BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that intravaginal practices (IVPs) women use to cleanse their vagina or enhance sexual pleasure may be associated with unhealthy changes in the vaginal microbiome (VM). However, the effects of these practices in postmenopausal women are unknown. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this pilot study was to characterize the VM communities of postmenopausal women, identify types and frequency of IVPs, and explore associations between the VM and IVPs in postmenopausal women. METHODS: We analyzed the VM data of 21 postmenopausal women in Atlanta, Georgia, from vaginal swabs collected at a routine gynecological visit. 16S rRNA gene sequencing in the V3-V4 region was used to characterize the VM. In addition, we described the IVPs of these women, identified by using our newly developed instrument: the Vaginal Cleansing Practices Questionnaire. The associations between the VM and IVPs were explored by comparing the alpha diversities, beta diversities, and the relative abundances at both the community level and individual genus level. RESULTS: The most abundant known bacterial genus found in the VM samples was Lactobacillus (35.7%), followed by Prevotella (21.4%). Eleven women (52%) reported using at least one type of IVP since menopause. The most common type of IVP was soap and water to clean inside the vagina. The use of IVPs was not associated with any alpha diversity metric, including Shannon index, inverse Simpson index, and Chao1 index; beta diversity metric, including Bray-Curtis and Jaccard distances; nor relative abundances at the community and individual genus level. Sociodemographic factors were also not associated with any alpha diversity metric. DISCUSSION: Clinicians must assess IVPs and other vaginal and sexual hygiene practices of women of all ages to educate and promote healthy behaviors. More than half of the postmenopausal women in this pilot study use IVPs. Understanding the reasoning behind participants' use of IVPs and their perceptions of the possible effects of these practices will require further research. Although the small sample did not show associations with the VM, more extensive studies are warranted.
BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that intravaginal practices (IVPs) women use to cleanse their vagina or enhance sexual pleasure may be associated with unhealthy changes in the vaginal microbiome (VM). However, the effects of these practices in postmenopausal women are unknown. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this pilot study was to characterize the VM communities of postmenopausal women, identify types and frequency of IVPs, and explore associations between the VM and IVPs in postmenopausal women. METHODS: We analyzed the VM data of 21 postmenopausal women in Atlanta, Georgia, from vaginal swabs collected at a routine gynecological visit. 16S rRNA gene sequencing in the V3-V4 region was used to characterize the VM. In addition, we described the IVPs of these women, identified by using our newly developed instrument: the Vaginal Cleansing Practices Questionnaire. The associations between the VM and IVPs were explored by comparing the alpha diversities, beta diversities, and the relative abundances at both the community level and individual genus level. RESULTS: The most abundant known bacterial genus found in the VM samples was Lactobacillus (35.7%), followed by Prevotella (21.4%). Eleven women (52%) reported using at least one type of IVP since menopause. The most common type of IVP was soap and water to clean inside the vagina. The use of IVPs was not associated with any alpha diversity metric, including Shannon index, inverse Simpson index, and Chao1 index; beta diversity metric, including Bray-Curtis and Jaccard distances; nor relative abundances at the community and individual genus level. Sociodemographic factors were also not associated with any alpha diversity metric. DISCUSSION: Clinicians must assess IVPs and other vaginal and sexual hygiene practices of women of all ages to educate and promote healthy behaviors. More than half of the postmenopausal women in this pilot study use IVPs. Understanding the reasoning behind participants' use of IVPs and their perceptions of the possible effects of these practices will require further research. Although the small sample did not show associations with the VM, more extensive studies are warranted.
Authors: Jacques Ravel; Pawel Gajer; Zaid Abdo; G Maria Schneider; Sara S K Koenig; Stacey L McCulle; Shara Karlebach; Reshma Gorle; Jennifer Russell; Carol O Tacket; Rebecca M Brotman; Catherine C Davis; Kevin Ault; Ligia Peralta; Larry J Forney Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2010-06-03 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Brenda L Minor; Veida Elliott; Michelle Fernandez; Lindsay O'Neal; Laura McLeod; Giovanni Delacqua; Francesco Delacqua; Jacqueline Kirby; Stephany N Duda Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2019-05-09 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Rebecca M Brotman; Mark A Klebanoff; Tonja R Nansel; William W Andrews; Jane R Schwebke; Jun Zhang; Kai F Yu; Jonathan M Zenilman; Daniel O Scharfstein Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2008-05-23 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Laura J Viens; S Jane Henley; Meg Watson; Lauri E Markowitz; Cheryll C Thomas; Trevor D Thompson; Hilda Razzaghi; Mona Saraiya Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Gabriele Berg; Daria Rybakova; Doreen Fischer; Tomislav Cernava; Marie-Christine Champomier Vergès; Trevor Charles; Xiaoyulong Chen; Luca Cocolin; Kellye Eversole; Gema Herrero Corral; Maria Kazou; Linda Kinkel; Lene Lange; Nelson Lima; Alexander Loy; James A Macklin; Emmanuelle Maguin; Tim Mauchline; Ryan McClure; Birgit Mitter; Matthew Ryan; Inga Sarand; Hauke Smidt; Bettina Schelkle; Hugo Roume; G Seghal Kiran; Joseph Selvin; Rafael Soares Correa de Souza; Leo van Overbeek; Brajesh K Singh; Michael Wagner; Aaron Walsh; Angela Sessitsch; Michael Schloter Journal: Microbiome Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 14.650
Authors: Rebecca M Brotman; Michelle D Shardell; Pawel Gajer; Doug Fadrosh; Kathryn Chang; Michelle I Silver; Raphael P Viscidi; Anne E Burke; Jacques Ravel; Patti E Gravitt Journal: Menopause Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 3.310
Authors: Maria L Alcaide; Maureen Chisembele; Emeria Malupande; Kristopher Arheart; Margaret Fischl; Deborah L Jones Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-11-09 Impact factor: 2.692