Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26451088›Full record

Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2015

Efficacy and safety of a vaginal medicinal product containing three strains of probiotic bacteria: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled trial.

Anna Tomusiak, Magdalena Strus, Piotr B Heczko, Paweł Adamski, Grzegorz Stefański, Aleksandra Mikołajczyk-Cichońska, Magdalena Suda-Szczurek

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Drug design, development and therapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. ProbioticFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021
    Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Female genital tract microbiome: the influence of probiotics on assisted reproduction.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2024
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Anna TomusiakDepartment of Microbiology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.
Magdalena StrusDepartment of Microbiology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.
Piotr B HeczkoDepartment of Microbiology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.
Paweł AdamskiInstitute of Nature Conservation, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland.
Grzegorz StefańskiIBSS BIOMED SA, Kraków, Poland.
Aleksandra Mikołajczyk-CichońskaIBSS BIOMED SA, Kraków, Poland.
Magdalena Suda-SzczurekIBSS BIOMED SA, Kraków, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe main objective of this study was to evaluate whether vaginal administration of probiotic Lactobacillus results in their colonization and persistence in the vagina and whether Lactobacillus colonization promotes normalization and maintenance of pH and Nugent score. PATIENTS AND

methodsThe study was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled trial. Altogether, 376 women were assessed for eligibility, and signed informed consent. One hundred and sixty eligible women with abnormal, also called intermediate, vaginal microflora, as indicated by a Nugent score of 4-6 and pH >4.5 and zero or low Lactobacillus count, were randomized. Each participant was examined four times during the study. Women were randomly allocated to receive either the probiotic preparation inVag(®), or a placebo (one capsule for seven consecutive days vaginally). The product inVag includes the probiotic strains Lactobacillus fermentum 57A, Lactobacillus plantarum 57B, and Lactobacillus gasseri 57C. We took vaginal swabs during visits I, III, and IV to determine the presence and abundance of bacteria from the Lactobacillus genus, measure the pH, and estimate the Nugent score. Drug safety evaluation was based on analysis of the types and occurrence of adverse events.

resultsAdministration of inVag contributed to a significant decrease (between visits) in both vaginal pH (P<0.05) and Nugent score (P<0.05), and a significant increase in the abundance of Lactobacillus between visit I and visits III and IV (P<0.05). Molecular typing revealed the presence of Lactobacillus strains originating from inVag in 82% of women taking the drug at visit III, and 47.5% at visit IV. There was no serious adverse event related to inVag administration during the study.

conclusionThe probiotic inVag is safe for administration to sustainably restore the healthy vaginal microbiota, as demonstrated by predominance of the Lactobacillus bacteria in vaginal microbiota.

Indexed as

Administration, IntravaginalAdolescentAdultDouble-Blind MethodDysbiosisFemaleHost-Pathogen InteractionsHumansHydrogen-Ion ConcentrationLactiplantibacillus plantarumLimosilactobacillus fermentumPolandProbioticsTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeVaginaaerobic vaginitisbacterial vaginosisLactobacillusprobiotics

Identifiers

PMID26451088
PMCPMC4590344

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.