ABSTRACT

Objective:

Parasitological diagnostic methods such as direct microscopy, staining examination and culture methods are frequently used in the diagnosis of Trichomonas vaginalis (T. vaginalis). Though, nowadays, new diagnostic methods, especially DNA-based methods, are developing, enabling the simultaneous recognition of different pathogens. In our study, we evaluated whether the choice of multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR), in which T. vaginalis and different pathogens can be detected, is be an alternative to classical methods and to evaluate the possible coexistence of pathogens.

Methods:

In our study, swab samples taken during routine examination of 100 female patients who presented to Manisa Celal Bayar University and Manisa City Hospital Outpatient Clinics Obstetrics and Gynecology were evaluated. The presence of T. vaginalis was investigated in these samples by direct microscopy, Giemsa stain and culture. Besides T. vaginalis, other possible agents were also investigated by real-time multiplex PCR method.

Results:

At least one agent was detected in 85 (85%) of the 100 patient samples included in our study. T. vaginalis positivity was detected in 6 (6%) of the samples by parasitological diagnosis methods and in 10 (10%) of the samples by multiplex PCR. Additionally, with real-time multiplex PCR, Chlamydia trachomatis in 4 (4%), Neisseria gonorrhoeae in 3 (3%), Ureaplasma urealyticum/parvum in 68 (68%), Gardnerella vaginalis in 68 (68%) and Herpes simplex virus 1/2 in 1 (1%) of the sample positivity was found. Mycoplasma genitalium, another agent examined by multiplex PCR, was not found positive in any sample. The Kappa value of the culture that is a parasitological test and multiplex PCR for T. vaginalis showed moderate agreement with 59.5%.

Conclusion:

It has been concluded that using real-time multiplex PCR method, which has high specificity and sensitivity, in addition to microscopy and culture methods in the diagnosis of T. vaginalis, could contribute to the correct and effective treatment by detecting multiple infections.

Keywords: Trichomonas vaginalis, diagnosis, multiplex PCR

References

Miman Ö, Saygı G. Temel Tıbbi Parazitoloji. İstanbul Tıp Kitabevleri; 2018;p.69-71.

Rowley J, Vander Hoorn S, Korenromp E, Low N, Unemo M, Abu-Raddad LJ, et al. Chlamydia, gonorrhoea, trichomoniasis and syphilis: global prevalence and incidence estimates, 2016. Bull World Health Organ 2019; 97: 548-62.

Petrin D, Delgaty K, Bhatt R, Garber G. Clinical and microbiological aspects of vaginitis. Clin Microbiol Rev 1998; 11: 300-17.

Fouts AC, Kraus SJ. Trichomonas vaginalis: Reevaluation of its clinical presentation and laboratory diagnosis. J Infect Dis 1980; 141: 137-43.

Silver BJ, Guy RJ, Kaldor JM, Jamil MS, Rumbold AR. Trichomonas vaginalis as a cause of perinatal morbidity: A systematic review and Meta-analysis. Sex Transm Dis 2014; 41: 369-76.

Moodley P, Connolly C, Sturm AW. Interrelationships among human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection, bacterial vaginosis, trichomoniasis, and the presence of yeasts. J Infect Dis 2002; 185: 69-73.

Zhang ZF, Begg CB. Is Trichomonas vaginalis a cause of cervical neoplasia? results from a combined analysis of 24 studies. Int J Epidemiol 1994; 23: 682-s90.

Korkmaz M, Ok ÜZ, editörler. Parazitolojide Laboratuvar. Türkiye Parazitoloji Derneği. META Basım. Bornova: İzmir; 2011.

Dogan N, Gitmez F. Investigation of Trichomonas Vaginalis Frequency by Different Methods in Women in Eskisehir province and Evaluation of its Relation with Various Social Variables. Osmangazi Journal of Medicine 2019; 41: 46-57.

Yazısız H, Koyuncu Özyurt Ö, Öztürk Eryiğit F, Özhak B, Öngüt G, Özekinci M. Evaluation of Microscopic Examination, Culture and Polymerase Chain Reaction Tests in the Diagnosis of Trichomonas vaginalis Infection. Mikrobiyoloji Bul 2020; 54: 135-43.

Mayta H, Gilman RH, Calderon MM, Gottlieb A, Soto G, Tuero I, et al. 18S ribosomal DNA-based PCR for diagnosis of Trichomonas vaginalis. J Clin Microbiol 2000; 38: 2683-7.

Pillay A, Radebe F, Fehler G, Htun Y, Ballard RC. Comparison of a TaqMan-based real-time polymerase chain reaction with conventional tests for the detection of Trichomonas vaginalis. Sex Transm Infect 2007; 83: 126-9.

Field N, Clifton S, Alexander S, Ison CA, Khanom R, Saunders P, et al. Trichomonas vaginalis infection is uncommon in the British general population: Implications for clinical testing and public health screening. Sex Transm Infect 2018; 94: 226-9.

Nateghi Rostami M, Hossein Rashidi B, Aghsaghloo F, Habibi A. A multiplex assay of Trichomonas vaginalis, Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections in genital specimens. J Infect Dev Ctries 2017; 11: 833-9.

Leli C, Mencacci A, Latino MA, Clerici P, Rassu M, Perito S, et al. Prevalence of cervical colonization by Ureaplasma parvum, Ureaplasma urealyticum, Mycoplasma hominis and Mycoplasma genitalium in childbearing age women by a commercially available multiplex real-time PCR: An Italian observational multicentre study. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 2018; 51: 220-5.

Kokkayil P, Dhawan B. Ureaplasma: Current perspectives. Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology 2015; 33: 205-14.

Janulaitiene M, Paliulyte V, Grinceviciene S, Zakareviciene J, Vladisauskiene A, Marcinkute A, et al. Prevalence and distribution of Gardnerella vaginalis subgroups in women with and without bacterial vaginosis. BMC Infect Dis 2017; 17: 394.

Groves MJ. Genital Herpes: A Review. Am Fam Physician 2016; 93: 928-34.

Kim JK. Epidemiological trends of sexually transmitted infections among women in cheonan, south korea, 2006-2012. J Microbiol Biotechnol 2013; 23: 1484-90.

Goo YK, Shin WS, Yang HW, Joo SY, Song SM, Ryu JS, et al. Prevalence of Trichomonas vaginalis in women visiting 2 obstetrics and gynecology clinics in Daegu, South Korea. Korean J Parasitol 2016; 54: 75-80.

Comparison of Diagnostic Methods for Detection of Trichomonas vaginalis in Prediagnosed Vaginitis Cases and Its Association with Various Pathogens

ABSTRACT

References