Results from the first South African Health Products Regulatory Authority-approved randomised trial evaluating supplementation of standard antibiotic therapy with a commercially available probiotic in South African women with bacterial vaginosis

SAHPRA approval

This trial intended to explore the regulatory environment in South Africa governing probiotic trials, in order to lay the foundation for future trials of novel probiotic products under development. SAHPRA did not require a full application but rather a notification, as the probiotic product was not currently considered/regulated as a medicine but as a health supplement, and available OTC in South Africa.

Cohort behavioural and biomedical characteristics

A total of 96 women seeking care for vaginal discharge were screened for eligibility (Figure 1), of which the majority (n=90) were recruited via the UCT Student Wellness Centre. One woman tested HIV positive at screening, and thus was excluded and referred for care. Of those screened, 43 women (45.3%) were confirmed to have BV by Nugent Scoring (Nugent 7-10; Table 1), confirming that symptomatic vaginal discharge is a very imprecise tool for predicting the presence of BV (11), with a positive predictive value of only 45.3% in this cohort. In addition, 17.9 % (17/95) had an STI, with T. vaginalis in 9.5% (9/95) and C. trachomatis in 8.4% (8/95) being the most common STIs detected. Of the 43 BV positive women, 33/43 were eligible for randomization (BV+ but STI-).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. Consort diagram

A total of 96 women with symptomatic discharge were screened for eligibility Participants were tested for BV by Nugent Scoring on for STIs (including C. trachomatis, T. vaginalis, M. genitalium and A. vaginae) by Multiplex PCR. Eligible participants (BV positive but STI negative) were randomly assigned to the SOC (Metrogel™ only) or intervention arm (Metrogel™ plus Vagiforte® Plus Combo Pack). Follow-up visits took place 1, 3 and 5 months post-treatment.

Of the 33 women who were eligible, three were no longer interested in participating, 12 were randomized to the SOC arm (vaginal MetroGel™ alone; 5 days), while 18 were randomized to the intervention arm (vaginal MetroGel™ 5 days, followed by 15 days of Vagiforte®). Randomised women were a median age of 22 years (IQR 20-26 years) old, predominantly single (26/30, 86.7%), and self-identified as black (20/30, 66.7%). About one-third reported being previously pregnant (8/30), and one-third reported currently using hormonal contraception (11/30; Table 2). Their median age at sexual debut was reported to be 17 years (IQR 16-19) with a median of five lifetime sexual partners (IQR 3-8). Reporting of oral sex was common (21/30, 70.0%), while reporting of anal sex was less common (2/30, 6.7%). About half reported regular condom use, and very few (n=4) reported previously being diagnosed or treated for an STI (Table 2. Almost half reported that they were currently smoking, a factor that has previously been associated with the risk of BV (25–27). Almost all enrolled women (28/30; 93.3%) reported a history of chronic vaginal discharge. About a third reported using their fingers and water to clean their vaginas internally, while other vaginal practices (such as cleansing with cloth or using traditional South African herbs) were reported less commonly. A third of women reported believing that using vaginal products (either commercial and traditional) to treat their vaginal discharge was beneficial for their vaginal health, and an equal proportion reported concerns that these vaginal products were causing their vaginal discharge and malodour (Table 2). More than half reported previous use of prescription medicine to reduce vaginal discharge and malodour, supporting the history of long-standing vaginal discharge and/or infections in these women. More than half used tampons while menstruating, suggesting that they may be likely to be comfortable with the vaginal application of the probiotic (Table 2). None of these characteristics evaluated differed by study arm.

Adherence to and safety of MetroGel™ and the oral/vaginal probiotic

Women attended a total of 143 visits, with 25/30 women completing all visits (Figure 1). All women (n=30) reported completing the entire five-day course of MetroGel™. Similarly, all women randomised to the intervention group (n=18) reported completing the course of oral probiotic capsules, and the majority (n=16) also reported completing the vaginal probiotic spray. Overall, a total of 110 adverse events (AEs) occurred over the course of the trial, of which most (76.4 %; 84/110) were considered not to be related to study products. Most AEs were mild (grade 1-2, 109/110, 99.1%) and only one non-related AE was grade 3. Unrelated AEs included: headaches (20 periods of headache reported by 5 women), flu-like symptoms (n=18, reported by 12 women), acquisition of any STI [including C. trachomatis (n=8), T. vaginalis (n=7), M. genitalium (n=5) and N. gonorrhoea (n=1)], menstrual pain (n=7), gastro-intestinal complaints (n=5), temporary vaginal discomfort related to vaginal intercourse (n=7), anaemia (n=2) and cat allergy (n=1), buttock pain (n=1), and anxiety (n=1). More than half of the women (53.3%; 16/30) acquired an STI over the course of the study.

