Performance of a Vaginal Panel Assay Compared With the Clinical Diagnosis of Vaginitis

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of vaginitis diagnosis based on clinical assessment to molecular detection of organisms associated with bacterial vaginosis, vulvovaginal candidiasis, and Trichomonas vaginalis using a vaginal panel assay. METHODS: This cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study included 489 enrolled participants from five collection sites where those with vaginitis symptoms had a vaginal assay swab collected during their visit and a clinical diagnosis made. The swab was later sent to a separate testing site to perform the vaginal panel assay. Outcome measures include positive, negative, and overall percent agreement (and accompanying 95% CIs) of clinical assessment with the vaginal panel assay. P<.05 was used to distinguish significant differences in paired proportions between the vaginal panel assay and clinical diagnosis, using the McNemar test. Inter-rater agreement between the two diagnostic approaches was determined using Cohen's kappa coefficient. RESULTS: Clinical diagnosis had a positive percent agreement with the vaginal panel assay of 57.9% (95% CI 51.5–64.2%), 53.5% (95% CI 44.5–62.4%), and 28.0% (95% CI 12.1–49.4%) for bacterial vaginosis, vulvovaginal candidiasis, and T vaginalis, respectively. Negative percent agreement for clinical diagnosis was 80.2% (95% CI 74.3–85.2%), 77.0% (95% CI 72.1–81.4%), and 99.8% (95% CI 98.7–99.9%), respectively. Sixty-five percent (67/103), 44% (26/59), and 56% (10/18) of patients identified as having bacterial vaginosis, vulvovaginal candidiasis, and T vaginalis by assay, respectively, were not treated for vaginitis based on a negative clinical diagnosis. Compared with the assay, clinical diagnosis had false-positive rates of 19.8%, 23.0%, and 0.2% for bacterial vaginosis, vulvovaginal candidiasis, and T vaginalis, respectively. Significant differences in paired proportions were observed between the vaginal panel assay and clinical diagnosis for detection of bacterial vaginosis and T vaginalis. CONCLUSION: The vaginal panel assay could improve the diagnostic accuracy for vaginitis and facilitate appropriate and timely treatment. FUNDING SOURCE: Becton, Dickinson and Company.

Differential screening for non-viral sexually transmitted infections by type of vaginitis testing

“…6 In our analysis, 50% of the women represented in this database did not receive any laboratory-based testing but instead received a vaginitis diagnosis based on clinical presentation without documentation of the use of microscopy, which decreases sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis. A recent study demonstrated that, compared with NAAT-based detection, clinician-based diagnosis of vaginitis with microscopy misses ~42% to 72% of vaginitis cases, depending on the cause, 20 which would place the chance of accurate diagnosis within our cohort even lower. Implementation of laboratory-based testing improves sensitivity for detection of vaginitis, with little to no decrease in specificity.…”

Appropriate antibiotic selection for 12 common infections in obstetric patients

“…Diagnostic accuracy can be improved using one of the new vaginal panel assays such as BD MAX Vaginal Panel (Becton, Dickinson and Company). 3…”

“…As noted above for BV, the vaginal panel assay improves the accuracy of clinical diagnosis. 3 Culture usually is indicated only in patients with infections that are refractory to therapy.…”