No association between vulvovaginitis-bacterial vaginosis, related drug treatments of pregnant women, and congenital abnormalities in their offspring — A population-based case-control study

  • Nándor Ács
  • Ferenc Bánhidy
  • Erzsébet H. Puhó
  • Andrew E. Czeizel
Research Article


The possible association between prospectively and medically recorded vulvovaginitis-bacterial vaginosis (VV-BV) and different congenital abnormalities (CA) has not been studied. The data set of the population-based Hungarian Case-Control Surveillance of Congenital Abnormalities between 1980 and 1996 were evaluated, i.e. 22,843 pregnant women who had newborns or fetuses with congenital abnormality (cases) and 38,151 pregnant women who delivered newborn babies without any congenital abnormality (controls). The main outcome measures were different congenital abnormalities. Of 22,843 cases with CA, 1,536 (6.7%) had mothers with VV-BV, while of 38,151 matched controls without CA, 2,698 (7.1%) had mothers with VV-BV in the second and/or third gestational month of pregnancy. Nearly all pregnant women with VV-BV were treated during pregnancy, but a higher risk for the total group of CAs (adjusted POR with 95% CI: 0.95, 0.89–1.02) or any CA group was not found. In addition, the risk for total CAs was significantly lower in cases born to mothers with VV-BV and appropriate treatment than born to mothers with VV-BV but without treatment. Thus maternal VV-BV needs treatment during pregnancy as well, because it helps reduce the rate of preterm birth without a risk for CAs.


Vulvovaginitis-bacterial vaginosis Congenital abnormalities Population-based case-control study 


  1. [1]
    Czeizel A.E., Ács N., Bánhidy F., Vogt G., Possible association between maternal diseases and congenital abnormalities. In: Engels J.V. (ed.): Birth Defects New Research, NOVA Scientific Publ. New York, 2006. pp. 55–70.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Murphy V., Kennea N.L., Antenatal infection/inflammation and fetal tissue injury. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol., 2007, 21, 479–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Divers M.J., Lilford R.J., Infection and preterm labour: a meta-analysis. Contemp. Rev. Obstet. Gynecol., 1993, 5, 71–84Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Chin B.M., Lamon R.F., The microbiology of preterm labour and delivery. Contemp. Rev. Obstet. Gynecol., 97, 9, 285–296Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Czeizel A.E., Puhó E., Kazy Z., The use of data set of the Hungarian Case-Control Surveillance of Congenital Abnormalities for the evaluation of birth outcomes beyond congenital abnormalities. Centr. Eur. J. Publ. Hlth., 2007, 15, 147–153.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Brown Z.A., Vontrer L.A., Benedetti J., et al., Effects on infants of a first episode of genital herpes during pregnancy. N. Engl. J. Med., 1987, 317,1246–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Baldwin S., Whitley R.J., Intrauterine herpes simplex virus infection. Teratology, 1989, 39,1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Ingall D., Norris L., Syphilis., Infectious Diseases of the Fetus and Newborn Infant. Chapter 9. In: Demington J.S., Klein J.O. (eds.). Saunders Col, Philadelphia, 1976, 414–463Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Grossman J., Congenital syphilis. Teratology, 1977, 16, 217–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Shepard T.H., Lemire R.J., Catalog of Teratogenic Agents, 11th ed. Johns Hopkins Univ. Pres. Baltimore, 2004Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Pursley T.J., Blomquist I.K., Abraham J. et al., Fluconazole-induced congenital anomalies in three infants. Clin. Infect. Dis., 1995, 22, 336–340Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Aleck X.A., Bartley D.L., Multiple malformation syndrome following fluconazole use in pregnancy. Am. J. Med. Genet., 1997, 72, 253–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Czeizel A.E., Rockenbauer M., Siffel Cs., Varga E., Description and mission evaluation of the Hungarian Case-Control Surveillance of Congenital Abnormalities, 1980–1996. Teratology, 2001, 63,176–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Czeizel A.E., First 25 years of the Hungarian Congenital Abnormality Registry. Teratology, 1997, 55, 299–305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Czeizel A.E., Intődy Zs., Modell B., What proportion of congenital abnormalities can be prevented? Brit. Med. J., 1993, 306, 499–503PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Czeizel A.E., Petik D., Vargha P., Validation studies of drug exposures in pregnant women. Pharmacoepid. Drug Safety, 2003, 12, 409–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Yarberry-Allen P., Ledger W.J., Milstein S.J., Infections of the female genital tract. In: Roberts R.B., (ed). Infectious Diseases: Pathogenesis, Diagnosis and Therapy. Year Book Medical Publ. Chicago, 1986Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Amsell R., Totten P.A., Spiegel C.A. et al., Nonspecific vaginitis. Diagnostic criteria and microbial and epidemiological associations. Am. J. Med., 1983, 74,14–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Sonnex C., The amine test: a simple, rapid, inexpensive method for diagnosing bacterial vaginosis. Br. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 1995, 102,160–161Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Nugent R.P., Krohn M.A., Hillier S.L., Reliability of diagnosing bacterial vaginosis is improved by a standard method of Gram stain interpretation. J. Clin. Microbiol., 1991, 29, 297–301PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Donders G.G.G., Definition and classification of abnormal vaginal flora. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynecol., 2007, 21, 355–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Donders G.G.G., Vereecken A., Bosmanic E., et al., Definition of a type of abnormal vaginal flora that is distinct from bacterial vaginosis: aerobic vaginitis. Br. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 2002, 109, 1–10Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Cibley L.J., Cytolytic vaginosis. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 1991, 165, 1245–1249PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Czeizel A.E., Ten years’ experience in periconception care. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol., 1999, 84, 43–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Bánhidy F., Ács N., Puhó E., Czeizel A.E., Pregnancy complications and birth outcomes of pregnant women with urinary tract infections and related drug treatments. Scan. J. Inf. Dis., 2007, 39, 390–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Pazonyi I., Kun A., Czeizel A.E., Congenital postural deformity association. Acta Paediatr. Acad. Sci. Hung., 1982, 23, 431–445PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Czeizel A.E., Rockenbauer M., A population-based case-control teratologic study of oral metronidazole treatment during pregnancy. Br. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 1998, 105, 322–327Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Czeizel A.E., Fladung B., Vargha P., Preterm birth reduction after clotrimazole treatment during pregnancy. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol., 2004, 16,157–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    Czeizel A.E., Rockenbauer M., Sorensen H.T., Olsen J., A population-based case-control teratologic study of ampicillin treatment during pregnancy. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 2001, 185, 140–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Czeizel A.E., Rockenbauer M., Sorensen H.T., Olsen J., A population-based case-control teratologic study of penicillin V: oral penamecillin treatment during pregnancy. Con. Anom., (Kyoto) 1999, 39, 267–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Czeizel A.E., Rockenbauer M., Soprensen H.T., Olsen J., Nitrofurantoin and congenital abnormalities. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol., 2001, 95, 119–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© © Versita Warsaw and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nándor Ács
    • 1
  • Ferenc Bánhidy
    • 1
  • Erzsébet H. Puhó
    • 2
  • Andrew E. Czeizel
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Second Department of Obstetrics and GynecologySemmelweis University, School of MedicineBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Foundation for the Community Control of Hereditary DiseasesBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations