| Literature DB >> 30036385 |
Tania Crucitti1, Liselotte Hardy1, Janneke van de Wijgert2, Stephen Agaba3, Jozefien Buyze1, Evelyne Kestelyn2,3, Thérèse Delvaux1, Lambert Mwambarangwe3, Irith De Baetselier1, Vicky Jespers1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hormonal contraception has been associated with a reduced risk of vaginal dysbiosis, which in turn has been associated with reduced prevalence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV. Vaginal rings are used or developed as delivery systems for contraceptive hormones and antimicrobial drugs for STI and HIV prevention or treatment. We hypothesized that a contraceptive vaginal ring (CVR) containing oestrogen enhances a lactobacilli-dominated vaginal microbial community despite biomass accumulation on the CVR's surface.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30036385 PMCID: PMC6056036 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Participant flow.
N = number of participants, * 1 discontinued after one cycle of vaginal ring use.
Baseline characteristics, reproductive tract and sexually transmitted infections of all randomised participants who used at least one contraceptive vaginal ring.
| Intermittent Use | Continuous Use | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| N | 60 | 60 | 120 |
| Age— | 28 (25.5, 31) | 28.5 (26, 32) | 28 (26, 31.5) |
| Highest Level of Education— | |||
| | 9 (15) | 6 (10) | 15 (13) |
| | 15 (25) | 21 (35) | 36 (30) |
| | 24 (40) | 20 (33) | 44 (37) |
| | 8 (13) | 9 (15) | 17 (14) |
| | 2 (3) | 2 (3) | 4 (3) |
| | 2 (3) | 2 (3) | 4 (3) |
| Marital Status/Home Situation— | |||
| | 37 (62) | 36 (60) | 73 (61) |
| | 16 (27) | 16 (27) | 32 (27) |
| | 7 (12) | 8 (13) | 15 (13) |
| Contraception History— | |||
| | 19 (32) | 22 (37) | 41 (34) |
| Any modern method | 41 (68) | 38 (63) | 79 (66) |
| | |||
| | 32 (53) | 27 (45) | 59 (49) |
| | 11 (18) | 18 (30) | 29 (24) |
| | 1 (2) | 0 (0) | 1 (1) |
| Pregnancies— | |||
| | 2 (3) | 3 (5) | 5 (4) |
| | 12 (20) | 10 (17) | 22 (18) |
| | 22 (37) | 17 (28) | 39 (33) |
| | 24 (40) | 30 (50) | 54 (45) |
| Any vaginal deliveries— | 55 (92) | 51 (85) | 106 (88) |
| Any C-sections— | 6 (10) | 11 (18) | 17 (14) |
| 4 (7) | 6 (10) | 10 (8) | |
| 2 (3) | 5 (8) | 7 (6) | |
| HIV serology—positive | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| HSV-2 serology—positive | 21 (35) | 26 (43) | 47 (39) |
| Syphilis serology—positive | 3 (5) | 3 (5) | 6 (5) |
| Wet Mount: | |||
| 5 (8) | 4 (7) | 9 (8) | |
| Clue Cells— | |||
| 44 (73) | 37 (62) | 81 (68) | |
| 9 (15) | 16 (27) | 25 (21) | |
| | 7 (12) | 7 (12) | 14 (12) |
| Nugent score | |||
| | 24 (40) | 24 (41) | 48 (40) |
| 7 (12) | 7 (12) | 14 (12) | |
| | 29 (48) | 28 (47) | 57 (48) |
IQR: Interquartile Range
1More than one answer possible
21 Missing/unreadable
3combined oral contraceptive pills
* None of the participants had ever used a vaginal ring for contraception prior to enrolment in the study
Longitudinal analysis of species presence in the vagina and in contraceptive vaginal ring biomasses in both study groups.
