Can men get checked for bacterial vaginosis (BV)?

Can Men Get Checked for BV?

No, men cannot and should not be routinely checked or tested for bacterial vaginosis because BV is a vaginal condition that does not occur in men, and testing male partners is not clinically indicated or recommended. 1, 2

Why Men Cannot Have BV

• BV is specifically a clinical syndrome resulting from replacement of normal H₂O₂-producing Lactobacillus species in the vagina with high concentrations of anaerobic bacteria, Gardnerella vaginalis, and Mycoplasma hominis 1, 2
• The diagnostic criteria for BV (Amsel criteria) require vaginal-specific findings: homogeneous vaginal discharge, clue cells on microscopic examination, vaginal pH >4.5, and a positive whiff test of vaginal discharge 1, 2, 3
• Men do not have vaginas and therefore cannot develop bacterial vaginosis by definition 1

What About BV-Associated Bacteria in Men?

While men cannot have BV itself, they can carry BV-associated bacteria on their genitals:

• BV-associated bacteria including BVAB2, Mageeibacillus indolicus, Sneathia species, and G. vaginalis have been detected on penile skin and in male urethra 4, 5
• However, culture of G. vaginalis is not recommended as a diagnostic tool in anyone because it is not specific—G. vaginalis can be isolated from vaginal cultures in half of normal women 1
• In a study of 317 men who have sex with women, 21% had Sneathia species, 11% had BVAB2, and 5% had M. indolicus, but these bacteria were not associated with non-gonococcal urethritis or any clinical syndrome in men 5

The Evidence Against Testing Male Partners

Traditional guidelines have consistently stated that treatment of male sex partners has not been shown to be beneficial in preventing BV recurrence, and therefore testing or treating male partners is not recommended 1, 2, 3:

• Six older randomized controlled trials of male partner treatment showed no benefit, though a 2012 systematic review found all six trials had significant methodological flaws including suboptimal treatment regimens, poor adherence reporting, and insufficient power 6
• The CDC guidelines from 1993 explicitly state that "treatment of the male sex partner has not been found beneficial in preventing the recurrence of BV" and that "preventing transmission to men is not a goal of therapy" 1

Recent Contradictory Evidence

However, a landmark 2025 randomized controlled trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine directly contradicts older guidelines and found that treating male partners significantly reduced BV recurrence 7:

• The trial was stopped early because treating only the woman was clearly inferior to treating both partners 7
• BV recurred in 35% of women whose male partners received treatment versus 63% in the control group (absolute risk difference of -2.6 recurrences per person-year, P<0.001) 7
• Male partners received oral metronidazole 400mg plus 2% clindamycin cream applied to penile skin, both twice daily for 7 days 7
• A 2021 pilot study similarly showed that concurrent partner treatment significantly reduced BV-associated bacteria at all three anatomical sites (vagina, penile skin, male urethra) immediately post-treatment 4

Clinical Bottom Line

• Do not "check" or test men for BV—there is no validated test or diagnostic criteria for BV in men 1
• Men do not require evaluation or screening for BV-associated bacteria 1, 2
• The clinical question should be reframed: not whether to check men for BV, but whether to treat male partners of women with BV to prevent recurrence 7
• Based on the most recent high-quality evidence from 2025, treating male partners with combination oral and topical antibiotics should be strongly considered to reduce BV recurrence in women, though this represents a significant departure from traditional guidelines 7

Important Caveat

The 2025 NEJM trial represents the highest quality and most recent evidence, but current CDC and ACOG guidelines have not yet been updated to reflect these findings 2, 3. Clinicians should be aware that partner treatment is emerging as evidence-based practice but may not yet be reflected in official treatment guidelines 7.