | 0.09 (–0.10 to 0.29) | 0.34 (–0.01 to 0.70) | ND | 0.34 (–0.05 to 0.72) | 0.87 (0.12–1.63) | .317 |
Escherichia/Shigella species | 0.10 (–0.04 to 0.25) | 0.86 (0.45–1.27) | .317 | 0.24 (–0.10 to 0.59) | 0.41 (0.00–0.83) | .317 | 0 (0–0) | 1.41 (0.52–2.29) | ND |



OR (95% CI) | P value | |
---|---|---|
Sociodemographic correlates | ||
Age (continuous variable) | 1.06 (0.97–1.17) | .186 |
Education level | ||
Primary school not completed | 1.23 (0.26–5.90) | .795 |
Primary school completed | 1.80 (0.31–10.5) | .514 |
Secondary school not completed | 0.33 (0.02–4.74) | .417 |
Exchanged sex for money/goods in month prior to posttreatment visit | 5.40 (0.56–52.08) | .145 |
Used a condom at the last vaginal sex act prior to posttreatment visit | 0.99 (0.97–1.02) | .678 |
Condom use in the 2 weeks prior to posttreatment visit | ||
Always vs never | 0.36 (0.03–3.92) | .399 |
Sometimes (but not always) vs never | 0.22 (0.02–2.19) | .196 |
Currently using hormonal contraception at the posttreatment visit | 0.69 (0.23–2.05) | .499 |
Currently breastfeeding at the posttreatment visit | 1.00 (0.97–1.03) | .874 |
Inserted anything in vagina in the 12 months prior to posttreatment visit | 1.03 (0.34–3.10) | .959 |
Had menses in 7 days prior to posttreatment visit | 1.83 (0.41–8.23) | .429 |
Reported any urogenital symptoms at the pretreatment visit | 0.67 (0.21–2.11) | .496 |
Reported any urogenital symptoms at the posttreatment visit | NA | NA |
Biological correlates (at pretreatment visit) | ||
Total lactobacilli concentration | 1.14 (0.80–1.62) | .476 |
Total BV-anaerobes concentration | 0.79 (0.41–1.53) | .489 |
Total pathobionts concentration | 0.76 (0.58–0.99) | .044 |
Total other bacteria concentration | 0.83 (0.63–1.10) | .191 |
Gardnerella vaginalis concentration | 0.86 (0.44–1.65) | .640 |
Atopobium vaginae concentration | 0.83 (0.59–1.17) | .285 |
Prevotella concentration | 0.93 (0.65–1.33) | .691 |
Sneathia concentration | 0.86 (0.63–1.16) | .318 |
Megasphaera concentration | 1.12 (0.89–1.42) | .333 |
Veillonella concentration | 0.85 (0.68–1.06) | .157 |
BVAB1 concentration | 1.01 (0.83–1.23) | .912 |
Fusobacterium concentration | 0.89 (0.61–1.30) | .549 |
Vaginal microbiota type | ||
LA vs Li | 1.75 (0.10–30.84) | .702 |
BV_GV vs Li | 0.46 (0.04–5.75) | .550 |
BV_noGV vs Li | 0.67 (0.04–11.29) | .779 |
GV vs Li | 0.30 (0.02–4.91) | .398 |
BV_GV vs LA | 0.27 (0.05–1.52) | .136 |
BV_noGV vs LA | 0.38 (0.04–3.34) | .383 |
GV vs LA | 0.17 (0.02–1.44) | .104 |
Pooled vaginal microbiota type | ||
LA vs Lactobacillus-dominated [Li or Lo] | 1.75 (0.10–30.84) | 0.702 |
[BV_GV or BV_noGV or GV] vs Lactobacillus-dominated [Li or Lo] | 0.45 (0.04–5.40) | 0.532 |
Yeasts on wet mount | 0.83 (0.05–13.9) | 0.896 |
Trichomonas vaginalis on wet mount | 1.71 (0.15–20.1) | 0.661 |
Positive urinalysis test | 1.22 (0.33–4.44) | 0.765 |
Any bacterial sexually transmitted infection (CT/NG/syphilis) | 0.65 (0.22–1.91) | 0.435 |
Positive herpes simplex virus type 2 serology | 2.16 (0.70–6.69) | 0.178 |
Discussion
Principal findings
Results of the study in context of what is known
Research and clinical implications
Strengths and limitations of the study
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
Supplementary Data
- Appendix A
- Appendix B
References
- Incorporating microbiota data into epidemiologic models: examples from vaginal microbiota research.Ann Epidemiol. 2016; 26: 360-365
- The vaginal microbiota: what have we learned after a decade of molecular characterization?.PLoS One. 2014; 9: e105998
- The vaginal microbiome and sexually transmitted infections are interlinked: consequences for treatment and prevention.PLoS Med. 2017; 14: e1002478
- Bacterial vaginosis and vaginal yeast, but not vaginal cleansing, increase HIV-1 acquisition in African women.J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2008; 48: 203-210
- Does bacterial vaginosis cause pelvic inflammatory disease?.Sex Transm Dis. 2013; 40: 117-122
- Asymptomatic bacterial vaginosis and intermediate flora as risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcome.Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2007; 21: 375-390
- Guidelines for the management of sexually transmitted infections.(Available at:) (Published 2003. Accessed Mar. 12, 2019)
- Reliability of diagnosing bacterial vaginosis is improved by a standardized method of gram stain interpretation.J Clin Microbiol. 1991; 29: 297-301
- Nonspecific vaginitis. Diagnostic criteria and microbial and epidemiologic associations.Am J Med. 1983; : 7414-7422
- Making inroads into improving treatment of bacterial vaginosis— striving for long-term cure.BMC Infect Dis. 2015; 15: 292
- Treatment of bacterial vaginosis: a comparison of oral metronidazole, metronidazole vaginal gel, and clindamycin vaginal cream.J Fam Pract. 1995; 41: 443-449
- Vaginal clindamycin and oral metronidazole for bacterial vaginosis: a randomized trial.Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 96: 256-260
- High recurrence rates of bacterial vaginosis over the course of 12 months after oral metronidazole therapy and factors associated with recurrence.J Infect Dis. 2006; 193: 1478-1486
