This information is for reference purposes only. It was current when produced and may now be outdated. Archive material is no longer maintained, and some links may not work. Persons with disabilities having difficulty accessing this information should contact us at: https://info.ahrq.gov. Let us know the nature of the problem, the Web address of what you want, and your contact information.
Please go to www.ahrq.gov for current information.
Summary of Benefits and Harms
In summary, there appears to be no benefit to screening and treating for BV in the general population of pregnant women. The findings for average-risk women are consistent with those of a recent Cochrane review of treatment of BV in pregnancy (15). We similarly found no benefit to screening all women at high risk for preterm delivery (women with a previous preterm delivery) for the clinically important outcomes of preterm delivery prior to 34 weeks, low birth weight less than 2500 grams, and preterm premature rupture of membranes.
The finding of benefit in some high-risk studies suggests that there may be a subgroup of high-risk women that may benefit from screening for BV in pregnancy. Table 3 summarizes our estimates of the consequences of screening for BV in 1000 patients from the general high-risk population and 1000 from a more selected population. The base case for the general high-risk population incorporates the mean and 90% CIs from the NICHD study (39) for the listed outcomes. The second scenario incorporates the pooled results of three other high-risk studies (36-38). Of note, all studies used in this balance sheet used metronidazole therapy. In the base case, we assumed that treating these women for BV reduces their risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes to that of BV-negative women (i.e., the maximum plausible effect), as well as a worst-case scenario, using the lower 90% CI of the pooled estimate. In both scenarios we also assumed that metronidazole therapy might be associated with a higher rate of preterm delivery less than 34 weeks in high-risk patients without BV, because the only trial of these four that examined this effect found a clinically and statistically significant harmful effect (37). We also assumed that the screening test has a sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 95%, the prevalence of unsuspected BV is 25%, and that adherence to treatment is 80%.
In the general high-risk population, of 1000 women screened, 238 are correctly diagnosed to have BV, and 190 of these complete therapy. With screening and treatment there would be 14 additional preterm deliveries before 37 weeks (90% CI=7 fewer to 36 additional cases), 8 additional cases of preterm premature rupture of membranes (90% CI=4 fewer to 19 additional cases), and 2 fewer preterm deliveries before 34 weeks (90% CI=14 fewer to 11 additional cases).
In the second high-risk group, screening and treatment results in 42 fewer preterm deliveries before 37 weeks (90% CI=25 to 59), 49 fewer cases of preterm premature rupture of membranes (90% CI=28 to 70), and 9 fewer cases (90% CI=19 fewer to 2 additional cases) of preterm delivery before 34 weeks per 1000 women screened. One case of preterm delivery at less than 34 weeks would be prevented for every 111 patients screened; likewise, one case of preterm delivery at less than 37 weeks would be prevented for every 24 (90% CI=17 to 40) patients screened. Because we assumed a potential increase in preterm delivery before 34 weeks in BV-negative patients, the effect of screening on preterm delivery less than 34 weeks is moderately sensitive to changes in the accuracy of the screening test. In the more selected high-risk group, for example, screening and treatment result in an increase in preterm delivery before 34 weeks if the specificity of the screening test for BV is below 80% (not shown).
There are several issues of generalizability to consider to determine whether screening and treating for BV may be useful for patients. First, all U.S. studies were conducted in tertiary referral centers or public health clinics and may not be generalizable to community-based practices. Second, screening methods used in research studies may not reflect those employed in everyday practice. One technique frequently used in clinical practice is screening by identification of clue cells alone. There are no studies of BV treatment that have looked at the effectiveness of treatment in women who have been identified as having BV by this criterion alone. Third, we defined patients as asymptomatic if they were most likely identified through routine prenatal care and were not presenting for evaluation of BV symptoms. However, the details for identification of patients were not explicitly stated in two studies (36,37). Consequently, it is possible that women presenting for evaluation of BV symptoms were also included. The women with symptomatic BV may represent a different risk category for adverse pregnancy outcomes.
Recommendations for Future Research
Further characterization of the population most likely to benefit, if any, is needed. In addition, the optimum timing of screening and treatment to determine the effect of treatment regimens on pregnancy outcomes needs investigation. Particular attention should be paid to the potential adverse effects of treating BV in pregnancy.
Because epidemiologic studies typically use the Gram stain as the diagnostic standard and clinicians typically use clinical criteria, translation of findings from research to clinical practice is of special concern. The development of screening and diagnostic tests that can be used in both research and clinical settings should be a high priority. Published trials are heterogeneous in study size, setting, population, demographics, risk factor assessment, screening methods, and treatment protocols, leading to further concerns about the generalizability of published evidence to clinical practice. Studies that use standard diagnostic criteria and treatment protocols in typical practice settings should be conducted, perhaps using networks of clinical practices. Finally, the timing of screening and treatment needs to be more thoroughly studied, given current evidence suggesting that early screening and treatment may be more effective than late.