Of those AEs that were considered to be related to the use of the study products (n=26), the majority was associated with vaginal MetroGel™ use and reported by women who were randomised to the SOC arm (80.8%; 21/26). Overall, more than half of the participants (17/30; 56.7 %) reported experiencing genital AEs, including vaginal itching/irritation (9/30; 30.0%), candida infections (5/30; 16.7%), discomfort (3/30; 10.0%), increased discharge (2/30; 6.7%), spotting (1/30; 3.3%), or constipation after MetroGel™ use (1/30; 3.3%). Vaginal candida infection and constipation are published side effects of MetroGel™, and vaginal itching, discomfort and discharge are likely to be symptoms of candidiasis (28). One third of women (5/18; 27.8%) reported AEs which may have been associated with probiotic use, including vaginal itching/discomfort (2/18; 11.1%), increased vaginal discharge (1/18; 5.6%), increased nipple sensitivity (1/18; 5.6%), and nausea (1/18; 5.6%). Overall, the adherence to both products was high and generally associated with a good safety profile.

Acceptability of the oral-vaginal combination probiotic in South African women

At the final visit, women in the intervention arm were asked by the research nurse to complete a questionnaire to evaluate the acceptability of the probiotic product used during the trial. The majority of women (9/15, 60.0%) reported that they liked using the combination probiotic, because it was easy to use or resulted in improved vaginal symptoms (Figure 2A). Most women (12/15, 80.0%) reported that they preferred the oral capsule over the vaginal spray application (Figure 2B), as the spray was difficult to use, “messy and smelly” or AEs occurred. Despite seven women reporting that they did not like using the oral/vaginal probiotic, the vast majority (14/15, 93.3%) believed that they received some benefit from this product and would buy it to use it again, primarily to prevent rather than to treat BV (Figure 2C). The majority (13/15, 86.7%) also said they would recommend it to other women. In terms of future product design, women reported that they would prefer a probiotic with oral application only rather than a combination of oral and vaginal or vaginal only administration (Figure 2D). If vaginal administration was required, women responded that they would prefer a tablet or gel rather than a tampon, spray or capsule. Women reported that they would much prefer to buy the probiotic at pharmacies (12/15, 80.0%) than health stores, a grocery store or clinic (Figure 2E). When questioned about where they prefer to seek advice regarding using probiotics for vaginal health, women responded that they would ask reproductive health nurses (13/15, 86.6%) and doctors (11/15; 73.3%) rather than pharmacists or get information from the internet (Figure 2F). When asked about how much they were willing to spend on such a product, none of the women responded that they would be willing to spend more than 200 South African rand (ZAR), which was less than the cost of the probiotic tested in this trial (costing ZAR 280 per treatment course).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Acceptability and preference of probiotics for vaginal health

At the final visit, participants completed a questionnaire to assess their (A) opinion about the oral/vaginal probiotic they used during the trial, (B) why their preferred the oral or vaginal application, (C) their perceived benefits and whether they would use it again or recommend it to another woman, (D) their application preference for the development of a future probiotic for vaginal health, (E) where they would want to buy it and (F) from whom they would like to get advice regarding the use of probiotics for vaginal health.

Comparing BV cure rates in SOC and intervention arms

Although our trial was not powered for efficacy, we were interested in an exploratory intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis to estimate possible benefits of administration of this locally sourced probiotic on BV cure and recurrence (Figure 3A). The overall BV cure rate (defined as achieving a Nugent score 0-3) was 44.8% (13/29) at month 1 (primary outcome), 46.4% (13/28) at month 3 and 53.8% (14/26) at month 5. At month 1, BV cure rates tended to be higher in the SOC arm (63.6 %; 7/11) than the intervention arm (33.3%; 6/18; p=0.113). However, almost half of the BV negative women in the SOC arm (3/7) subsequently re-tested BV positive (Nugent 7-10) at month 3, while more than half of the women in the intervention arm who were cured at month 1 (4/6) remained BV negative until the end of the trial. Vagiforte® PLUS did not appear to offer short-term benefits for BV cure compared to MetroGel™ alone, although it needs to be emphasised that this trial was not adequately powered.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3. BV status and vaginal pH in the SOC and intervention group

(A) BV status was determined by Nugent scoring at screening, and one, three and five-months post-treatment. Nugent Score 0-3 = BV negative (white area); 4-6= BV intermediate (yellow) and 7-10=BV positive (orange). (B) Vaginal pH was measured using color-fixed indicator strips one, three and five-months post-treatment. A vaginal pH <4.5 (white area) is seen as protective. Each participant is represented by a symbol-coded dot, and the summaries show median and interquartile range.

Comparing vaginal pH in SOC versus intervention arms

A pH>4.5 is one of the clinical criteria considered in diagnosing BV using Amsel’s Criteria (29) and a low vaginal pH is considered to be beneficial for vaginal health (Aroutcheva et al., 2001; Boskey et al., 1999). Thus, having a vaginal pH<4.5 after BV treatment was considered as a secondary endpoint for this study. In the SOC arm, 6/11 (54.5%) women had a vaginal pH<4.5 one month after treatment, compared to 11/18 (61.1%) in the intervention group (p=0.514; Figure 3B). Similarly, no significant difference between the SOC and intervention arms were noted at later time points. Nugent scores correlated significantly with vaginal pH (Spearman rho=0.71; p=0.0001).

