J Paul Brooks1, David J Edwards2, Diana L Blithe3, Jennifer M Fettweis4, Myrna G Serrano5, Nihar U Sheth6, Jerome F Strauss7, Gregory A Buck8, Kimberly K Jefferson9. 1. Department of Statistical Sciences and Operations Research, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA; Center for the Study of Biological Complexity, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA. Electronic address: jpbrooks@vcu.edu. 2. Department of Statistical Sciences and Operations Research, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA. Electronic address: dedwards7@vcu.edu. 3. Contraception Research Branch, The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, Bethesda, MD. Electronic address: blithed@exchange.nih.gov. 4. Center for the Study of Biological Complexity, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA. Electronic address: fettweisjm@vcu.edu. 5. Center for the Study of Biological Complexity, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA. Electronic address: mgserrano@vcu.edu. 6. Center for the Study of Biological Complexity, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA. Electronic address: nsheth@vcu.edu. 7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA. Electronic address: jerome.strauss@vcuhealth.org. 8. Center for the Study of Biological Complexity, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA; Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA. Electronic address: gregory.buck@vcuhealth.org. 9. Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA. Electronic address: kkjefferson@vcu.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Prior studies suggest that the composition of the vaginal microbiome may positively or negatively affect susceptibility to sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and bacterial vaginosis (BV). Some female hormonal contraceptive methods also appear to positively or negatively influence STI transmission and BV. Therefore, changes in the vaginal microbiome that are associated with different contraceptive methods may explain, in part, effects on STI transmission and BV. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective study of 16S rRNA gene survey data of vaginal samples from a subset of participants from the Human Vaginal Microbiome Project at Virginia Commonwealth University. The subset included 682 women who reported using a single form of birth control that was condoms, combined oral contraceptives (COCs), depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS). RESULTS: Women using COCs [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13-0.64] and DMPA (aOR 0.34, 95% CI 0.13-0.89), but not LNG-IUS (aOR 1.55, 95% CI 0.72-3.35), were less likely to be colonized by BV-associated bacteria relative to women who used condoms. Women using COCs (aOR 1.94, 95% CI 1.25-3.02) were more likely to be colonized by beneficial H2O2-producing Lactobacillus species compared with women using condoms, while women using DMPA (aOR 1.09, 95% CI 0.63-1.86) and LNG-IUS (aOR 0.74, 95% CI 0.48-1.15) were not. CONCLUSIONS: Use of COCs is significantly associated with increased vaginal colonization by healthy lactobacilli and reduced BV-associated taxa. IMPLICATIONS: COC use may positively influence gynecologic health through an increase in healthy lactobacilli and a decrease in BV-associated bacterial taxa.
OBJECTIVES: Prior studies suggest that the composition of the vaginal microbiome may positively or negatively affect susceptibility to sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and bacterial vaginosis (BV). Some female hormonal contraceptive methods also appear to positively or negatively influence STI transmission and BV. Therefore, changes in the vaginal microbiome that are associated with different contraceptive methods may explain, in part, effects on STI transmission and BV. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective study of 16S rRNA gene survey data of vaginal samples from a subset of participants from the Human Vaginal Microbiome Project at Virginia Commonwealth University. The subset included 682 women who reported using a single form of birth control that was condoms, combined oral contraceptives (COCs), depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS). RESULTS:Women using COCs [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13-0.64] and DMPA (aOR 0.34, 95% CI 0.13-0.89), but not LNG-IUS (aOR 1.55, 95% CI 0.72-3.35), were less likely to be colonized by BV-associated bacteria relative to women who used condoms. Women using COCs (aOR 1.94, 95% CI 1.25-3.02) were more likely to be colonized by beneficial H2O2-producing Lactobacillus species compared with women using condoms, while women using DMPA (aOR 1.09, 95% CI 0.63-1.86) and LNG-IUS (aOR 0.74, 95% CI 0.48-1.15) were not. CONCLUSIONS: Use of COCs is significantly associated with increased vaginal colonization by healthy lactobacilli and reduced BV-associated taxa. IMPLICATIONS: COC use may positively influence gynecologic health through an increase in healthy lactobacilli and a decrease in BV-associated bacterial taxa.
Authors: Janneke H H M van de Wijgert; Charles S Morrison; Peter G A Cornelisse; Marshall Munjoma; Jeanne Moncada; Peter Awio; Jing Wang; Barbara Van der Pol; Tsungai Chipato; Robert A Salata; Nancy S Padian Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2008-06-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: S A Hashway; I L Bergin; C M Bassis; M Uchihashi; K C Schmidt; V B Young; D M Aronoff; D L Patton; J D Bell Journal: J Med Primatol Date: 2013-11-23 Impact factor: 0.667
Authors: Gregory T Spear; Audrey L French; Douglas Gilbert; M Reza Zariffard; Paria Mirmonsef; Thomas H Sullivan; William W Spear; Alan Landay; Sandra Micci; Byung-Hoo Lee; Bruce R Hamaker Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2014-04-15 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Lenka A Vodstrcil; Jane S Hocking; Matthew Law; Sandra Walker; Sepehr N Tabrizi; Christopher K Fairley; Catriona S Bradshaw Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kathryn Peebles; Flavia M Kiweewa; Thesla Palanee-Phillips; Catherine Chappell; Devika Singh; Katherine E Bunge; Logashvari Naidoo; Bonus Makanani; Nitesha Jeenarain; Doerieyah Reynolds; Sharon L Hillier; Elizabeth R Brown; Jared M Baeten; Jennifer E Balkus Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Travis T Sims; Greyson W G Biegert; Doreen Ramogola-Masire; Kebatshabile Ngoni; Travis Solley; Matthew S Ning; Molly B El Alam; Melissa Mezzari; Joseph Petrosino; Nicola M Zetola; Kathleen M Schmeler; Lauren E Colbert; Ann H Klopp; Surbhi Grover Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2020-07-16 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Erica M Lokken; Clayton Jisuvei; Brenda Oyaro; Juma Shafi; Maureen Nyaigero; John Kinuthia; Kishor Mandaliya; Walter Jaoko; R Scott McClelland Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Bridget M Whitney; Sujatha Srinivasan; Kenneth Tapia; Eric Munene Muriuki; Bhavna H Chohan; Jacqueline M Wallis; Congzhou Liu; Brandon L Guthrie; R Scott McClelland; Noah G Hoffman; David N Fredricks; Alison C Roxby Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Jennifer Deese; Neena Philip; Margaret Lind; Khatija Ahmed; Joanne Batting; Mags Beksinska; Vinodh A Edward; Cheryl E Louw; Maricianah Onono; Thesla Palanee-Phillips; Jennifer A Smit; Jared M Baeten; Deborah Donnell; Timothy D Mastro; Nelly R Mugo; Kavita Nanda; Helen Rees; Charles Morrison Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2020-11-18 Impact factor: 3.519
Authors: Michelle L Wright; Jennifer M Fettweis; Lindon J Eaves; Judy L Silberg; Michael C Neale; Myrna G Serrano; Nicole R Jimenez; Elizabeth Prom-Wormley; Philippe H Girerd; Joseph F Borzelleca; Kimberly K Jefferson; Jerome F Strauss; Timothy P York; Gregory A Buck Journal: Commun Biol Date: 2021-08-05