4.1 Article

Optimal Timing for Trichomonas vaginalis Test of Cure Using Nucleic Acid Amplification Testing

Journal

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES
Volume 46, Issue 5, Pages 312-316

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000968

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institute of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIH/NIAID) [1R01AI097080-01A1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The optimal timing for nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) posttreatment for Trichomonas vaginalis has not been fully established. Testing too soon posttreatment may detect remnant nucleic acid that is not from viable organisms, falsely misclassifying person as infected. The purpose of this study was to examine how long T. vaginalis nucleic acid is detectable postmetronidazole (MTZ) treatment. Methods Women diagnosed with T. vaginalis treated with MTZ (2 g single-dose or 500 mg twice daily for 7 days multidose) self-collected a vaginal swab for NAAT at baseline and each week postcompletion of treatment through test of cure (TOC) at week 4, when a culture was also performed. Women who reported interim sexual exposure or who were culture positive at 4 weeks were excluded. Time to first negative NAAT was examined using Kaplan Meier analysis. Results All women receiving multidose metronidazole were NAAT-negative by 21 days and those receiving single dose by 28 days postcompletion of treatment. Though over half (60.7%) of the cohort reinitiated sex during follow-up all reported using condoms during sex or that they and their partner were treated before sex. Six (6.7%) of 89 had a positive NAAT following their first negative NAAT. Conclusions The optimal timing for T. vaginalis retesting after completion of treatment is 3 weeks for those receiving multidose MTZ and 4 weeks for those receiving single-dose, though sexual reexposure and false negatives should be considered.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available