metricas
covid
Buscar en
Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica (English Edition)
Toda la web
Inicio Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica (English Edition) Pitfalls in the interpretation of results returned by multiplex real-time PCR pa...
Journal Information
Vol. 42. Issue 6.
Pages 333-334 (June - July 2024)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Visits
21
Vol. 42. Issue 6.
Pages 333-334 (June - July 2024)
Scientific letter
Full text access
Pitfalls in the interpretation of results returned by multiplex real-time PCR panels in the diagnosis of non-gonococcal male urethritis: The case of Ureaplasma urealyticum
Dificultades en la interpretación de los resultados obtenidos por paneles de PCR multiplex en tiempo real en el diagnóstico de la uretritis no gonocócica masculina: el caso de Ureaplasma urealyticum
Visits
21
María Jesús Castañoa,
Corresponding author
castano_mjearo@gva.es

Corresponding author.
, María Jesús Alcaraza, Eliseo Alberta, David Navarroa,b,c
a Microbiology Service, Hospital Clínico Universitario, INCLIVA Research Institute, Valencia, Spain
b Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, University of Valencia, Spain
c Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Infecciosas (CIBERINFEC), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain
This item has received
Article information
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Tables (1)
Table 1. Demographics and microorganisms detected in NGU and control group.
Full Text

Ureaplasma urealyticum (UU) has been linked to non-gonococcal urethritis (NGU) only when present at high loads and other pathogens have been excluded.1 Despite the extensive use of molecular syndromic panels targeting UU in the diagnosis of NGU, the qualitative results obtained complicate the straightforward attribution of UU as the cause of NGU. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the potential utility of the PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value in “real life” for discriminating between colonization and the potential pathogenetic involvement of this microorganism. We retrospectively analyzed all data obtained from men with suspicion of urethritis attended at the Department of Health Clínico-Malvarrosa (Valencia, Spain) between October 2018 and December 2019. According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, patients were categorized as having urethritis in the presence of urethral discharge and/or ≥2 polymorphonuclear leukocytes (PMNL) per high-power field (1000×) in Gram staining.2 NGU was defined by the absence of Gram-negative intracellular diplococci on urethral smears and negative PCR and culture for Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG).2,3 The control group included asymptomatic subjects attending for sexually transmitted disease (STD) screening with no evidence of urethral inflammation.

All individuals provided one first-void and middle-stream urine for mycoplasma culture (Mycoplasma IST2, BioMérieux)4 and quantitative culture on BBL™ CHROMagar™ plates (Becton-Dickinson), and three urethral exudates (Dry Swabs 162C, COPAN®) for Gram staining, conventional culture on GC II agar with IsoVitaleX (Becton-Dickinson) and BBL™ Thayer-Martin selective agar (Becton-Dickinson), and a multiplex real-time PCR (RQ-SevenSTI, AB Analitica) detecting NG, UU, Chlamydia trachomatis (CT), Mycoplasma genitalium (MG), Trichomonas vaginalis (TV), Mycoplasma hominis (MH) and Ureaplasma parvum (UP). DNA extraction was carried out using the automated QIAsymphony SP extractor and the Virus/Pathogen Mini extraction kit (QIAGEN GmbH). Since it is not possible to distinguish between UU and UP by mycoplasma culture, all samples positive for UP were excluded. The Fisher's exact test and the Mann–Whitney U-test were used to compare frequencies and PCR Ct values across groups, using SPSS version 20.0 (Chicago, USA). P-values<0.05 were considered statistically significant.

A total of 175 subjects were included, 101 patients with NGU and 74 asymptomatic controls. Demographics, clinical data and microorganisms detected in both groups are shown in Table 1. As expected, CT and MG were the most frequently pathogens found in NGU group.5 However, the frequency of detecting UU by PCR was comparable in both groups, whether they presented coinfections or if we considered those patients in whom UU was the only detected microorganism. This differs from the findings in a recent meta-analysis where the PCR detection rate of UU in suspected NGU patients was 18.31%, significantly higher than that in controls (13.7%).6 However, a direct comparison with our study is limited because some studies in the meta-analysis lacked information on co-infections with other pathogens. Notably, most studies in the meta-analysis used a cut-off of ≥5PMNL/1000×, in contrast to our study's2, as recommended by the CDC in high-prevalence settings.2 In our study, among the 9 of the 10 NGU patients in whom UU was the only detected microorganism and clinical data was available, all but one patient received empirical or targeted antimicrobial therapy (macrolides, tetracyclines, or quinolones) and resolved their clinical symptoms. These findings may suggest the casual involvement of UU in our study. However, a notable limitation of our series is the inability to rule out other non-cultivable pathogens contributing to NGU such as herpesvirus and adenovirus.5 In 2018, the Editorial Board of the European Guidelines for STD recommended antimicrobial treatment for men diagnosed of NGU attributable to UU only when the bacterial load is ≥103 genome equivalents/ml of urine. In our study, the median Ct value for UU was similar (P=0.41) in cases (29; IQR, 28–33) and controls (31; IQR, 28–35), irrespective of whether other microorganisms were co-detected (28; IQR, 26–32) or not (32; IQR, 28–35). In conclusion, these findings suggest that Ct values do not correlate with clinical presentation and do not endorse the clinical utility of PCR Ct values in inferring the potential causal involvement of UU in NGU in a real-life setting. The limitations in ruling out other non-cultivable pathogens contributing to NGU emphasizes the need for further research in understanding the role of UU in urethritis.

