IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0215606.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Chlamydia trachomatis bacterial load, estimated by Cq values, in urogenital samples from men and women visiting the general practice, hospital or STI clinic

Author

Listed:
  • Juliën N A P Wijers
  • Christian J P A Hoebe
  • Geneviève A F S van Liere
  • Petra F G Wolffs
  • Nicole H T M Dukers-Muijrers

Abstract

Background: The bacterial load of Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) is assumed to play a role in transmission and sequelae. We assessed urogenital CT cycle quantification (Cq) values, as an indicator for CT load, of men and women diagnosed by general practitioners (GPs), hospital physicians and the STI clinic. Methods: Urogenital CT-positive samples (n = 2,055 vaginal swabs, n = 77 cervical swabs, n = 1,519 urine samples and n = 19 urethral swabs) diagnosed by GPs, hospital physicians and the STI clinic from the Maastricht Medical Microbiology Laboratory were included (2012–2016). The outcome measure ‘urogenital Cq values’ was used as an inversely proportional measure for CT load. Among all patients, multivariate linear regression analyses were used to assess primary determinants for mean urogenital Cq values, stratified by sex. Additional clinical determinants were assessed among STI clinic patients. Results: In men, mean urogenital Cq values were similar between GPs, hospital physicians and the STI clinic (32.7 and 33.5 vs. 32.7; p>0.05). Women visiting the GP had lower urogenital Cq values than women visiting the STI clinic (30.2 vs. 30.9; p = 3 Cq) when STI clinic women also had anorectal CT. This finding could indicate higher urogenital CT loads and likely higher chances of transmission and sequelae.

Suggested Citation

  • Juliën N A P Wijers & Christian J P A Hoebe & Geneviève A F S van Liere & Petra F G Wolffs & Nicole H T M Dukers-Muijrers, 2019. "Chlamydia trachomatis bacterial load, estimated by Cq values, in urogenital samples from men and women visiting the general practice, hospital or STI clinic," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-14, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0215606
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215606
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215606
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215606&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0215606?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carole Lunny & Darlene Taylor & Linda Hoang & Tom Wong & Mark Gilbert & Richard Lester & Mel Krajden & Gina Ogilvie, 2015. "Self-Collected versus Clinician-Collected Sampling for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea Screening: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-23, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0215606. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.