- Recurrent bacterial vaginosis.Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2009; 22: 82-86
- Nitroimidazole drugs - action and resistance mechanisms.J Antimicrob Chemother. 1993; 31: 9-20
- Metronidazole.(Available at:)https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/4173Date accessed: February 5, 2019
- Lactobacillus species: taxonomic complexity and controversial susceptibilities.Clin Infect Dis. 2015; 60: S98-S107
- Metronidazole. A therapeutic review and update.Drugs. 1997; 54: 679-708
- Bacterial biofilms in the vagina.Res Microbiol. 2017; 168: 865-874
- National Guidelines for Prevention and Management of HIV, STIs & Other Blood Borne Infections.Republic of Rwanda - Ministry of Health. 2013; (Available at:)https://aidsfree.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/hts_policy_rwanda.pdfDate accessed: March 12, 2019
- Evaluation of lysis methods for the extraction of bacterial DNA for analysis of the vaginal microbiota.PLoS One. 2016; 11: e0163148
- BactQuant: an enhanced broad-coverage bacterial quantitative real-time PCR assay.BMC Microbiol. 2012; 12: 56
- DADA2: high resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data.Nat Methods. 2016; 13: 581-583
- SILVA: a comprehensive online resource for quality checked and aligned ribosomal RNA sequence data compatible with ARB.Nucleic Acids Res. 2007; 35: 7188-7196
- Associating microbiome composition with environmental covariates using generalized UniFrac distances.Bioinformatics. 2012; 28: 2106-2113
- Antibiotic susceptibility of potentially probiotic Lactobacillus species.J Food Prot. 1998; 61: 1636-1643
- Susceptibility of Lactobacillus spp. to antimicrobial agents.Int J Food Microbiol. 2003; 82: 1-11
- Effects of antibiotic treatment on the Lactobacillus composition of vaginal microbiota.Bull Exp Biol Med. 2015; 158: 766-768
- Rapid and profound shifts in the vaginal microbiota following antibiotic treatment for bacterial vaginosis.J Infect Dis. 2015; 212: 793-802
- Metatranscriptome analysis of the vaginal microbiota reveals potential mechanisms for protection against metronidazole in bacterial vaginosis.mSphere. 2018; 3: e00262-e002618
- Cultivation-independent analysis of changes in bacterial vaginosis flora following metronidazole treatment.J Clin Microbiol. 2007; 45: 1016-1018
- The association of Atopobium vaginae and Gardnerella vaginalis with bacterial vaginosis and recurrence after oral metronidazole therapy.J Infect Dis. 2006; 194: 828-836
- Changes in vaginal bacterial concentrations with intravaginal metronidazole therapy for bacterial vaginosis as assessed by quantitative PCR.J Clin Microbiol. 2009; 47: 721-726
- Temporal dynamics of the human vaginal microbiota.Sci Transl Med. 2012; 4: 132ra52
- Bacterial vaginosis: an update on diagnosis and treatment.Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2009; 7: 1109-1124
- Effects of bacterial vaginosis-associated bacteria and sexual intercourse on vaginal colonization with the probiotic Lactobacillus crispatus CTV-05.Sex Transm Dis. 2011; 38: 1020-1027
- The association between ethnicity and vaginal microbiota composition in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.PLoS One. 2017; 12: e0181135
- Keystone Symposia | Scientific Conferences on Biomedical and Life Science Topics.(Available at:)https://www.keystonesymposia.org/18S6Date accessed: February 8, 2019
- Quantitative PCR provides a simple and accessible method for quantitative microbiome profiling: bioRxiv.November 2018
Article info
Publication history
Footnotes
The authors report no conflict of interest.
This work was supported by the DFID/MRC/Wellcome Trust Joint Global Health Trials Scheme as a Development Project (grant reference MR/M017443/1; grant title: “Preparing for a clinical trial of interventions to maintain normal vaginal microbiota for preventing adverse reproductive health outcomes in Africa”) and the University of Liverpool (Technology Directorate Voucher). The findings and conclusions in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the authors’ institutions or companies, or the funder. None of the authors were paid to write this article. The corresponding author had full access to the data and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.
Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, reference number NCT02459665 (URL access on https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02459665)
Cite this article as: Verwijs MC, Agaba SK, Darby AC, et al. Impact of oral metronidazole treatment on the vaginal microbiota and correlates of treatment failure. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020;222:157.e1-13.
Identification
Copyright
User license
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) |
Permitted
- Read, print & download
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Text & data mine
- Translate the article
- Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
- Sell or re-use for commercial purposes
Elsevier's open access license policy