Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Accuracy of the BD MAX™ vaginal panel in the diagnosis of infectious vaginitis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the BD MAX™ vaginal panel in the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis (BV), vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC), and trichomoniasis by comparing it with conventional methods: (i) combination of Hay criteria and presence of clue cells with predominant growth of Gardnerella vaginalis, (ii) yeast culture, and (iii) combination of culture, wet mount microscopic examination, and an alternative molecular assay. One thousand vaginal samples of women ≥ 14 years were analyzed; 5% of the samples belonged to pregnant women. 19.3% were classified as BV, in 33.6% yeasts were recovered and in 1.5% TV was detected. For BV, sensitivity and specificity were of 89.8% and 96.5%, respectively; for VVC, sensitivity and specificity were of 97.4% and 96.8%, respectively, and for T. vaginalis, the sensitivity and specificity were of 100%. The BD MAX™ vaginal panel is highly sensitive and specific and simplifies the identification of infectious vaginitis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nyirjesy P (2008) Vulvovaginal candidiasis and bacterial vaginosis. Infect Dis Clin N Am 22:637–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ranjit E, Raghubanshi BR, Maskey S, Parajuli P (2018) Prevalence of bacterial vaginosis and its association with risk factors among nonpregnant women: a hospital-based study. Inter J Microbiol 8349601. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8349601

  3. Amsel R, Totten PA, Spiegel CA, Chen KC, Eschenbach DA, Holmes KK (1983) Nonspecific vaginitis. Am J Med 74:14–22

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Spiegel CA, Amsel R, Holmes KK (1983) Diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis by direct Gram stain of vaginal fluid. J Clin Microbiol 18:170–177

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Nugent RP, Krohn MA, Hillier SL (1991) Reliability of diagnosing bacterial vaginosis is improved by a standardized method of Gram stain interpretation. J Clin Microbiol 29:297–301

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Ison CA, Hay PE (2002) Validation of a simplified grading of Gram stained vaginal smears for use in genitourinary medicine clinical. Sex Transm Infect 78:413–415

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Chawla R, Bhalla O, Chadha S, Grover S, Garg S (2013) Comparison of Hay’s criteria with Nugent’s scoring system for diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Biomed Res Int 365194. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/365194

  8. Rodrigues FS, Peixote S, Adami F, Alves Bda C, Gehreke FS, Azzalis LA et al (2015) Proposal of a new cutoff for Nugent criteria in the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. J Microbiol Methods 115:144–146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bitew A, Abebaw Y (2018) Vulvovaginal candidiasis: species distribution of Candida and their antifungal susceptibility pattern. BMC Womens Health 18:94

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Watson CJ, Fairley CK, Grando D, Garland SM, Myers SP, Pirotta M (2013) Associations with asymptomatic colonization with candida in women reporting past vaginal candidiasis: an observational study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 169:376–379

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sutton M, Sternberg M, Koumans EH, McQuillan G, Berman S, Markowitz L (2007) The prevalence of Trichomonas vaginalis infection among reproductive-age women in the United States, 2001-2004. Clin Infect Dis 45:1319–1326

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kissinger P (2015) Trichomonas vaginalis: a review of epidemiologic, clinical and treatment issues. BMC Infect Dis 15:307

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Hobbs MM, Seña AC (2013) Modern diagnosis of Trichomonas vaginalis infection. Sex Transm Infect 89:434–438

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Schwebke JR, Gaydos CA, Nyirjesy P, Paradis S, Kodsi S, Cooper CK (2018) Diagnostic performance of a molecular test versus clinical assessment of vaginitis. J Clin Microbiol 56:e00252–e00218

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Gaydos CA, Beqaj S, Schwebke JR, Lebed J, Smith B, Davis TE, Fife KH et al (2017) Clinical validation of a test for the diagnosis of vaginitis. Obstet Gynecol 130:181–189

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Coleman JS, Gaydos CA (2018) Molecular diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis: an update. J Clin Microbiol 56:e00342–e00318

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Mengistie Z, Woldeamanuel Y, Asrat D, Adera A (2014) Prevalence of bacterial vaginosis among pregnant womrn attending antenatal care in Tikur Anbessa University Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. BMC Res Notes 20(7):822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Schwebke JR, Muzny CA, Josey WE (2014) Role of Gardnerella vaginalis in the pathogenesis of bacterial vaginosis: a conceptual model. J Infect Dis 210:338–343

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Machado A, Cerca N (2015) Influence of biofilm formation by Gardnerella vaginalis and other anaerobes on bacterial vaginosis. J Infect Dis 212:1856–1861

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Muzny CA, Blanchard E, Taylor CM, Aaron KJ, Talluri R, Griswold ME (2018) Identification of key bacteria involved in the induction of incident bacterial vaginosis: a prospective study. J Infect Dis 218:966–978

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Carrillo- Ávila JA, Serrano-García ML, Fernández-Parra J, Sorlózano-Puerto A, Navarro-Marí JM, Stensvold R (2017) Prevalence and genetic diversity of Trichomonas vaginalis in the general population of Granada and co-infections with Gardnerella vaginalis and Candida species. J Med Microbiol 66:1436–1442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Li XD, Tong F, Zhang XJ, Pan WJ, Chen ML, Wang CC (2015) Incidence and risk factors of bacterial vaginosis among pregnant women: a prospective study in Maanshan city, Anhui Province, China. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 41:1214–1222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Guzel AB, Ilkit M, Burgut R, Urunsak IF, Ozgunen FT (2011) An evaluation of risk factors in pregnant women with Candida vaginitis and the diagnosis value of simultaneous vaginal and rectal sampling. Mycopathologia 172:25–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Jacob L, John M, Kalder M, Kostev K (2018) Prevalence of vulvovaginal candidiasis in gynecological practices in Germany: a retrospective study of 954,186 patients. Curr Med Mycol 4:6–11

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Holzer I, Farr A, Kiss H, Hagmann M, Petricevic L (2017) The colonization with Candida species is more harmful in the second trimester of pregnancy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 295:891–895

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Servicio de Microbiología, Hospital Universitario de Álava, Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria, BioAraba, Osakidetza-Servicio Vasco de Salud. c/ Francisco Leandro de Viana, s/n., 01009, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Álava, Spain

    Amaia Aguirre-Quiñonero, I. Sáez de Castillo-Sedano, F. Calvo-Muro & A. Canut-Blasco

Authors
  1. Amaia Aguirre-Quiñonero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. I. Sáez de Castillo-Sedano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. F. Calvo-Muro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Canut-Blasco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amaia Aguirre-Quiñonero.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

A. Canut-Blasco reports personal fees from Pfizer, Merck, Roche, and Werfen unrelated to the current study. All other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Additional information

Transparency declaration

The authors of this manuscript affirm that it is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been eliminated; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aguirre-Quiñonero, A., Castillo-Sedano, I.S.d., Calvo-Muro, F. et al. Accuracy of the BD MAX™ vaginal panel in the diagnosis of infectious vaginitis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 38, 877–882 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-019-03480-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-019-03480-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation