Increased risk of fungal infection detection in women using menstrual cups vs. tampons ====================================================================================== * Nicolas Tessandier * Ilkay Başak Uysal * Baptiste Elie * Christian Selinger * Claire Bernat * Vanina Boué * Sophie Grasset * Soraya Groc * Tsukushi Kamiya * Massilva Rahmoun * Bastien Reyné * Noemi Bender * Marine Bonneau * Christelle Graf * Vincent Tribout * Vincent Foulongne * Jacques Ravel * Tim Waterboer * Christophe Hirtz * Ignacio G Bravo * Jacques Reynes * Michel Segondy * Carmen Lia Murall * Nathalie Boulle * Samuel Alizon ## Abstract Menstrual cups are gaining in popularity worldwide as a more environmentally sustainable and affordable alternative to disposable personal hygiene products. However, there is currently a lack of scientific literature regarding their safety and potential effects on women’s health. We analysed biological, demographic, and behavioural data in a cohort of young adult women using either tampons (*n* = 81) or menstrual cups (*n* = 22). We identify an increased risk of being diagnosed with fungal infection for women using menstrual cups over tampons. We did not detect significant differences between groups in terms of vaginal microbiota composition or local cytokines expression profile. However we found that depending on the type of menstrual product they use more (cups or tampons), women fall into two different clusters in a factor analysis of mixed data, which potentially reflects differences in their local vaginal environments. These results underline the urgent need for in-depth studies to better understand the potential associations between menstrual product products and women’s health. Keywords * menstrual hygiene management * women’s health * genital infections * vaginal microbiota * fungal infections * immunity ## Introduction Menstruation is associated with reproductive health, but it also has implications beyond physical health, as recognised by the emergent concept of menstrual health [1]. Furthermore, the risks associated with menstrual poverty [2] are increasingly recognised and include for instance bacterial vaginosis [3] or reproductive tract infections [4]. Among the variety of products used during the menses, menstrual cups are perceived as a safe, practical, economical, and ecologically-friendly alternative to tampons and sanitary pads [5]. The majority of women using them report wanting to continue to using them both in high and low-income settings, showing a good level of acceptability [5, 6]. Nevertheless, there have been some reported cases of toxic shock syndrome, renal colic, and allergies associated with menstrual cup usage [5]. Moreover, higher levels of *Staphylococcus aureus* growth have been reported in menstrual cups compared to tampons [7]. However, the number of case studies is limited and we know little about potential health risks associated with cup usage compared to other menstrual hygiene products [5]. We hypothesised that the type of menstrual hygiene products can shape the vaginal immunological and microbiological environment in a way that could affect women’s health. We analysed biological, demographic, and behavioural longitudinal data from 149 women, in the context of the PAPCLEAR clinical study on human papillomavirus (HPV) infections [8]. We focused in particular on the local impact of the different product use and, using statistical modelling, identified profile differences depending on the type of menstrual product used. ## Results The 103 women who could be included in the analysis were aged from 18 to 25 years old and primarily university students. Their main demographic characteristics are shown in Table S1. We stratified the population according to the most frequent type of menstrual product used, *i*.*e*. either tampons, *n* = 81 women, or menstrual cups, *n* = 22 (see the Supplementary Methods). The self-reported stress level was the only variable for which the two groups differed slightly (p-value=0.08), with menstrual cup users reporting more frequently a moderate level of stress than tampon users (Extended data Table S1). We used generalised linear models to detect potential differences in key covariates (listed in Extended data Table S2) between the two groups. The best model, according to our selection approach (see Supplementary Methods), shows that a significantly lower fraction of menstrual cup users identify themselves as smokers compared to tampon users (*OR* = 0.18), and HPVs) is also lower (*OR* = 0.36). Conversely, reporting using that the fraction of women using menstrual cups presenting a genital infection by human papillomaviruses (HPVs) is also lower (*OR* = 0.36). Conversely, reporting using menstrual cups was more associated with the detection of a fungal infection during the gynaecological exam (*OR* = 6.55). There was also a marginally significant trend of increased risk of urinary tract infection. Importantly, Smoking and Fungal infection were the only two covariates to be present and significant in the best model and in the models comparable to it based on an Akaike Information Criterion (see Supplementary Methods and Table S3). To better understand the relative importance of menstrual products on the occurrence of fungal infections, we performed another set of generalised linear models, this time evaluating the covariates associated with fungal infection. The selection procedure yielded a best model according to which smoking (p = 0.02) and the use of menstrual cups (*p* = 0.004) were associated with a higher risk of being diagnosed with a fungal infection (Figure 1A). There was also a marginally significant association with being vaccinated against HPV in women diagnosed with fungal infection (*p* = 0.07). The type of menstrual product used the most (cups or tampons) was the only covariate present and significant in all of the 111 next best models selected (Extended data Table S4), further confirming its association with fungal infection in our cohort. ![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/12/11/2021.12.10.21267584/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/12/11/2021.12.10.21267584/F1) Figure 1: Epidemiological, microbiological, and immunological differences between women using mainly menstrual cups or tampons. A) Odds ratio of covariates associated with the risk of being diagnosed with a fungal infection, B) Abundance and diversity of the main bacterial species found in participants, C) Community State Types (CST) distribution, D) Shannon diversity index, E) Cytokines local concentrations (log), and F) Outcome of a multi-parametric clustering analysis using factor analysis of mixed data (FAMD). In A, red indicates significance (*p <* 0.05) and blue indicates non-significance. In D, E, and F, colours show the type of menstrual product used (tampons in blue and cups in yellow). In F, the CSTs are shown in red. To study a potential association between the type of menstrual protection used and the vaginal microbiota, we performed a 16S metabarcoding analysis (Figure 1B). We found no significant difference in community state types (CST) composition (Figure 1C), although there were some qualitative differences. For instance, none of the menstrual cup users displayed a CST II or V [9]. We also did not find any significant differences in microbiota diversity, assessed using Shannon diversity index, between women using menstrual cups or tampons (Figure 1D). To assess the potential effect of menstrual cups on the local immune response, we analysed cytokines and chemokine relative concentrations in cervical samples [10]. Among the 20 analytes measured, only IFN-β appeared to be significantly increased in women using cups (*p* = 0.044), although this association did not withstand correction for multiple testing comparisons (*p* = 0.89) (Figure 1E). View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/12/11/2021.12.10.21267584/T1) Table 1: Association between menstrual cups usage in comparison with tampons. Results show the odds ratio (OR) of the factors selected in the best generalised linear model using an Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). MC stands for menstrual cups, SE for standard error and CI for confidence interval. Finally, we performed a profile analysis using a factor analysis of mixed data (FAMD) approach with CSTs distribution, Shannon diversity index, cytokines, and chemokines relative concentrations. The results show that women who use tampons and women using menstrual cups fall into different clusters (Figure 1F and Extended data Figure S1), suggesting that the type of menstrual product used could be shaping the local immunological and microbial environment. Conversely, a similar multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) approach using blood seropositivity status for IgG and IgM of several sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HPVs (see Supplementary Methods) detected no clustering effect (Extended data Figure S2), hinting that the women in these two groups originate from similar populations in terms of the risk of exposition to STIs. ## Discussion Menstrual cups are gaining in popularity as an environmentally sustainable and affordable type of menstrual protection [5]. However, there currently is a lack of epidemiological and biological data to assess their safety. Using the PAPCLEAR study [8], we compared microbiological, immunological, and epidemiological profiles of women depending on whether they report using mainly cups or tampons. We did not identify strong demographic or behavioural biases between our two populations, except for reported stress levels. On the epidemiological side, we detected a strong association between the use of menstrual cups and the risk of fungal infections. We also found a marginally significant positive association with urinary tract infections. Finally, we identified a negative significant association with HPV infection. Note that women using menstrual cups reported a greater number of partners and less smoking than women using tampons, which suggests the decreased HPV prevalence is not due to differences in sexual contact. To further understand the occurrence of fungal infections, we