Bacterial vaginosis (BV) stands as the most common cause of vaginal complaints among women during their reproductive years. It’s estimated to affect a significant portion of women, with prevalence ranging from 10 to 20% in White women and a higher 30 to 50% in Black women. Globally, the numbers fluctuate, but it’s clear that BV is a widespread health concern, impacting anywhere from 5% to 70% of women at any given time. While some women with BV experience noticeable symptoms like an unusual vaginal discharge often described as having a “fishy” odor, many remain asymptomatic. In these cases, BV may only be detected during routine gynecological exams or Pap smears. However, leaving bacterial vaginosis untreated is not without risk. It can lead to various complications, including inflammation of the uterine lining (endometritis) or cervix (cervicitis), urinary tract infections (UTIs), persistent pelvic pain, and an increased susceptibility to HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Furthermore, untreated BV can raise the risk of ectopic pregnancy and fertility challenges. For pregnant women, the consequences can be even more serious, potentially contributing to premature birth, premature rupture of membranes, and low birth weight in newborns.
Treatment for bacterial vaginosis typically involves antibiotic therapy, administered either as an intravaginal gel or oral medication. Metronidazole and clindamycin are the antibiotics most frequently prescribed. Despite treatment, complete cure rates for BV range between 65% and 85%, and recurrence is common, with many women experiencing a relapse within weeks or months after initial treatment.
The Evolution of BV Diagnosis: From Nugent Score to Amsel Criteria
Historically, the Nugent scoring system was considered the gold standard for diagnosing bacterial vaginosis. Developed by RP Nugent and published in 1991, this system refined the earlier Spiegel criteria, both relying on Gram staining of vaginal smears. The Nugent score involves a detailed microscopic examination of vaginal smears. Samples are prepared on slides and viewed under oil immersion, with at least ten high-power fields analyzed for three bacterial morphotypes: Lactobacillus, Gardnerella, and curved gram-variable rods (typically Mobiluncus). Each morphotype is assigned a score based on its abundance, and these scores are summed to produce a total score from 0 to 10. The Nugent score interpretation is as follows:
- 0–3: Negative for Bacterial Vaginosis (BV)
- 4–6: Intermediate – suggestive of bacterial imbalance
- 7–10: Positive for Bacterial Vaginosis (BV)
An illustration depicting clue cells observed under a microscope, a crucial element in diagnosing bacterial vaginosis using the Amsel criteria.
While the Nugent score is highly accurate, its complexity and need for skilled microscopy and time-consuming bacterial counts have led many clinicians to seek simpler diagnostic methods. The Amsel criteria have largely become the preferred alternative.
Published in the American Journal of Medicine in 1983 by Dr. Robert Amsel and colleagues, the Amsel criteria offer a more accessible and clinically based approach to diagnosing bacterial vaginosis. These criteria consist of four readily assessable indicators. Despite being older and seemingly simpler, the Amsel criteria have been proven to be as effective as the Nugent scoring system in diagnosing BV. Its ease of use and reliance on basic observational microscopy techniques make it a popular choice in clinical practice.
Amsel Criteria: A Detailed Look
The Amsel criteria are fundamental in the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis, especially when advanced microscopy skills, specialized equipment, or time are limited. The diagnosis hinges on the presence of at least three out of four specific parameters:
-
Homogeneous Vaginal Discharge: This discharge is typically described as thin, white or gray, and homogenous. Unlike the thick, curd-like discharge associated with yeast infections, BV discharge is usually watery and evenly distributed.
-
Clue Cells on Wet Mount Microscopy: Clue cells are vaginal epithelial cells that are covered with bacteria, predominantly Gardnerella vaginalis. To identify clue cells, a sample of vaginal discharge is mixed with a drop of saline solution and examined under a microscope (wet mount). Clue cells appear as epithelial cells with blurred or stippled borders due to the bacteria adhering to their surfaces. The presence of clue cells indicates a shift in the vaginal microbiome, characteristic of BV.
