Prabhav Aggarwal1, Sonali Bhattar1, Satyendra Kumar Sahani2, Preena Bhalla1. 1. Department of Microbiology, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi-110002, India. 2. Department of Dermatology, Maulana Azad Medical College and Associated Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi-110002, India.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: WHO and NACO recommend treatment of STIs/RTIs on the basis syndromic case management (SCM), even without laboratory confirmation, which may lead to over-treatment. Thus, this study was conducted to evaluate the utility of laboratory diagnosis for confirmation of patients with vaginal discharge diagnosed on the basis of SCM. METHODOLOGY: 234 married women in reproductive age group, diagnosed as having vaginal discharge syndrome were included. Normal saline wet-mount slide preparations were made for detection of motile trichomonads. Gram stained smear were prepared and scored as per classification developed by Nugent. The presence of pseudohyphae and/or budding yeast cells was considered diagnostic of candidal infection. VDRL, TPHA and HIV testing were also done as per protocol. RESULTS: The median age of the study population was 34 years. Most common cause was bacterial vaginosis (positive= 21.4%, 95% CI= 16.6-27.1%; intermediate score= 17.5%, 95% CI= 13.2-22.9%), followed by candidiasis (13.7%, 95% CI= 98-18.7%) and trichomoniasis (0.4%, 95% CI= 0-2.6%). No etiological diagnosis for vaginal discharge could be established in approximately half of the women. Only two women were HIV positive; one was reactive by VDRL and TPHA tests. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the possible lacunae in SCM. Large number of patients may be over-treated if only syndromic management is followed, with financial, medical and social implications. Thus we recommend, the treatment maybe initiated on the basis of SCM, but it is essential that laboratory diagnosis is sought for and the treatment modified accordingly.
OBJECTIVE: WHO and NACO recommend treatment of STIs/RTIs on the basis syndromic case management (SCM), even without laboratory confirmation, which may lead to over-treatment. Thus, this study was conducted to evaluate the utility of laboratory diagnosis for confirmation of patients with vaginal discharge diagnosed on the basis of SCM. METHODOLOGY: 234 married women in reproductive age group, diagnosed as having vaginal discharge syndrome were included. Normal saline wet-mount slide preparations were made for detection of motile trichomonads. Gram stained smear were prepared and scored as per classification developed by Nugent. The presence of pseudohyphae and/or budding yeast cells was considered diagnostic of candidal infection. VDRL, TPHA and HIV testing were also done as per protocol. RESULTS: The median age of the study population was 34 years. Most common cause was bacterial vaginosis (positive= 21.4%, 95% CI= 16.6-27.1%; intermediate score= 17.5%, 95% CI= 13.2-22.9%), followed by candidiasis (13.7%, 95% CI= 98-18.7%) and trichomoniasis (0.4%, 95% CI= 0-2.6%). No etiological diagnosis for vaginal discharge could be established in approximately half of the women. Only two women were HIV positive; one was reactive by VDRL and TPHA tests. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the possible lacunae in SCM. Large number of patients may be over-treated if only syndromic management is followed, with financial, medical and social implications. Thus we recommend, the treatment maybe initiated on the basis of SCM, but it is essential that laboratory diagnosis is sought for and the treatment modified accordingly.