Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
  • Listen to CMAJ podcasts
SynopsisP

Bacterial vaginosis: more questions than answers

Erica Weir
CMAJ August 31, 2004 171 (5) 448; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1041174
Erica Weir
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Background and epidemiology: Bacterial vaginosis is a common condition with a poorly understood etiology, natural history and public health burden. It seems to result from an imbalance of the normal vaginal flora, with an overgrowth of anaerobic bacteria and a reduction in lactobacillary flora. It can be associated with the production of a malodorous vaginal discharge and, on occasion, vaginal burning or itching. The implicated microorganisms include Gardnerella vaginalis, Ureaplasma urealyticum, Mycoplasma hominis, Mobiluncus species, Prevotella species and other anaerobes, although no single bacterial agent consistently predominates.1

Typically, bacterial vaginosis is diagnosed if 3 of the following 4 criteria are present: a vaginal pH higher than 4.5; the presence of clue (vaginal epithelial) cells in the vaginal fluid; a thin, grey or white homogenous discharge; or a positive KOH “whiff” test (the release of an amine [fishy] odour upon the addition of 10% potassium hydroxide to the vaginal fluid).2

The prevalence of bacterial vaginosis is estimated to be from 25% to 36% among women attending gynecologic and STD clinics.2 However, about half of the women who meet the laboratory criteria for the infection have no symptoms, which raises questions about the need to screen and treat women for bacterial vaginosis.2

To evaluate the implications of untreated infection, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Bacterial Vaginosis Working Group reviewed the available evidence on the adverse sequelae of bacterial vaginosis.1 It found a clear association between the condition and adverse pregnancy outcomes and infectious complications of certain gynecologic procedures. It also found some evidence that the presence of bacterial vaginosis increases the risk of HIV infection. However, evidence to support either targeted or general routine screening and treatment of bacterial vaginosis is sparse. A recent Cochrane review reported that treatment did not significantly reduce the risk of preterm birth and that current evidence did not support screening all pregnant women and treating those with asymptomatic bacterial vaginosis.3 A randomized community trial that evaluated the treatment of bacterial vaginosis to prevent HIV infection found it to be ineffective in changing the prevalence and impact of bacterial vaginosis.

The CDC Bacterial Vaginosis Working Group also concluded that currently recommended treatment regimens (Box 1) are less than optimal. The effectiveness of recommended therapies at 3–4 weeks is about 80%, and the recurrent rate within 1 month after therapy is as high as 20%.1

Figure
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Box 1.

Clinical management: Current recommendations support testing all women who are symptomatic or who, on physical examination, have a vaginal discharge suggestive of bacterial vaginosis (www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5106a1.htm). In general, follow-up visits after treatment and routine treatment of sex partners are not recommended. The guidelines also support testing and treating pregnant women with a history of premature delivery as well as evaluating the effectiveness of treatment 1 month after completion of treatment. Women who are undergoing surgical abortion or hysterectomy should also be tested and treated.

Prevention: Primary and secondary prevention of bacterial vaginosis is hampered by a lack of information about the condition's natural history and the ecology of the vaginal flora, less than optimal treatment regimens and the lack of well-designed studies evaluating the effectiveness of screening and treatment in specific populations. Uncertainty about risks fuels controversial interpretations and inconsistent standards of care.

Erica Weir Associate Medical Officer of Health Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington Health Unit Kingston, Ont.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Koumans EH, Kendrick JS; CDC Bacterial Vaginosis Working Group. Preventing adverse sequelae of bacterial vaginosis: a public health program and research agenda. Sex Transm Dis 2001;28:292-7.
  2. 2.↵
    Sweet R. Gynecologic conditions and bacterial vaginosis: implications for the non-pregnant patient. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 2000;8:184-90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    McDonald H, Brocklehurst P, Parsons J, Vigneswaran R. Antibiotics for treating bacterial vaginosis in pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003(2):CD000262.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 171 (5)
CMAJ
Vol. 171, Issue 5
31 Aug 2004
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Bacterial vaginosis: more questions than answers
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Bacterial vaginosis: more questions than answers
Erica Weir
CMAJ Aug 2004, 171 (5) 448; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1041174

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Bacterial vaginosis: more questions than answers
Erica Weir
CMAJ Aug 2004, 171 (5) 448; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1041174
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • The Natural Antimicrobial Peptide Subtilosin Acts Synergistically with Glycerol Monolaurate, Lauric Arginate, and {varepsilon}-Poly-L-Lysine against Bacterial Vaginosis-Associated Pathogens but Not Human Lactobacilli
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The changing ecology of avian flu
  • Applying the 2005 Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations: 4. Managing uncomplicated hypertension
  • A newborn requiring selective bronchial intubation
Show more Synopsis

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Obstetrics & gynecology

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected]

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

Powered by HighWire