Skip to main content

Table 1 Patient characteristics of the whole cohort at baseline sample collection (n=109) according to obesity status

From: The association between obesity and weight loss after bariatric surgery on the vaginal microbiota

Characteristics Non-obese (n=67) Obese (n=42) Total (n=109) p valuea
Age (years)     0.083
 Mean (SD, range) 44 (11.79, 20-75) 46 (11.26, 28-72) 44 (11.79, 20-75)  
Ethnicity, n/N (%)     0.024
 Caucasian 48/67 (71.6) 22/42 (52.4) 70/109 (64.2)  
 Asian 3/67 (4.5) 5/42 (11.9) 8/109 (7.3)  
 Black 12/67 (17.9) 15/42 (35.7) 27/109 (24.8)  
 Other 4/67 (6.0) 0/42 (0) 4/109 (3.7)  
Parity, n/N (%)     <0.001
 Nulliparous 44/67 (65.7) 7/42 (16.7) 51/109 (46.8)  
 Parous 23/67 (34.3) 35/42 (83.3) 58/109 (53.2)  
Smoking status, n/N (%)     0.128
 Current smoker 11/67 (16.4) 2/42 (4.8) 13/109 (11.9)  
 Non-smoker 56/67 (83.6) 40/42 (95.2) 96/109 (88.1)  
HVS results n/N (%)     0.062
 Normal 46/67 (68.7) 36/42 (85.7) 82/109 (75.2)  
 Abnormal 15/67 (22.4) 6/42 (14.3) 21/109 (19.3)  
 Unknown 6/67 (8.9) 0/42 (0) 6/109 (5.5)  
Abnormal HVS results, n/N (%)     0.076
 Bacterial vaginosis 3/15 (20.0) 1/6 (16.7) 4/21 (19.0)  
E. coli 1/15 (6.7) 0/6 (0) 1/21 (4.8)  
S. aureus 1/15 (6.7) 0/6 (0) 1/21 (4.8)  
Group B streptococcus (S. agalactiae) 2/15 (13.3) 3/6 (50.0) 5/21 (23.8)  
 Yeast 0/15 (0) 1/6 (16.7) 1/21 (4.8)  
 Mixed coliforms 0/15 (0) 1/6 (16.6) 1/21 (4.8)  
 Unknown 8/15 (53.3) 0/6 (0) 8/21 (38.0)  
Menopause status, n/N (%)     0.233
 Premenopausal 50/67 (74.6) 26/42 (61.9) 76/109 (70.0)  
 Postmenopausal 17/67 (25.4) 16/42 (38.1) 33/109 (30.0)  
Phase of menstrual cycle (PrMP), n/N (%)    0.115
 Luteal 24/50 (48.0) 7/26 (26.9) 31/76 (40.8)  
 Follicular 15/50 (30.0) 8/26 (30.8) 23/76 (30.3)  
 Ovulation 0/50 (0) 1/26 (3.8) 1/76 (1.3)  
 Unknown 11/50 (22.0) 10/26 (38.5) 21/76 (27.6)  
Use of contraception (PrMP), n/N (%)     0.016
 Nil 27/50 (54.0) 20/26 (77.0) 47/76 (61.9)  
 Condoms 5/50 (10.0) 0/26 (0) 5/76 (6.6)  
 COCP 12/50 (24.0) 1/26 (3.8) 13/76 (17.1)  
 POP 1/50 (2.0) 0/26 (0) 1/76 (1.3)  
 Copper IUD 0/50 (0) 0/26 (0) 0/76 (0)  
 Mirena IUS 3/50 (6.0) 5/26 (19.2) 8/76 (10.5)  
 Vaginal ring 0/50 (0) 0/26 (0) 0/76 (0)  
 Contraceptive implant 2/50 (4.0) 0/26 (0) 2/76 (2.6)  
 Contraceptive injection 0/50 (0) 0/26 (0) 0/76 (0)  
Use of HRT (PoMP), n/N (%)     0.175
 Yes 5/17 (29.4) 1/16 (6.2) 6/33 (18.2)  
 No 12/17 (70.6) 15/16 (93.8) 27/33 (81.8)  
Diabetes status, n/N (%)     0.001
 Non-diabetic 65/67 (97.0) 32/42 (76.2) 97/109 (89.0)  
 Diabetic 2/67 (3.0) 10/42 (23.8) 12/109 (11.0)  
Diabetic treatment, n/N (%)     0.212
 Diet control only 1/2 (50.0) 3/10 (30.0) 4/12 (33.3)  
 Metformin alone 0/2 (0) 3/10 (30.0) 3/12 (25.0)  
 Metformin combined 2nd diabetic medication 0/2 (0) 0/10 (0) 0/12 (0)  
 Other oral antiglycaemic medication 1/2 (50.0) 0/10 (0) 1/12 (8.4)  
 Insulin (alone or with oral medication) 0/2 (0) 4/10 (40.0) 4/12 (33.3)  
HOMA-IRb, n/N (%)     0.136
 Insulin resistant 2/67 (3.0) 5/42 (11.9) 7/109 (6.4)  
 Non-insulin resistant 5/67 (7.5) 5/42 (11.9) 10/109 (9.2)  
 Unknown insulin resistance status 60/67 (89.5) 32/42 (76.2) 92/109 (84.4)  
  1. BMI body mass index, COCP combined oral contraceptive pill, E. coli Escherichia coli, HOMA-IR homeostatic model of assessment-insulin resistance, HVS high vaginal swab, IUD intrauterine device, IUS intrauterine system, PoMP postmenopausal, POP progesterone-only pill, PrMP premenopausal, S. aureus Staphylococcus aureus, SD standard deviation
  2. aCalculated using Fisher’s exact test. A p value of less than 0.05 demonstrates a significant difference in the distribution of the demographic of interest (e.g. ethnicity), according to obesity status
  3. bHOMA-IR was calculated according to the formula: fasting insulin (μU/L) multiplied by fasting glucose (nmol/L)/22.5. The 2nd tertile was used as the cut-off to determine insulin resistance status. Insulin resistance cut-off value, 2.98