| Literature DB >> 31533663 |
Harold Marcotte1, Per Göran Larsson2,3, Kasper Krogh Andersen4, Fanglei Zuo4, Lasse Sommer Mikkelsen5, Erik Brandsborg5, Glenda Gray6, Fatima Laher6, Kennedy Otwombe6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To reduce acquisition and relapse of bacterial vaginosis (BV), lactobacilli must be maintained in the vaginal microbiome. Probiotic lactobacilli may aid this purpose. We investigated whether vaginal probiotics (containing Lactobacillus rhamnosus DSM 14870 and Lactobacillus gasseri DSM 14869) would result in vaginal colonisation with lactobacilli in women with and without BV.Entities:
Keywords: Bacterial vaginosis; Lactobacillus; Lactobacillus gasseri DSM 14869; Lactobacillus rhamnosus DSM 14870; Probiotics
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31533663 PMCID: PMC6751625 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-019-4425-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Infect Dis ISSN: 1471-2334 Impact factor: 3.090
Fig. 1Time schedule of the treatment of BV and follow-up. a) Group 1, women who did not have BV (“healthy”) receiving probiotic capsules, b) Group 2, women presenting with BV receiving both antibiotics and probiotic capsules, c) Group 3, women presenting with BV receiving antibiotics only. Sociodemographic data and gynaecologic status were filed on visit 0. On visit 1, volunteers were enrolled and given the prescription. Enrolment into each arm was stratified by age-group: 18–29 and 30–40 years, using a blocked randomisation strategy. Microscopic scoring of BV and cultivation of lactobacilli were performed on visit 0, and 2 to 7
Fig. 2Participant disposition flow chart
Socio demographic characteristics per study groups
| Variables | Overall | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of enrolment | 39 | 13 | 12 | 14 |
| Age | ||||
| 18–29 (%) | 20 (51.28) | 9 (69.23) | 4 (33.33) | 7 (50.00) |
| 30–40 (%) | 19 (48.72) | 4 (30.77) | 8 (66.67) | 7 (50.00) |
| Median (IQR) | 26.0 (22.0–31) | 24.0 (23.0–31) | 30.0 (24.5–32) | 23.5 (20.0–30) |
| Highest level of education | ||||
| Secondary (%) | 33 (84.62) | 10 (76.92) | 10 (83.33) | 13 (92.86) |
| Tertiary (%) | 6 (15.38) | 3 (23.08) | 2 (16.67) | 1 (7.14) |
| Occupational statusa | ||||
| Employed (%) | 9 (23.08) | 1 (7.69) | 5 (41.67) | 3 (21.43) |
| Student (%) | 4 (10.26) | 1 (7.69) | 2 (16.67) | 1 (7.14) |
| Unemployed (%) | 26 (66.67) | 11 (84.62) | 5 (41.67) | 10 (71.43) |
| Marital status | ||||
| Divorced (%) | 3 (7.69) | 0 (0.00) | 3 (25.00) | 0 (0.00) |
| Married (%) | 5 (12.82) | 2 (15.38) | 0 (0.00) | 3 (21.43) |
| Never married (%) | 31 (79.49) | 11 (84.62) | 9 (75.00) | 11 (78.57) |
| People living in a household | ||||
| 1–5 (%) | 26 (66.67) | 10 (76.92) | 7 (58.33) | 9 (64.29) |
| > 5 (%) | 13 (33.33) | 3 (23.08) | 5 (41.67) | 5 (35.71) |
| Median (IQR) | 5.00 (4.00–7) | 5.00 (4.00–5) | 5.00 (3.50–6.5) | 5.00 (4.00–7) |
| Rooms in household | ||||
| 1–3 (%) | 14 (35.90) | 5 (38.46) | 6 (50.00) | 3 (21.43) |
| > 3 (%) | 25 (64.10) | 8 (61.54) | 6 (50.00) | 11 (78.57) |
| Median (IQR) | 4.00 (3.00–6) | 4.00 (3.00–5) | 3.50 (3.00–7) | 4.00 (4.00–6) |
| House material | ||||
| Brick house (%) | 34 (87.18) | 11 (84.62) | 10 (83.33) | 13 (92.86) |
| Shack (%) | 5 (12.82) | 2 (15.38) | 2 (16.67) | 1 (7.14) |
| Used tobacco in the last 6 months | ||||
| No (%) | 27 (69.23) | 10 (76.92) | 8 (66.67) | 9 (64.29) |
| Yes (%) | 12 (30.77) | 3 (23.08) | 4 (33.33) | 5 (35.71) |
| Used alcohol in the last 6 months | ||||
| No (%) | 15 (38.46) | 7 (53.85) | 4 (33.33) | 4 (28.57) |
| Yes (%) | 24 (61.54) | 6 (46.15) | 8 (66.67) | 10 (71.43) |
a Healthy participants (Group 1) were significantly more likely (p = 0.0254) to be unemployed relative to BV participants receiving antibiotic (Group 2)
Gynaecologic status per study groups at enrolment
| Variables | Overall | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of enrolment | 39 | 13 | 12 | 14 |
| Currently have vaginal abnormal dischargea | ||||
| No (%) | 25 (64.10) | 12 (92.31) | 6 (50.00) | 7 (50.00) |
| Yes (%) | 14 (35.90) | 1 (7.69) | 6 (50.00) | 7 (50.00) |
| Participant currently has fishy-smelling abnormal discharge | ||||
| No (%) | 34 (87.18) | 12 (92.31) | 11 (91.67) | 11 (78.57) |
| Yes (%) | 5 (12.82) | 1 (7.69) | 1 (8.33) | 3 (21.43) |
| Have you been treated for STIs in last 12 months | ||||
| No (%) | 34 (89.47) | 11 (84.62) | 10 (90.91) | 13 (92.86) |
| Yes (%) | 4 (10.53) | 2 (15.38) | 1 (9.09) | 1 (7.14) |
| Ever treated for BV in the last 12 months | ||||
| No (%) | 37 (94.87) | 13 (100.0) | 10 (83.33) | 14 (100.0) |
| Yes (%) | 2 (5.13) | 0 (0.00) | 2 (16.67) | 0 (0.00) |
| Age of debut sex | ||||
| < 16 years (%) | 5 (12.82) | 3 (23.08) | 0 (0.00) | 2 (14.29) |
| ≥ 16 years (%) | 34 (87.18) | 10 (76.92) | 12 (100.0) | 12 (85.71) |
| Current male partners | ||||
| < 2 (%) | 33 (84.62) | 12 (92.31) | 11 (91.67) | 10 (71.43) |
| ≥ 2 (%) | 6 (15.38) | 1 (7.69) | 1 (8.33) | 4 (28.57) |
| Male partners in the last 12 months | ||||
| < 2 (%) | 26 (66.67) | 9 (69.23) | 7 (58.33) | 10 (71.43) |
| ≥ 2 (%) | 13 (33.33) | 4 (30.77) | 5 (41.67) | 4 (28.57) |
| New male partners in the last 12 months | ||||
| < 2 (%) | 35 (89.74) | 12 (92.31) | 11 (91.67) | 12 (85.71) |
| ≥ 2 (%) | 4 (10.26) | 1 (7.69) | 1 (8.33) | 2 (14.29) |
| Condom use in the last 12 months | ||||
| Always (%) | 6 (15.38) | 2 (15.38) | 2 (16.67) | 2 (14.29) |
| Never (%) | 12 (30.77) | 6 (46.15) | 4 (33.33) | 2 (14.29) |
| Sometimes (%) | 21 (53.85) | 5 (38.46) | 6 (50.00) | 10 (71.43) |
| Do you practice vaginal douching | ||||
| No (%) | 39 (100.0) | 13 (100.0) | 12 (100.0) | 14 (100.0) |
| Yes (%) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) |
| Use soap to wash vagina to make it smell good? | ||||
| No (%) | 22 (56.41) | 8 (61.54) | 10 (83.33) | 4 (28.57) |
| Yes (%) | 17 (43.59) | 5 (38.46) | 2 (16.67) | 10 (71.43) |
| Buds and/or hyphae (yeast) | ||||
| Negative (%) | 36 (92.31) | 12 (92.31) | 11 (91.67) | 13 (92.86) |
| Positive (%) | 3 (7.69) | 1 (7.69) | 1 (8.33) | 1 (7.14) |
| vaginal sex in a week for the last 12 months | ||||
| 0–3 times (%) | 30 (83.33) | 12 (92.31) | 10 (100.0) | 8 (61.54) |
| > 3 times (%) | 6 (16.67) | 1 (7.69) | 0 (0.00) | 5 (38.46) |
| Continuing to use injectable contraceptives | ||||
| No (%) | 2 (5.41) | 1 (8.33) | 1 (8.33) | 0 (0.00) |
| Yes (%) | 35 (94.59) | 11 (91.67) | 11 (91.67) | 13 (100.0) |
a Group 2 and 3 participants were significantly more likely (p = 0.0001) to have vaginal abnormal discharge compared to Group 1 participants
Colonisation with lactobacilli: number of women colonised and frequency of isolation during follow-up
| Group | Colonisation and isolation frequency of probiotic strains and other lactobacilli | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group | Women colonised | Frequency of isolation (%)b | |||
| Either of the probiotic strains | Group 1 | 5/13 (39%) | 12/75 (16%) | ||
| Group 2 | 10/12 (83%) | 25/69 (36%) | |||
| Group 3 | 0/14 (0%) | 0/71 (0%) | |||
|
| Group 1 | 3/13 (23%) | 10/75 (13%) | ||
| Group 2 | 9/12 (75%) | 21/69 (30%) | |||
| Group 3 | 0/14 (0%) | 0/71 (0%) | |||
|
| Group 1 | 2/13 (15%) | 4/75 (5%) | ||
| Group 2 | 8/12 (67%) | 13/69 (19%) | |||
| Group 3 | 0/14 (0%) | 0/71 (0%) | |||
| Other lactobacilli | Group 1 | 12/13 (92%) | 53/75 (71%) | ||
| Group 2 | 12/12 (100%) | 39/69 (57%) | |||
| Group 3 | 12/14 (86%) | 35/71 (49%) | |||
| Any lactobacilli | Group 1 | 13/13 (100%) | 59/75 (78%) | ||
| Group 2 | 12/12 (100%) | 53/69 (77%) | |||
| Group 3 | 12/14 (86%) | 35/71 (49%) | |||
aSignificant difference by Fisher’s exact test (two tailed) indicated by an asterisk (*)
bThe frequency of isolation was determined as the number of samples positive for probiotic strains or other lactobacilli on the total number of samples for each group during the entire follow-up (visits 2-7)
Fig. 3Frequency of isolation of Lactobacillus in different treatment groups. Presence of L. gasseri DSM 14869, L. rhamnosus DSM 14870 and other lactobacilli was evaluated in vaginal swabs before treatment (visit 0) and follow-up (visits 2 to 7). The frequency of isolation (y axis) was determined as the percentage of samples positive for probiotic strains or other lactobacilli on the total number of samples for each visit and each group. *Significantly different (P < 0.05, Fisher’s exact test) from Group 1 and 3, and # significantly different (P < 0.05, Fisher’s exact test) from Group 1 and 2 for corresponding visits
Fig. 4Association between the frequency of isolation of probiotic strains and other lactobacilli with the 1-month (a) and 6-month (b) cure rates. The frequency of isolation (y axis) was determined as the percentage of samples positive for probiotic strains and other lactobacilli on the total number of samples for each group (cured or BV positive) during the entire follow up. No statistical difference in frequency of isolation of probiotic strains or other lactobacilli was observed between cured and BV-positive women within Group 2 (antibiotic + probiotic) and Group 3 (antibiotic)