RESUMO
Molecular-based assays demonstrate excellent sensitivity for the detection of vaginitis causes. Here, the high-throughput BD Vaginal Panel for BD COR System (VP-COR) performance was compared to that of the predicate, BD MAX Vaginal Panel for BD MAX System (VP-MAX). Clinical or contrived samples were used to determine the agreement between VP-COR and VP-MAX. Acceptance criteria for VP-COR agreement were as follows: bacterial vaginosis (BV) required a positive percent agreement (PPA) point estimate of ≥95% and a negative percent agreement (NPA) point estimate of ≥98%; Candida group, Candida glabrata, Candida krusei, and Trichomonas vaginalis (TV) required a PPA and NPA point estimate of ≥95% [with lower bound of 95% confidence interval (95% CI) ≥90%]. PPA was 99.5% (95% CI: 97.5-100) and 97.9% (95% CI: 96.5-98.8) for BV contrived (n = 516) and BV clinical (n = 1,050) specimens, respectively. For the Candida group (clinical; n = 724), C. glabrata (contrived; n = 544), C. krusei (contrived; n = 522), and TV (clinical; n = 702), PPA was 99.4% (95% CI: 98.0-99.9), 100% (95% CI: 97.9-100), 100% (95% CI: 97.6-100), and 99.7% (95% CI: 98.3-100), respectively; the lowest lower bound CI value was 97.6%. NPA was >95% for BV contrived and BV clinical specimens. For the Candida group, C. glabrata, C. krusei, and TV, NPA was ≥98.9%; the lowest lower bound CI value was 97.3%. These results demonstrate the equivalent performance of the VP-COR assay when compared to VP-MAX.IMPORTANCEVaginitis is common among women of reproductive age, resulting in around 10 million office visits a year. Diagnosis is often difficult due to its multiple causes-including bacterial vaginosis, vulvovaginal candidiasis, and trichomoniasis-as well as variation in symptom presentation. Typically, cases are identified with a combination of symptomology, medical history, physical examination, and office- or laboratory-based testing. These traditional techniques involve subjective elements and demonstrate varying sensitivity and specificity. Inaccurate or delayed diagnosis leads to continued symptoms, repeat visits, inappropriate treatment, and unnecessary costs. Alternatively, the use of molecular-based assays increases sensitivity for the detection of vaginitis causes. With the validation of the vaginal panel molecular assay on COR (a high-throughput platform), a workflow can be streamlined in high-demand laboratories while providing high sensitivity for vaginitis detection.
RESUMO
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.