performed another model which confirmed their strong association with menstrual cup use, as well as smoking, number of partners, and vaccination against HPV. Biological analyses revealed an absence of significant difference between vaginal microbiota compositions depending on the type of menstrual product used. For local cytokine and chemokine relative concentrations, only one potential difference was identified in IFN-*β*. However, the joint analysis of microbiota and immunological data showed that women segregate into two clusters based on the type of menstrual product they use most. Similar analyses using circulating antibodies found no such clustering patterns, which reinforces our conclusion that the two populations of women studied do not differ from an epidemiological standpoint (their past exposition to STIs being comparable) but, potentially, from their local vaginal environment. Our study has several limitations, the strongest being the relatively small sample size of the cohort used (*n* = 103), which was originally designed to study HPV infections. This may hinder our ability to detect moderate or subtle changes induced by the menstrual cups in the vaginal environment. Another limitation of the study lies in its cross-sectional nature. Further longitudinal analyses would be helpful to establish long-term potential impacts of the use of menstrual cups on the local environment, for example, on the vaginal microbiota composition. Finally, although fungal infections were reported by a trained gynaecologist or midwife during consults, we cannot provide more details regarding the fungal species responsible for the infection, nor their abundance. From a statistical standpoint, a potential issue has to do with pseudo-replication since we analyse two visits for each participant. To address it, we analysed each of the two visits independently. In both cases, the associations between menstrual cup use, smoking, and fungal infection were significant (Table S5 and S6). Finally, other factors have been shown to shape the vaginal environment [9]. Here, we included for instance the use of lubricants in the analysis but more detailed studies could also include contraception methods or probiotic use. Menstrual cups are one of the most popular alternatives to disposable menstrual products. As the demand for ‘eco-friendly’ and less expensive menstrual products arises, it is crucial to better understand the effect of these products on women’s health. ## Supporting information Extended data and Methods [[supplements/267584_file02.pdf]](pending:yes) ## Data Availability Table 1 and Figure 1, as well as Extended Data Tables S1, S3, S4 and Figure S2 have associated raw data. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request, and data are available in the Zenodo public repository (XXXXX). * Received December 10, 2021. * Revision received December 10, 2021. * Accepted December 11, 2021. * © 2021, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission. ## Bibliography 1. 1.Hennegan, J. et al. Menstrual health: a definition for policy, practice, and research. Sex. Reprod. Health Matters 29 (2021). 2. 2.Carneiro, M. M. Menstrual poverty: enough is enough. Women Health 61, 721–722 (2021). 3. 3.Phillips-Howard, P. A. et al. Menstrual cups and sanitary pads to reduce school attrition, and sexually transmitted and reproductive tract infections: a cluster ran-domised controlled feasibility study in rural Western Kenya. BMJ Open 6 (2016). 4. 4.Torondel, B. et al. Association between unhygienic menstrual management practices and prevalence of lower reproductive tract infections: a hospital-based cross-sectional study in Odisha, India. BMC Infect Dis 18, 473 (2018). [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F11%2F2021.12.10.21267584.atom) 5. 5.Van Eijk, A. M. et al. Menstrual cup use, leakage, acceptability, safety, and availability: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Public Health 4, e376–e393 (2019). 6. 6.North, B. B. & Oldham, M. J. Preclinical, clinical, and over-the-counter postmarketing experience with a new vaginal cup: menstrual collection. J Womens Health 20, 303–311 (2011). 7. 7.Nonfoux, L. et al. Impact of Currently Marketed Tampons and Menstrual Cups on Staphylococcus aureus Growth and Toxic Shock Syndrome Toxin 1 Production In Vitro. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 84 (2018). 8. 8.Murall, C. L. et al. Natural history, dynamics, and ecology of human papillomaviruses in genital infections of young women: Protocol of the PAPCLEAR cohort study. BMJ Open 9, 25129 (2019). 9. 9.Ravel, J. et al. Vaginal microbiome of reproductive-age women. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 108, 4680–4687 (2011). [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoyMToiMTA4L1N1cHBsZW1lbnRfMS80NjgwIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjEvMTIvMTEvMjAyMS4xMi4xMC4yMTI2NzU4NC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 10. 10.Selinger, C. et al. Cytokine response following perturbation of the cervicovaginal milieu during HPV genital infection. Immunol. Res. 69, 255–263 (2021).