Clinical Applicability of Microbiota Sampling in a Subfertile Population: Urine versus Vagina
Koedooder et al.
The finding, in our words
In subfertile women, urinary microbiota profiles correlated strongly with vaginal profiles but contained fewer species, indicating that vaginal sampling is preferable for predicting fertility treatment outcomes.
A paraphrase to the Library’s standard, never the abstract. The source is one link away and is always the authority.
In a small proof-of-concept, first-void urine and cervicovaginal brushes yielded high-quality vaginal microbiome profiles in most participants, comparable to vaginal swabs, offering non-invasive, user-friendly alternatives for research; however, storage at room temperature altered microbial composition in some first-void urine samples, indicating a need for careful handling.
In a large real-world cohort of pregnancy planners using home urine tests, sensitivity was lower than expected before the expected period, with false negatives of 12.7% at 2 days, 21.4% at 3 days and 46.4% at 4 days before menses; sensitivity rose sharply thereafter to over 99% by 4 days after the expected period, and for any given test day, longer menstrual cycles were associated with higher sensitivity, especially among early testers.
Self-collected oral and stool samples revealed distinct microbiome compositions in patients with endometriosis compared to controls, with Fusobacterium enrichment specifically observed in oral samples from moderate to severe cases. These results support the feasibility of decentralised self-collection for non-invasive biomarker screening in reproductive health.
The Mira fertility monitor's LH surge and urine E1-3G levels correlated strongly with the ClearBlue Fertility Monitor's LH surge and low-to-high shift in both postpartum and perimenopause transitions, supporting at-home urine hormone monitoring for fertility tracking.
All five at-home urine ovulation predictor kits demonstrated high accuracy (92–97%) when compared with blood LH levels, though sensitivity varied widely from 38% to 77% with Clinical Guard the lowest. Patient experience was comparable across kits, though Clinical Guard was slightly less favoured for future use.