-
Vaginal pH Greater Than 4.5: A healthy vaginal pH is typically between 3.8 and 4.5, maintained by lactic acid-producing Lactobacilli. In BV, the overgrowth of anaerobic bacteria leads to a decrease in Lactobacilli and a rise in vaginal pH. To measure vaginal pH, a sample of vaginal fluid is placed on litmus paper or a pH testing strip. A pH reading above 4.5 is considered one of the Amsel criteria.
-
Positive “Whiff Test”: Also known as the amine or KOH test, this test detects the release of volatile amines produced by anaerobic bacteria in BV. A drop of 10% potassium hydroxide (KOH) solution is added to a sample of vaginal discharge on a wet mount slide. A positive whiff test is indicated by the release of a fishy odor. This odor is due to the volatilization of amines like putrescine and cadaverine, which are byproducts of anaerobic bacterial metabolism.
A healthcare professional conducts a whiff test, a key step in the Amsel criteria for diagnosing bacterial vaginosis, by adding potassium hydroxide to a vaginal discharge sample.
For a diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis using the Amsel criteria, at least three of these four criteria must be met. However, it’s worth noting that some updated guidelines suggest that a modification to only require two out of the four criteria might still provide accurate diagnostic results.
Advantages of Amsel Criteria in BV Diagnosis
The Amsel criteria offer several advantages, making them a valuable tool in the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis:
-
Simplicity and Accessibility: Compared to the Nugent score, the Amsel criteria are significantly simpler to perform and interpret. They rely on basic clinical observations and readily available materials like pH paper, KOH solution, and a standard microscope. This simplicity makes the Amsel criteria accessible in a wide range of clinical settings, including primary care offices and outpatient clinics.
-
Clinically Defined and Practical: The Amsel criteria are based on easily observable clinical signs and simple laboratory tests that can be performed quickly at the point of care. This clinical focus enhances their practicality in busy healthcare environments where time and resources may be limited.
-
Suitable for Outpatient Settings: The Amsel criteria are particularly well-suited for diagnosing BV in outpatient settings. The required tests can be performed during a routine office visit, allowing for prompt diagnosis and initiation of treatment. This is crucial for managing patient symptoms effectively and preventing potential complications associated with untreated BV.
Limitations and Considerations of Amsel Criteria
Despite their advantages, the Amsel criteria also have certain limitations and considerations that clinicians should be aware of:
-
Microscopy Requirement: While less complex than Nugent scoring, the Amsel criteria still necessitate the use of a microscope to identify clue cells. This can be a limiting factor for healthcare providers who have limited microscopy experience, visual impairments, or lack access to a microscope. In settings without microscopy facilities, performing this aspect of the Amsel criteria is impossible.
-
Subjectivity in Interpretation: While the criteria are relatively straightforward, some degree of subjectivity can be involved in interpreting the results, especially for less experienced clinicians. For example, the assessment of discharge homogeneity and the identification of clue cells may require some level of clinical judgment. Proper training and experience in performing wet mount microscopy are essential for accurate interpretation.
-
Importance of Sample Collection: Accurate application of the Amsel criteria depends on proper collection of vaginal discharge samples. While generally not uncomfortable for patients, some providers might be tempted to rely solely on patient-reported symptoms, such as discharge or fishy odor, without obtaining physical samples. It is crucial to emphasize that for the Amsel criteria, the “whiff test” is only considered positive when performed on a vaginal sample on a wet mount after KOH application. Patient reports of a fishy-smelling discharge alone do not constitute a positive whiff test and should not be used as a sole criterion.
-
Variability in Sensitivity: While the Amsel criteria are generally considered to have high specificity (correctly identifying women without BV), reports on their sensitivity (correctly identifying women with BV) vary considerably. Some studies have reported sensitivities as low as 37%, while others show higher values. This variability in sensitivity means that the Amsel criteria may miss some cases of BV, potentially leading to underdiagnosis and undertreatment. Conversely, the specificity is generally regarded as high, often reported to be around 99%, indicating a low rate of false-positive diagnoses. The reasons for the discrepancies in reported sensitivity are not fully understood and warrant consideration in clinical practice.
Clinical Significance and Healthcare Team Approach
The Amsel criteria are a clinically significant tool, particularly in outpatient settings, for the rapid diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. When a patient presents with vaginal complaints, the presence of three out of four positive Amsel criteria strongly indicates BV as the cause. Utilizing the Amsel criteria requires readily available supplies: a vaginal swab for discharge collection, a microscope and slide for wet mount preparation, and potassium hydroxide solution for the whiff test. By employing these criteria, clinicians can efficiently narrow down the differential diagnosis for vaginal discharge and discomfort, enabling prompt and targeted treatment.
Effective management of bacterial vaginosis and related vaginal complaints requires a collaborative, interprofessional healthcare team approach. While family practitioners, nurse practitioners, and gynecologists often serve as the first point of contact for women with vaginal symptoms, involving other healthcare professionals is crucial for comprehensive patient care. This team should include nurses, medical assistants, and obstetricians. Obstetricians, gynecologists, pediatricians, and family practitioners all need to maintain a high index of suspicion for bacterial vaginosis when patients report vaginal symptoms. Patients may sometimes feel more comfortable disclosing symptoms to a familiar or less intimidating healthcare professional, making nurses and medical assistants vital in identifying patient concerns and relaying pertinent information to the primary provider.
Addressing conditions related to vaginal secretions promptly and with minimal invasiveness is essential, as these can be a source of embarrassment and discomfort for patients. The Amsel criteria play a crucial role in facilitating efficient and straightforward diagnosis, thereby helping to reduce the prevalence of bacterial vaginosis and its potentially serious complications. While the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) currently does not recommend routine screening for asymptomatic, low-risk women [Category D recommendation], the Amsel criteria are recommended as the diagnostic method of choice when BV is suspected. With timely detection and appropriate treatment, cure rates for bacterial vaginosis can reach as high as 80%, significantly minimizing the risk of further health complications. [Level 3 evidence]
Current Research and Future Diagnostic Methods
While the Amsel criteria remain a cornerstone of BV diagnosis, ongoing research explores potential refinements and alternative diagnostic methods. Studies suggest that the number of criteria needed for a positive BV diagnosis might be further reduced to just two out of four without compromising accuracy.
Furthermore, advancements in diagnostic technology have led to the investigation of newer methods, although none have yet replaced the Amsel criteria as the gold standard in routine clinical practice. These emerging methods include DNA hybridization tests and various polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based assays. These molecular techniques offer the potential for more objective and potentially more sensitive diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis by directly detecting the DNA of BV-associated bacteria. Further research and clinical validation are needed to determine the role of these novel diagnostic approaches in the future management of bacterial vaginosis.
Conclusion: The Role of Amsel Criteria in Modern BV Diagnosis
The Amsel criteria continue to be a vital and practical tool for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis in contemporary clinical settings. Their simplicity, clinical relevance, and accessibility make them particularly valuable in outpatient and primary care environments. By providing a clear and easily applicable diagnostic framework based on readily observable clinical signs and basic laboratory tests, the Amsel criteria empower healthcare professionals to efficiently and accurately diagnose BV. This, in turn, facilitates timely treatment, symptom relief, and the prevention of potential complications, contributing to improved women’s health outcomes. While research into newer diagnostic methods progresses, the Amsel criteria remain an essential component of effective bacterial vaginosis management, ensuring straightforward and accessible diagnosis for countless women experiencing vaginal complaints.
References
1.Patterson JL, Stull-Lane A, Girerd PH, Jefferson KK. Analysis of adherence, biofilm formation and cytotoxicity suggests a greater virulence potential of Gardnerella vaginalis relative to other bacterial-vaginosis-associated anaerobes. Microbiology (Reading). 2010 Feb;156(Pt 2):392-399. [PMC free article: PMC2890091] [PubMed: 19910411]
2.Sobel JD. Bacterial vaginosis. Annu Rev Med. 2000;51:349-56. [PubMed: 10774469]
3.Reiter S, Kellogg Spadt S. Bacterial vaginosis: a primer for clinicians. Postgrad Med. 2019 Jan;131(1):8-18. [PubMed: 30424704]
4.Senok AC, Verstraelen H, Temmerman M, Botta GA. Probiotics for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Oct 07;(4):CD006289. [PubMed: 19821358]
5.Marrazzo JM. Vaginal biofilms and bacterial vaginosis: of mice and women. J Infect Dis. 2013 May 15;207(10):1481-3. [PubMed: 23431034]
6.Donders GG, Zodzika J, Rezeberga D. Treatment of bacterial vaginosis: what we have and what we miss. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2014 Apr;15(5):645-57. [PubMed: 24579850]
7.Nugent RP, Krohn MA, Hillier SL. Reliability of diagnosing bacterial vaginosis is improved by a standardized method of gram stain interpretation. J Clin Microbiol. 1991 Feb;29(2):297-301. [PMC free article: PMC269757] [PubMed: 1706728]
8.Mohammadzadeh F, Dolatian M, Jorjani M, Alavi Majd H. Diagnostic value of Amsel’s clinical criteria for diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Glob J Health Sci. 2014 Oct 29;7(3):8-14. [PMC free article: PMC4802101] [PubMed: 25948431]
9.Amsel R, Totten PA, Spiegel CA, Chen KC, Eschenbach D, Holmes KK. Nonspecific vaginitis. Diagnostic criteria and microbial and epidemiologic associations. Am J Med. 1983 Jan;74(1):14-22. [PubMed: 6600371]
10.Mengistie Z, Woldeamanuel Y, Asrat D, Yigeremu M. Comparison of clinical and gram stain diagnosis methods of bacterial vaginosis among pregnant women in ethiopia. J Clin Diagn Res. 2013 Dec;7(12):2701-3. [PMC free article: PMC3919279] [PubMed: 24551617]
11.Sha BE, Chen HY, Wang QJ, Zariffard MR, Cohen MH, Spear GT. Utility of Amsel criteria, Nugent score, and quantitative PCR for Gardnerella vaginalis, Mycoplasma hominis, and Lactobacillus spp. for diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis in human immunodeficiency virus-infected women. J Clin Microbiol. 2005 Sep;43(9):4607-12. [PMC free article: PMC1234056] [PubMed: 16145114]
12.Gazi H, Degerli K, Kurt O, Teker A, Uyar Y, Caglar H, Kurutepe S, Surucuoglu S. Use of DNA hybridization test for diagnosing bacterial vaginosis in women with symptoms suggestive of infection. APMIS. 2006 Nov;114(11):784-7. [PubMed: 17078859]
13.van der Veer C, van Houdt R, van Dam A, de Vries H, Bruisten S. Accuracy of a commercial multiplex PCR for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. J Med Microbiol. 2018 Sep;67(9):1265-1270. [PMC free article: PMC6230723] [PubMed: 29985123]
14.van den Munckhof EHA, van Sitter RL, Boers KE, Lamont RF, Te Witt R, le Cessie S, Knetsch CW, van Doorn LJ, Quint WGV, Molijn A, Leverstein-van Hall MA. Comparison of Amsel criteria, Nugent score, culture and two CE-IVD marked quantitative real-time PCRs with microbiota analysis for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019 May;38(5):959-966. [PubMed: 30903536]
15.Sobel JD, Kaur N, Woznicki NA, Boikov D, Aguin T, Gill G, Akins RA. Prognostic Indicators of Recurrence of Bacterial Vaginosis. J Clin Microbiol. 2019 May;57(5) [PMC free article: PMC6498020] [PubMed: 30842235]