Return to Contents
This study was conducted by the Oregon Health Sciences University Evidence-based Practice Center under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Contract No. 290-97-0018), Rockville, MD.
This article is based on a more comprehensive Systematic Evidence Review which is available online at www.ahrq.gov/clinic/serfiles.htm. That document was reviewed by content experts, including Sharon Hillier, Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh, Mark Klebanoff, M.D., M.P.H., National Institute of Child Health & Human Development, National Institutes of Health, and Rick Sweet, M.D., University of Pittsburgh; by professional organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American College of Physicians/American Society of Internal Medicine; and public health organizations, including the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care; the National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; the National Institutes of Health; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and the U.S. Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. Review by these individuals and groups does not necessarily imply endorsement of this article or of the accompanying recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
Return to Contents
References and Notes
1. Amsel R, Totten PA, Spiegel CA, Chen KC, Eschenbach D, Holmes KK. Nonspecific vaginitis. Diagnostic criteria and microbial and epidemiologic associations. Am J Med 1983, 74:14-22.
2. Gravett MG, Nelson HP, DeRouen T, Critchlow C, Eschenbach DA, Holmes KK. Independent associations of bacterial vaginosis and Chlamydia trachomatis infection with adverse pregnancy outcome. JAMA 1986, 256:1899-1903.
3. Gravett MG, Hummel D, Eschenbach DA, Holmes KK. Preterm labor associated with subclinical amniotic fluid infection and with bacterial vaginosis. Obstet Gynecol 1986, 67:229-237.
4. Hillier SL, Martius J, Krohn M, Kiviat N, Holmes KK, Eschenbach DA. A case-control study of chorioamnionic infection and histologic chorioamnionitis in prematurity. New Engl J Med 1988, 319:972-978.
5. Goldenberg RL, Iams JD, Mercer BM, et al. The preterm prediction study: the value of new vs. standard risk factors in predicting early and all spontaneous preterm births. NICHD MFMU Network. Am J Pub Health 1998, 88:233-238.
6. Hillier SL, Nugent RP, Eschenbach DA, et al. Association between bacterial vaginosis and preterm delivery of a low-birth-weight infant. The Vaginal Infections and Prematurity Study Group. N Engl J Med 1995, 333:1737-1742.
7. Meis PJ, Goldenberg RL, Mercer B, et al. The preterm prediction study: significance of vaginal infections. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995, 173:1231-1235.
8. Carey JC, Yaffe SJ, Catz C. The Vaginal Infections and Prematurity Study: an overview. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1993, 36:809-820.
9. Kurki T, Sivonen A, Renkonen OV, Savia E, Ylikorkala O. Bacterial vaginosis in early pregnancy and pregnancy outcome. Obstet Gynecol 1992, 80:173-177.
10. Minkoff H, Grunebaum AN, Schwarz RH, et al. Risk factors for prematurity and premature rupture of membranes: a prospective study of the vaginal flora in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984, 150:965-972.
11. Hillier SL, Krohn MA, Nugent RP, Gibbs R.S. Characteristics of three vaginal flora patterns assessed by Gram stain among pregnant women. Vaginal Infections and Prematurity Study Group. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992, 166:938-944.
12. Pastore LM, Royce RA, Jackson TPJ, Savitz DA, Kreaden US. Association between bacterial vaginosis and fetal fibronectin at 24-29 weeks' gestation. Obstet Gynecol 1999, 93:117-123.
13. Goldenberg RL, Klebanoff MA, Nugent R, Krohn MA, Hillier S, Andrews WW. Bacterial colonization of the vagina during pregnancy in four ethnic groups. Vaginal Infections and Prematurity Study Group. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996, 174:1618-1621.
14. Cristiano L, Rampello S, Noris C, Valota V. Bacterial vaginosis: prevalence in an Italian population of asymptomatic pregnant women and diagnostic aspects. Eur J Epidemiol 1996, 12:383-390.
15. Brocklehurst P, Hannah M, McDonald H. The management of bacterial vaginosis in pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 1998;3.
16. Cook RJ, Sackett DL. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. (published erratum appears in BMJ 1995 Apr 22;310 (6986):1056) BMJ 1995, 310:452-454.
17. STATA Corp. STATA, 5th ed. College Station, TX: STATA Corporation, 1997.
18. Edwards AWF. Likelihood. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1972.
19. Clayton D, Hills M. Statistical Methods in Epidemiology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1993.
20. Royal R. Statistical Evidence: a Likelihood Paradigm. London, UK: Chapman & Hall; 1997.
21. Berger JO, Lisea B, Wolpert RL. Integrated likelihood methods for eliminating nuisance parameters. Stat Sci 1999, 14:1-28.
22. Rembold CM. Number needed to screen: development of a statistic for disease screening. BMJ 1998, 317:307-312.
23. Thomason JL, Gelbart SM, Anderson RJ, Walt AK, Osypowski PJ, Broekhuizen FF. Statistical evaluation of diagnostic criteria for bacterial vaginosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990, 162:155-160.
24. Krohn MA, Hillier SL, Eschenbach DA. Comparison of methods for diagnosing bacterial vaginosis among pregnant women. J Clin Microbiol 1989, 27:1266-1271.
25. Eschenbach DA. Bacterial vaginosis: emphasis on upper genital tract complications. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1989, 16:593-610.
26. Spiegel CA, Amsel R, Holmes KK. Diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis by direct Gram stain of vaginal fluid. J Clin Microbiol 1983, 18:170-177.
27. Nugent RP, Krohn MA, Hillier SL. Reliability of diagnosing bacterial vaginosis is improved by a standardized method of Gram stain interpretation. J Clin Microbiol 1991, 29:297-301.
28. Schwebke JR, Hillier SL, Sobel JD, McGregor JA, Sweet RL. Validity of the vaginal Gram stain for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Obstet Gynecol 1996, 88:573-576.
29. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1998 guidelines for treatment of sexually transmitted diseases. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1998;47:70-74.
30. McGregor JA, French JI, Jones W, et al. Bacterial vaginosis is associated with prematurity and vaginal fluid mucinase and sialidase: results of a controlled trial of topical clindamycin cream. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994, 170:1048-1060.
31. Joesoef MR, Hillier SL, Wiknjosastro G, et al. Intravaginal clindamycin treatment for bacterial vaginosis: effects on preterm delivery and low birth weight. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995, 173:1527-1531.
32. Lugo-Miro VI, Green M, Mazur L. Comparison of different metronidazole therapeutic regimens for bacterial vaginosis. A meta-analysis. JAMA 1992, 268:92-95.
33.Burtin P, Taddio A, Ariburnu O, Einarson TR, Koren G. Safety of metronidazole in pregnancy: a meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995, 172:525-529.
34. Caro-Paton T, Carvajal A, Martin de Diego I, Martin-Arias LH, Alvarez Requejo A, Rodriguez Pinilla E. Is metronidazole teratogenic? A meta-analysis. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1997, 44:179-182.
35. Vermeulen GM, Bruinse HW. Prophylactic administration of clindamycin 2% vaginal cream to reduce the incidence of spontaneous preterm birth in women with an increased recurrence risk: a randomised placebo-controlled double-blind trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999, 106:652-657.
36. Morales WJ, Schorr S, Albritton J. Effect of metronidazole in patients with preterm birth in preceding pregnancy and bacterial vaginosis: a placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994, 171:345-349.
37. Hauth JC, Goldenberg RL, Andrews .W, DuBard MB, Copper RL. Reduced incidence of preterm delivery with metronidazole and erythromycin in women with bacterial vaginosis. N Engl J Med 1995, 333:1732-1736.
38. McDonald HM, O'Loughlin JA, Vigneswaran R, et al. Impact of metronidazole therapy on preterm birth in women with bacterial vaginosis flora (Gardnerella vaginalis): a randomised, placebo controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997, 104:1391-1397.
39. Carey JC, Klebanoff MA, Hauth JC, et al. Metronidazole to prevent preterm delivery in pregnant women with asymptomatic bacterial vaginosis. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Network of Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units. N Engl J Med 2000, 342:534-540.
40. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996, 17:1-12.
41. Alvi SA, Lamont RF. Pregnancy outcome following the use of clindamycin intravaginal cream. J Soc Gynecol Investig 1999;6:94A.
[a]Guise: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Portland, OR.
[b]Guise, Mahon, Helfand: Division of Medical Informatics and Outcomes Research, and Evidence-based Practice Center, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, OR.
[c]Aickin: Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, OR.
[d]Helfand: Division of General Internal Medicine, Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Portland, OR.
[e]Peipert: Women and Infants' Hospital of Rhode Island, Providence, RI.
[f]Westhoff: Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY.
Copyright and Source Information
This document is in the public domain within the United States as stated in AHRQ's license agreement with the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. For information on reprinting, contact Randie Siegel, Director, Division of Printing and Electronic Publishing, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Suite 501, 2101 East Jefferson Street, Rockville, MD 20852. Requests for linking or to incorporate content in electronic resources should be sent to: https://info.ahrq.gov.
Source: Guise J-M, Mahon SM, Aickin M, Helfand M, Peipert JF, Westhoff C. Screening for bacterial vaginosis in pregnancy. Am J Prev Med 2001:20 (3S):62-72 (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ajpmonline).
Return to Contents