Comparing clinical symptoms in SOC versus intervention arms

The majority of women (24/29) reported an improvement of their vaginal symptoms one month after treatment, with similar rates in the SOC and intervention arms (Table 3). Of these, the majority (20/24) reported a decrease of vaginal discharge, and more than half reported a change in smell and/or colour of the discharge, independently of treatment arm. Similar improvements in vaginal symptoms were reported three months after treatment completion (Table 3).

Testing for the presence of probiotic species in the genital tract

To estimate whether the bacterial species contained in the oral/vaginal probiotic colonised the FGTs of women in the intervention arm, concentrations of L. rhamnosus, L. acidophilus, B. bifidum and B. longum were measured before and after treatment (Figure 4A). Although not typically considered a vaginal Lactobacillus species, it was interesting to note that a third (20/30) of women had detectable concentrations of L. acidophilus (median concentration; 6.24×10⁻⁸ ng/mL) at baseline, although few women had L. rhamnosus (2/30), B. bifidum (2/30) and B. longum (8/30). Despite daily administration of >2×10⁹ CFU vaginally and orally for a total of 15 days in the intervention group, we observed no clear evidence of colonization of any of the bacterial species contained in the probiotic formulation after administration of the probiotic (month 1) or at later time points (Figure 4A).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4. Quantities of vaginal bacterial species in the SOC and intervention group

(A) Bacterial species contained in Vagiforte® Plus Combo Pack, including L. acidophilus, L. rhamnosus, B. bifidum and B. longum, vaginal Lactobacillus spp., including L. crispatus, L. gasseri, L. jensenii, L. vaginalis, L. mucosae and L. iners (B) and BV-associated bacteria, including G. vaginalis, P bivia, Atopobium, BVAB2 and Megasphera (C) were measured by qPCR and normalised to total 16S rRNA gene concentration at month 0 (enrolment) and one, three and five months post-treatment. Values were log-transformed and supervised clustering was used to generate the heatmap. Each row shows one participant. Darkest blue indicates levels below detection limit. White data points indicate missing data. Light purple indicates participants from the SOC and dark purple participants from the intervention group.

Changes in commensal Lactobacillus communities following BV treatment

Lactobacillus spp.-dominated vaginal microbiota are associated with a lack of genital inflammation compared to non-optimal vaginal microbiota (32). However, while some Lactobacillus spp., such as L. crispatus, L. gasseri, L. jensenii and L. vaginalis, have been associated with decreased genital inflammation and HIV risk, the role of others, such as L. iners, remains unclear (32,33). Therefore, we evaluated concentrations of several of these Lactobacillus spp. to assess the beneficial effect of the oral/vaginal probiotic on the vaginal microbiota. Most women had either concentrations below the detection limit or very low concentrations of L. crispatus, L. gasseri, L. jensenii and L. vaginalis (all with median concentration 0 ng/mL) before treatment (Figure 4B). While some women showed increased concentrations of beneficial vaginal Lactobacillus spp. one month after treatment, others did not, and this did not differ by study arm (Additional Table 1). The relative concentrations of L. mucosae (median concentration 4.03×10⁻² ng/mL) and L. iners (median concentration 5.23×10⁻² ng/mL) were generally higher than the concentrations of the other Lactobacillus spp. and remained higher over the course of the study (Figure 4B).

Changes in BV-associated bacterial communities following BV treatment

Most women had detectable concentrations of G. vaginalis (26/30; median concentration 1.25×10⁻² ng/mL), P. bivia (21/30; median concentration 7.82×10⁻³ ng/mL) and A. vaginae (29/30; median concentration 1.22×10⁻⁵ ng/mL) pre-treatment (Figure 4C), consistent with their BV status. The concentrations of these BV-associated bacteria remained high throughout the trial despite BV treatment, both in the SOC and intervention arm (Additional Table 1). While most women also had BVAB2 (22/30; 3.31×10⁻⁵ and some Megasphera (14/30) present pre-treatment, some women experienced a loss or decreased quantities of these bacterial species post-treatment, but this was again irrespective of study arm (Figure 4C).

Changes in genital cytokine concentrations following treatment

IL-1α concentrations were measured in vaginal samples collected pre- and post-treatment to investigate whether probiotics influenced genital inflammatory cytokine concentrations compared to SOC. Overall, we found that genital IL-1α concentrations decreased after treatment (from a median concentration of 4.80 pg/mL to 1.28 pg/mL in SOC participants vs. from 11.26 pg/mL to 10.42 pg/mL in the intervention group; Figure 5; Additional Table 1), although not significantly. In addition, adjusting for STIs that were acquired during the trial had no impact on this observation.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5. Levels of the inflammatory marker IL-1α in the FGT of participants in the SOC and intervention arm

IL-1α was measured by ELISA in FGT secretions of SOC and intervention group participants pre-treatment and 1, 3 and 5 months post-treatment. Each participant is represented by a symbol-coded dot. The percentages compared to the IL-1α level measured pre-treatment (month 0) are displayed. The shaded area indicates a decrease in IL-1α post-treatment. The summary shows the median and interquartile range.