Table 1.

Demographics and microorganisms detected in NGU and control group.

  NGU patients (n=101)  Controls (n=74)  P-value 
Median age in years (range)  29 (14–81)  27 (17–61)  0.534 
Clinical presentation (%)
Urethral discharge  94/99 (94.9)  –  NA 
Dysuria  47/99 (47.4)  –  NA 
Itching  10/99 (10.1)  –  NA 
Meatitis  6/99 (6.0)  –  NA 
Microorganisms detected by PCR; n/total (%)
Chlamydia trachomatis  23/101 (22.7)  6/74 (8.1)  0.003 
Mycoplasma genitalium  11/101 (10.8)  2/74 (2.7)  0.049 
Trichomonas vaginalis  8/101 (7.1)  1/74 (1.3)  0.035 
Mycoplasma hominis  7/101 (6.9)  5/74 (6.7)  1.00 
Ureaplasma urealyticum  19/101 (18.8)  13/74 (17.5)  0.713 
Microorganisms detected by mycoplasma culture; n/total (%)
Mycoplasma hominis  1/101 (0.009)  –  NA 
Ureaplasma urealyticuma  9/101 (8.9)  6/74 (8.1)  0.621 
Ureaplasma urealyticum coinfections; n/total (%)
Chlamydia trachomatis  2/19 (10.5)  2/13 (15.3)  0.385 
Mycoplasma genitalium  –  1/13 (7.6)  NA 
Trichomonas vaginalis  4/19 (21)  1/13 (7.6)  0.010 
Mycoplasma hominis  3/19 (15.7)  3/13 (23)  0.212 

–: negative; NA: not applicable.

a

No positive mycoplasma cultures with negative PCR results were observed. Both quantitative urine cultures and conventional cultures of urethral exudate were all negative.

Authors’ contributions

María Jesús Castaño, María Jesús Alcaraz and Eliseo Albert: data curation and analysis. María Jesús Castaño and David Navarro: study design and manuscript drafting. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant competing interest to disclose about this work.

Acknowledgments

Eliseo Albert holds a Juan Rodés Contract (JR20/00011) funded by the Carlos III Health Institute (co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund, ERDF/FEDER).

References
[1]
P. Horner, G. Donders, M. Cusini, M. Gomberg, J.S. Jensen, M. Unemo.
Should we be testing for urogenital Mycoplasma hominis Ureaplasma parvum and Ureaplasma urealyticum in men and women? A position statement from the European STI Guidelines Editorial Board.
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol, 32 (2018), pp. 1845-1851
[2]
K.A. Workowski, L.H. Bachmann, P.A. Chan, C.M. Johnston, C.A. Muzny, I. Park, et al.
Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines.
2021 CDC MMWR Recomm Rep, 70 (2021), pp. 1-187
[3]
B. Sadoghi, B. Kränke, P. Komericki, G. Hutterer.
Sexually transmitted pathogens causing urethritis: a mini-review and proposal of a clinically based diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm.
Front Med (Lausanne), 9 (2022), pp. 931765
[4]
T. D’Inzeo, G. De Angelis, B. Fiori, G. Menchinelli, F.M. Liotti, G.A. Morandotti, et al.
Comparison of mycoplasma IES mycofast revolution and mycoplasma IST2 to detect genital mycoplasmas in clinical samples.
J Infect Dev Ctries, 11 (2017), pp. 98-101
[5]
E. Toh, X. Gao, J.A. Williams, T.A. Batteiger, L.A. Coss, M. LePradd, et al.
Evaluation of clinical, Gram stain, and microbiological cure outcomes in men receiving azithromycin for acute nongonococcal urethritis: discordant cures are associated with Mycoplasma genitalium infection.
Sex Transm Dis, 49 (2022), pp. 67-75
[6]
N. Zhang, R. Wang, X. Li, X. Liu, Z. Tang, Y. Liu.
Are Ureaplasma spp. a cause of nongonococcal urethritis? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Copyright © 2024. Sociedad Española de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica
Download PDF
Article options
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos