Jennifer E Balkus1,2,3, Kayla A Carter4, R Scott McClelland4,5,6. 1. Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Box 357236, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA. jbalkus@uw.edu. 2. Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. jbalkus@uw.edu. 3. Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA. jbalkus@uw.edu. 4. Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Box 357236, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA. 5. Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Suppressive therapy and periodic presumptive treatment (PPT) are distinct but related strategies that have been used to reduce the incidence of bacterial vaginosis (BV). Here, we review clinical trial evidence of the effectiveness of suppressive therapy and PPT to reduce BV, and discuss their roles for women who frequently experience symptomatic or asymptomatic BV. RECENT FINDINGS: Among women who were recently and successfully treated for symptomatic BV, suppressive therapy with twice-weekly metronidazole gel for 16 weeks reduces the likelihood of recurrent symptomatic BV and is currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for prevention of recurrent BV. The premise of PPT is to provide regimens used to treat BV at regular intervals to reduce the overall frequency of BV, regardless of symptoms. Three PPT trials were conducted using different routes (oral or intravaginal), doses, and frequencies of administration. Each trial demonstrated a significant reduction in BV over the course 12 months, ranging from a 10 to 45% decrease. PPT regimens that substantially reduce the frequency of BV over time could be evaluated in clinical trials to assess whether a reduced frequency of BV leads to subsequent reductions in BV-associated sequelae. While both suppressive therapy and PPT reduce BV, their impact wanes following cessation of the regimen. Given the high prevalence of BV globally and burden of adverse reproductive health outcomes among women with BV, there is a critical need for more effective treatments that produce durable shifts in the microbiota towards vaginal health.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Suppressive therapy and periodic presumptive treatment (PPT) are distinct but related strategies that have been used to reduce the incidence of bacterial vaginosis (BV). Here, we review clinical trial evidence of the effectiveness of suppressive therapy and PPT to reduce BV, and discuss their roles for women who frequently experience symptomatic or asymptomatic BV. RECENT FINDINGS: Among women who were recently and successfully treated for symptomatic BV, suppressive therapy with twice-weekly metronidazole gel for 16 weeks reduces the likelihood of recurrent symptomatic BV and is currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for prevention of recurrent BV. The premise of PPT is to provide regimens used to treat BV at regular intervals to reduce the overall frequency of BV, regardless of symptoms. Three PPT trials were conducted using different routes (oral or intravaginal), doses, and frequencies of administration. Each trial demonstrated a significant reduction in BV over the course 12 months, ranging from a 10 to 45% decrease. PPT regimens that substantially reduce the frequency of BV over time could be evaluated in clinical trials to assess whether a reduced frequency of BV leads to subsequent reductions in BV-associated sequelae. While both suppressive therapy and PPT reduce BV, their impact wanes following cessation of the regimen. Given the high prevalence of BV globally and burden of adverse reproductive health outcomes among women with BV, there is a critical need for more effective treatments that produce durable shifts in the microbiota towards vaginal health.
Authors: Jennifer E Balkus; Lisa E Manhart; Jeannette Lee; Omu Anzala; Joshua Kimani; Jane Schwebke; Juma Shafi; Charles Rivers; Emanuel Kabare; R Scott McClelland Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Rebecca M Brotman; Mark A Klebanoff; Tonja R Nansel; Kai F Yu; William W Andrews; Jun Zhang; Jane R Schwebke Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2010-11-10 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Lenka A Vodstrcil; Sandra M Walker; Jane S Hocking; Matthew Law; Dana S Forcey; Glenda Fehler; Jade E Bilardi; Marcus Y Chen; Katherine A Fethers; Christopher K Fairley; Catriona S Bradshaw Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2014-12-16 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Catriona S Bradshaw; Anna N Morton; Jane Hocking; Suzanne M Garland; Margaret B Morris; Lorna M Moss; Leonie B Horvath; Irene Kuzevska; Christopher K Fairley Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2006-04-26 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: R Scott McClelland; Barbra A Richardson; Wisal M Hassan; Vrasha Chohan; Ludo Lavreys; Kishorchandra Mandaliya; James Kiarie; Walter Jaoko; Jeckoniah O Ndinya-Achola; Jared M Baeten; Ann E Kurth; King K Holmes Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2008-05-15 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Jennifer M Fettweis; J Paul Brooks; Myrna G Serrano; Nihar U Sheth; Philippe H Girerd; David J Edwards; Jerome F Strauss; Kimberly K Jefferson; Gregory A Buck Journal: Microbiology (Reading) Date: 2014-07-29 Impact factor: 2.777