| Time evolution for intermittent use group | Time evolution for continuous use group | Difference in time evolution between groups | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | Time effect | ||||
| 5.7 (1.2, 27.6) | 0.031 | 4.4 (1.1, 18.0) | 0.041 | 0.782 | binary | |
| 7.3 (1.5, 33.6) | 0.014 | 4.5 (1.1, 17.5) | 0.033 | 0.566 | binary | |
| 8.4 (1.0, 71.5) | 0.051 | 13.1 (1.3, 128.3) | 0.027 | 0.389 | linear | |
| 1.7 (1.1, 2.6) | 0.022 | 1.8 (1.1, 2.8) | 0.021 | 0.873 | linear | |
| 0.7 (0.3, 1.5) | 0.363 | 1.1 (0.6, 2.0) | 0.695 | 0.217 | linear | |
| 2.2 (1.3, 3.8) | 0.003 | 2.4 (1.4, 4.3) | 0.003 | 0.742 | linear | |
| 0.3 (0.1, 0.7) | 0.012 | 0.2 (0.1, 0.6) | 0.004 | 0.769 | binary | |
| 0.2 (0.1, 0.5) | 0.001 | 0.2 (0.1, 0.6) | 0.001 | 0.745 | binary | |
| 0.6 (0.4, 0.9) | 0.015 | 0.5 (0.3, 0.8) | 0.001 | 0.454 | linear | |
| 0.6 (0.5, 0.8) | 0.001 | 0.6 (0.5, 0.8) | 0.001 | 0.815 | linear | |
| 1.3 (0.6, 2.8) | 0.572 | 0.5 (0.2, 1.2) | 0.126 | 0.069 | binary | |
| 0.6 (0.2, 1.2) | 0.149 | 0.2 (0.1, 0.5) | <0.001 | 0.052 | binary | |
| 1.3 (0.7, 2.2) | 0.408 | 1.3 (0.8, 2.3) | 0.310 | 0.874 | linear | |
| 0.6 (0.3, 1.3) | 0.169 | 1.1 (0.6, 2.2) | 0.776 | 0.235 | linear | |
| 0.8 (0.4, 1.3) | 0.307 | 0.8 (0.5, 1.2) | 0.266 | 0.996 | linear | |
1All, except one, were accompanied by cell-attached G. vaginalis
Note.-The qPCR results were expressed categorically as present or absent. The presence of species was modelled using mixed-effects logistic regression models and results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) of presence with 95% confidence interval (CI). When the model includes a binary time effect, the odds ratio is the odds of presence post-baseline divided by the odds of presence at baseline. When the model includes a linear time effect, the odds ratio is the odds of presence at a certain visit divided by the odds of presence at the previous visit.
The use of time as a categorical variable to a linear time effect and a binary time effect were compared and the most appropriate one was selected.
Longitudinal analysis of qPCR concentrations (log10 (geq)/mL of vaginal swab eluate) and Nugent scores in the Vagina and of qPCR concentrations (log10 geq/mL of vaginal ring eluate) and density of contraceptive vaginal ring biomasses in both study groups.
| Dependent variable | Time evolution for intermittent use group | Time evolution for continuous use group | Difference in time evolution between groups | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate (95% CI) | P-value | Estimate (95% CI) | P-value | P-value | Time effect | |
| Vaginal specimen | ||||||
| 0.8 (0.4, 1.1) | <0.001 | 0.9 (0.5, 1.2) | <0.001 | 0.671 | binary | |
| 0.7 (0.1, 1.2) | 0.013 | 0.8 (0.3, 1.3) | 0.003 | 0.755 | binary | |
| -1.2 (-1.8, -0.6) | <0.001 | -1.3 (-1.9, -0.7) | <0.001 | 0.786 | binary | |
| Composite qPCR vaginal health score | 2.1 (1.3, 2.8) | <0.001 | 2.3 (1.6, 3.0) | <0.001 | 0.681 | binary |
| Nugent score | -1.6 (-2.3, -0.8) | <0.001 | -1.9 (-2.7, -1.2) | <0.001 | 0.462 | binary |
| Contraceptive vaginal ring | ||||||
| -0.0 (-0.2, 0.1) | 0.826 | -0.0 (-0.2, 0.1) | 0.657 | 0.868 | linear | |
| -0.3 (-0.5, -0.0) | 0.024 | —0.1 (-0.3, 0.1) | 0.433 | 0.263 | linear | |
| -0.1 (-0.4,0.1) | 0.274 | -0.2 (-0.4,0.0) | 0.127 | 0.768 | linear | |
| Composite qPCR vaginal health score | 0.3 (0.0, 0.6) | 0.050 | 0.1 (-0.2, 0.4) | 0.610 | 0.281 | linear |
| Density | 0.0 (-0.0, 0.1) | 0.294 | 0.0 (-0.1, 0.1) | 0.923 | 0.410 | linear |
Note.-The log10 concentrations (expressed in geq/mL vaginal swab eluate) of species that were persistently present in the vaginal microbiota, Nugent scores, vaginal and ring biomass composite qPCR vaginal health scores, and ring biomass densities were modelled with mixed-effects linear regression models. For ring biomass data baseline measurements were not applicable. Results were expressed as estimates (E) of change in mean log10 geq/mL vaginal swab eluate, in mean composite qPCR vaginal health score, in mean Nugent score or in mean biomass density with 95% confidence intervals (CI). When the model includes a binary time effect, E is the mean difference between post-baseline and baseline. When the model includes a linear time effect, E is the mean difference between two consecutive visits.
Effects of intermittent versus continuous use were tested as differences in slope in the models at the 5% level (two-sided).
Composite qPCR vaginal health scores were calculated as log10 (Lactobacillus genus)-log10 (G. vaginalis+ A. vaginae).
Fig 2Evolution over time of the mean vaginal Nugent score, the mean composite qPCR vaginal health score of vaginal specimens, and the mean composite qPCR vaginal health score of contraceptive vaginal ring biomass.
The Y axis is a score from 0 to 10 for both the Nugent and the composite qPCR vaginal health score. RSV1: first ring removal visit; RSV2: second ring removal visit; LRV: last ring removal visit ____: mean Nugent score _ _ _: mean composite qPCR vaginal health score of the vaginal specimens ……: mean composite qPCR vaginal health score of the contraceptive vaginal rings The composite qPCR vaginal health score is calculated as log10 (Lactobacillus spp.)-log10 (G. vaginalis+ A. vaginae).
Fig 3Scanning electron microscope observation of the biomass accumulated on contraceptive vaginal rings used for three weeks.
Pictures 1a-3a: The contraceptive vaginal ring was used by a woman with a Nugent score of 10 and with presence of Lactobacillus iners, Gardnerella vaginalis and Atopobium vaginae as measured by qPCR. A vaginal biofilm consisting of Gardnerella vaginalis and Atopobium vaginae was identified using fluorescence in situ hybridization. On the ring Lactobacillus species, Gardnerella vaginalis and Atopobium vaginae were detected using qPCR, the crystal violet optical density was 3.7555 Pictures 1b-3b: Biomass on a contraceptive vaginal ring after use by a woman with a Nugent score of 0 and presence of Lactobacillus iners only. No biofilm was visualized using fluorescence in situ hybridization. On the ring Lactobacillus species was detected using qPCR, the crystal violet optical density was 3.7225.
Fig 4Evolution over time of the density of contraceptive vaginal ring biomass according to the normal, intermediate and BV vaginal microbiome as determined by Nugent scoring.
The Y axis is the optical density of the crystal violet measurements of the contraceptive vaginal rings. RSV1: first ring removal visit; RSV2: second ring removal visit; LRV: last ring removal visit ____: mean optical densities of ring’s biomass collected from women with a normal vaginal microbiota according to the Nugent score (0–3) _ _ _: mean optical densities of ring’s biomass collected from women with an intermediate vaginal microbiota according to the Nugent score (4–6) ……: mean optical densities of ring’s biomass collected from women with bacterial vaginosis according to the Nugent score (7–10).