Journal Article
Observational Study
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Management of sexually transmissible infections in the era of multiplexed molecular diagnostics: a primary care survey.

Sexual Health 2018 July
Background Data regarding sexually transmissible infections (STI) often originate from STI clinics, screening programs or laboratory-based studies, thus are biased for specific risk groups or lack clinical details. This real-life observational study presents sample data of most young adult Israeli population by exploiting the centralised diagnostic and documentation platforms resulting from a mandatory military service at the age of 18 years for both genders.

METHODS: All STI diagnoses of Israeli Defence Forces soldiers during a 6-month period were reviewed. Patients with Chlamydia trachomatis (CT), Mycoplasma genitalium (MG), Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) and Trichomonas vaginalis (TV) (major-STI) and Ureaplasma urealyticum (UU), Ureaplasma parvum (UP) and Mycoplasma hominis (MH) (equivocal STI) were compared with STI-negative controls.

RESULTS: Sexually transmissible infection positivity rates (n=2816) were as follows: CT 6.6%; MG 1.9%; NG 0.7%; TV 0.5%; UU 15.7%; UP 28.2%; and MH 6.2%. The CT+MG coinfection rate was 4.1%, yet CT+NG coinfections were rare (≈0.5%). More than half of the patients with ureaplasmas and/or MH were treated; 40% of them were recommended partner treatment. Most antibiotics were prescribed to patients with equivocal infections. Classic STI symptoms in males were linked to major-STI and UU, while females were asymptomatic or presented non-specific symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS: The judicious use of antibiotics in the era of antimicrobial resistance necessitates re-evaluating the significance of equivocal pathogen detection and reporting (MH, UU, UP). Likewise, universal empiric treatment for NG should be reconsidered in light of its low rates in non-high-risk groups. Conversely, a high MG rate, a pathogen with potential resistance to common STI protocols, requires evaluation of guidelines adequacy.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app