Comparative Evaluation of Quantitative PCR and Conventional Diagnostic Techniques for Accurate Diagnosis of Bacterial Vaginosis in Reproductive-Age Women
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29070/4zxqnh90Keywords:
Bacterial Vaginosis (BV), Quantitative PCR (qPCR), Conventional diagnostic techniques, Nugent scoring, Amsel criteria, Reproductive-age women, Molecular diagnosisAbstract
Reproductive-age women need an accurate diagnosis to treat and prevent Bacterial Vaginosis (BV). Traditional diagnostic methods like Nugent score and Amsel criteria are time-consuming and biassed. Critical BV-associated bacteria may be identified and quantified using quantitative multiplex PCR (qPCR), which may increase sensitivity and reproducibility. Women 18 and older who attended hospitals had 125 vaginal specimens obtained. BV was diagnosed by Nugent scoring and multiplex real-time PCR (ATRiDA, Netherlands). Gardnerella vaginalis, Atopobium vaginae, Lactobacillus spp., and total bacterial load are measured by multiplex real-time PCR. Amsel criteria or BD Affirm were employed to evaluate conflicting data. Nugent score yielded 15.45% intermediate and 36.36% BV-positive. While 12.72% of samples were transitional or undefined BV, qPCR proved 48.18% were BV-positive. The two methods agreed 81.81%. PCR successfully recognized two intermediate Nugent cases as normal, however qPCR could not find any BV-positive patients by Nugent scoring. Overall, qPCR detected 11% more BV infections than other approaches. Traditional BV diagnostic tests are subjective, while quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) makes them more sensitive and standardized for childbearing women. Our findings suggest that qPCR might replace or supplement labour-intensive diagnostic approaches in women's health, improving clinical management and diagnosis.
Downloads
References
1. Cartwright CP, Lembke BD, Ramachandran K, Body BA, Nye MB, et al. (2013) Comparison of nucleic acid amplification assays with BD affirms VPIII for diagnosis of vaginitis in symptomatic women. J Clin Microbiol 51: 3694-3699.
2. Fredricks DN, Fiedler TL, Thomas KK, Oakley BB, Marrazzo JM (2007) Targeted PCR for detection of vaginal bacteria associated with bacterial vaginosis. J Clin Microbiol 45: 3270-3276.
3. Zozaya-Hinchliffe M, Lillis R, Martin DH, Ferris MJ (2010) Quantitative PCR assessments of bacterial species in women with and without bacterial vaginosis. J Clin Microbiol 48: 1812-1819
4. Cartwright CP, Lembke BD, Ramachandran K, Body BA, Nye MB, et al. (2012) Development and validation of a semiquantitative, multitarget PCR assay for diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. J Clin Microbiol 50: 2321-2329.
5. Amsel R, Totten PA, Spiegel CA, Chen KC, Eschenbach D, et al. (1983) Nonspecific vaginitis. Diagnostic criteria and microbial and epidemiologic associations. Am J Med 74: 14-22.
6. 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.
7. Datcu R, Gesink D, Mulvad G, Montgomery-Andersen R, Rink E, et al. (2014) Bacterial vaginosis diagnosed by analysis of first-void-urine specimens. J Clin Microbiol 52: 218-225.
8. van de Wijgert JH, Borgdorff H, Verhelst R, Crucitti T, Francis S, et al. (2014) The vaginal microbiota: what have we learned after a decade of molecular characterization? PLoS One 9: e105998.
9. Wang KD, Su JR (2014) Quantification of Atopobium vaginae loads may be a new method for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Clin Lab 60: 1501-1508.
10. Ferris MJ, Masztal A, Aldridge KE, Fortenberry JD, Fidel PL Jr, et al. (2004) Association of Atopobium vaginae, a recently described metronidazole resistant anaerobe, with bacterial vaginosis. BMC Infect Dis: 4,5.
11. Muzny, C. A., & Schwebke, J. R. (2023). State of the art for diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 61(8), e00497-23. https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jcm.00837-22
ASM Journals
12. Coleman, J. S., & Haggerty, C. L. (2018). Molecular diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis: an update. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 56(8), e00342-18. https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jcm.00342-18
ASM Journals
13. Menard, J. P., et al. (2008). Molecular quantification of Gardnerella vaginalis and Atopobium vaginae in the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 47(1), 33–40. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/47/1/33/376564
14. Sehgal, P. G., et al. (2021). Detection of co-infection of Gardnerella vaginalis and Atopobium vaginae using qualitative PCR for improved diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 59(6), e00234-21. Mhttps://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jcm.00234-21
15. Savicheva, A. M., et al. (2023). Molecular testing for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 25(1), 449.
