Background/Objectives: Direct comparisons between commercial molecular platforms for vaginitis diagnosis are scarce. We compared the Aptima BV and CV/TV assays (Hologic) with the Vaginal Real Time kit (Vircell) for bacterial vaginosis (BV), Candida spp. and Trichomonas vaginalis, and explored the association between BV and sexually transmitted infection (STI) co-detection. Methods: In this prospective single-centre study, 350 vaginal swabs submitted for molecular STI screening were tested on both platforms. Discordances were arbitrated with the Allplex™ Vaginitis Screening assay (Seegene) within a composite reference standard (CRS). Agreement was assessed with Cohen’s κ and positive/negative percentage agreement (PPA/NPA); performance was calculated against the CRS. Results: Agreement was substantial for BV (κ = 0.676; PPA 94.8%, NPA 79.1%) and almost perfect for Candida spp. (κ = 0.885) and T. vaginalis (κ = 0.920), in line with previous molecular-versus-Nugent comparisons. Vircell classified more samples as BV-positive than Aptima (45.4% vs. 33.1%; p < 0.001); the Aptima BV positivity rate closely matched the 34% reported by Vipond et al. Against the CRS, Aptima showed higher specificity (98.7%) and Vircell higher sensitivity (98.3%). Agreement fell to 75.9% in women aged ≥45 years. BV positivity was associated with STI co-detection, strongest for Chlamydia trachomatis (OR 8.97, 95% CI 3.26–24.71). Conclusions: The two platforms performed equivalently for candidiasis and trichomoniasis but diverged for BV, particularly in older women, reflecting their different classification algorithms rather than analytical quality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Álvarez et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: