| Literature DB >> 28903767 |
Cornelia Gottschick1, Zhi-Luo Deng1, Marius Vital2, Clarissa Masur3, Christoph Abels3, Dietmar H Pieper2, Manfred Rohde4, Werner Mendling5, Irene Wagner-Döbler6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bacterial vaginosis (BV) is the most common vaginal syndrome among women in their reproductive years. It is associated with an increased risk of acquiring sexually transmitted infections and complications like preterm labor. BV is characterized by a high recurrence rate for which biofilms frequently found on vaginal epithelial cells may be a reason.Entities:
Keywords: Amphoteric tenside; Bacterial vaginosis; Biofilms; Vaginal microbiome; Vaginal microbiota
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28903767 PMCID: PMC5598074 DOI: 10.1186/s40168-017-0326-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microbiome ISSN: 2049-2618 Impact factor: 14.650
Summary of study endpoints
| A | ||
| Primary endpoint | Secondary endpoints | |
| Local tolerability of medical devices (defined as a cumulative sum score of solicited local ADEs between visit 2 and visit 4) | Secondary tolerability endpoints: | |
| Secondary efficacy endpoints: | ||
| B | ||
| Excluded women ( | Included women ( | |
| No biofilm and/ or | Age (mean) | 32.4 years (range 19–51 years) |
| Ethnicity | 83.7% Caucasian, 11.6% with African descent | |
| Previous vulvovaginal diseases | 39.5% (23.3% BV, 2.3% candidiasis, 16.3% unidentified vaginal infection or dybiosis) | |
| Miscarriage or preterm birth | 7.0% | |
| Systemic hormonal contraceptives | 48.8% | |
ADE adverse device event
Fig. 1Microscopic images of vaginal epithelial cells with attached biofilms. From left to right: Vaginal epithelial cells from patients with BV either with (BV biofilm +) or without biofilm (BV biofilm −) and after metronidazole treatment (cured). Top two rows: light microscopy of samples stained with crystal violet. Bottom two rows: scanning electron micrographs. Red arrows indicate EPS.
Fig. 2Rank abundance and Shannon diversity of vaginal microbiota. a Dominance plot of cumulated samples from all visits. H health, vis/v visit, ex excluded, in included. b Shannon indices of all groups. Mean and quartile range are shown. Asterisks indicate significant (p < 0.01) differences assessed by a Wilcoxon rank sum test. c PCO of healthy women and included or excluded women with acute BV. d Cumulated abundances for each group. OTUs below 1% relative abundance are summarized as others.
Fig. 3Biomarkers for biofilms in BV. LEfSe biomarker analysis comparing all samples from BV (visit 1) according to biofilm status (LDA threshold = 2.0).
Fig. 4Composition of the vaginal microbiota of all women included in the study. Patients are separated according to treatment (LAP vs. WO 3191). Visits (1–5) and corresponding data (Nugent score, biofilm status, number of Amsel criteria and pH) are shown above and below. Red arrows indicate BV recurrence. OTUs below 1% abundance are summarized as “others”. LAP = lactic acid pessaries.
Fig. 5The effect of metronidazole and pessaries. a Principal component analysis of the vaginal microbiota composition in healthy women and women after metronidazole treatment. Vectors indicate the species driving variation. H healthy cohort, V2 women from the clinical study at visit 2 (after metronidazole treatment). b The microbiota response to pessaries. Cumulated microbiota composition for LAP and WO 3191 treatment for all visits. At visit 1, metronidazole was provided. At visit 2, women were randomly assigned to one of the two pessary treatments. From visits 3 to 5, they had been treated with the respective pessary. OTUs below 1% abundance are summarized as “others”. LAP = lactic acid pessaries