You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Clinical
Original article
Genital and anal Chlamydia trachomatis bacterial load in concurrently infected women: a cross-sectional study
  1. J A M C Dirks1,2,
  2. Genevieve A F S van Liere3,4,
  3. Christian J P A Hoebe5,
  4. Petra Wolffs1,
  5. Nicole H T M Dukers-Muijrers4
  1. 1 Medical Microbiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
  2. 2 SIM, GGD Zuid Limburg, Geleen, The Netherlands
  3. 3 Department of Sexual Health, Infectious Diseases and Environmental Health, Public Health Service South Limburg, Geleen, The Netherlands
  4. 4 Department of Medical Microbiology, School of Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
  5. 5 Department of Infectious Diseases, South Limburg Public Health Services, Geleen, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to J A M C Dirks, Medical Microbiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, 6202 AZ, The Netherlands; Anne.Dirks{at}mumc.nl

Abstract

Objectives Most international STI guidelines recommend Chlamydia trachomatis anorectal testing in women after self-reported sexual exposure or symptoms in women. However, it has been shown that the prevalence of anorectal C. trachomatis is as high (7%–17 %) in women who do not report anorectal intercourse (AI) as in women who do. This study assessed the correlation between the genital and anorectal C. trachomatis load in concurrently infected women for increased microbiological insight.

Methods A convenience sample of 105 women with a concurrent (genital and anorectal) C. trachomatis infection was included from the STI clinic in South Limburg, the Netherlands. Women provided self-collected vaginal and anorectal swabs. The C. trachomatis load was quantified with qPCR and the human cell load was assessed to ensure sample adequacy. Genital and anorectal C. trachomatis loads were divided into tertiles for comparison. The χ2 test and linear regression were used to compare genital and anorectal C. trachomatis loads and identify determinants associated with load.

Results The overall median C. trachomatis load was higher in genital (median 5.3 log10 C. trachomatis/ml) than anorectal samples (median 3.4, p ≤ 0.001), but both loads were within the same range. The genital and anal load categories were not related within one woman (p = 0.99), both in women with and without AI. The anorectal C. trachomatis load was in the same or higher load category than the genital load in 56% of women without AI, and 79% of women with AI.

Conclusions Although no cut-off for clinical relevance is known, an anorectal C. trachomatis load in the same or higher load category than the genital C. trachomatis load is likely to be clinically relevant. Other measurements should also be taken into account, such as leucocytes or bacterial viability to distinguish infection from contamination or exposure.

  • chlamydia trachomatis
  • bacterial load
  • female genital disease
  • urethritis
  • proctitis

https://doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2018-053678

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Introduction

    With over 131 million prevalent cases in 2012, Chlamydia trachomatis is the most common bacterial STI worldwide.1 C. trachomatis can infect the genital, anorectal and oropharyngeal sites. Although most of these infections are asymptomatic, up to 22% of genital C. trachomatis infections in women might have serious sequelae, such as pelvic inflammatory disease, chronic pelvic pain, ectopic pregnancy and tubal factor infertility.2

    Most international STI test guidelines recommend routine testing on the genital site and testing on indication of exposure or symptoms on the anorectal site for women.3–6 Recently, Dutch guidelines changed their anorectal testing recommendations for men who have sex with men (MSM) towards routine testing of all MSM.6 Studies have shown that anorectal C. trachomatis infections are as common in women (7%–17%)7 as in MSM (1%–18%). Notably, the prevalence of anorectal C. trachomatis (7%–17%) is as high in women who do not report anorectal intercourse (AI)8 as in women who report AI. When all women are tested for genital and anorectal C. trachomatis, 71%–95% of women with an anorectal C. trachomatis infection have a concurrent genital infection,7 9 10 and 33%–83% of women with a genital C. trachomatis infection have a concurrent anorectal C. trachomatis infection.7 9 11–14 Anorectal C. trachomatis positivity is equally high in women who report AI as those who do not report AI. Possible explanations of anorectal C. trachomatis in the absence of reported AI include under-reporting of AI, contamination in the laboratory, contamination during self-sampling (eg, accidentally touching the vagina or perineum before sampling anorectally), exposure of the rectum to C. trachomatis (no infection yet, but superficial presence of bacteria), and a ‘true’ infection through autoinoculation via seepage of infected vaginal secretions9 11 or via the digestive tract.15 16

    The bacterial C. trachomatis load has been implicated in affecting several aspects of the disease, such as duration of the infection, transmission, complications and symptoms.17–19 Previously,20 we showed that the anorectal C. trachomatis load in MSM is equal to that of women who report AI, implicating similar clinical relevance. The C. trachomatis load in women that did not report AI was, however, lower than women who reported AI. Besides reported AI, other factors could influence the height of the C. trachomatis load. It is unknown whether the genital bacterial load is correlated with the anorectal C. trachomatis load in concurrently infected women. To obtain more microbiological insight in concurrent C. trachomatis infections in women, this study will investigate the relation between the genital C. trachomatis load and the anorectal C. trachomatis load, both in women with and without AI.

    Methods

    This study is a subanalysis of a previously described study of concurrently infected women from the STI clinic in South Limburg, the Netherlands.20 Trained study nurses provided patients with a visual diagram and verbal instructions about how to take separate self-collected vaginal and anorectal swabs. For the vaginal swab, the patient was instructed to insert the swab 2.5 cm into the vagina, rotate it for 5 to –10 s, and then place it in a capped tube to avoid potential contamination. This procedure was repeated in the anus for the anorectal swab. A review of questionnaires completed by the patients provided data about age, number of partners in the preceding 6 months and self-reported symptoms. Genitourinary symptoms included vaginal discharge, intermenstrual bleeding, postcoital bleeding, abdominal pain and symptoms of a urinary tract infection (dysuria, urinary frequency and haematuria). Anorectal symptoms (proctitis) included rectal discharge, bleeding, pain, redness, burning sensation or itching. All data were registered in an electronic patient registry.

    Since the retrospective data originated from standard care and were analysed anonymously, no further informed consent for data analysis was obtained.

    C. trachomatis load quantification

    Initial C. trachomatis screening was performed with either Roche Cobas Amplicor or Roche Cobas 4800 (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland), which are both very sensitive commercial assays (lower detection limit 40 bacteria/ml21, sensitivity 91.2%–98%,21–23 specificity ≥98.8%.)22 23 The C. trachomatis load was quantified in positive samples by inhouse quantitative PCR (qPCR) targeting the chromosomal OmpA-gene.24 The human cell load was also quantified using the human leucocyte antigen (HLA) gene25 to ensure adequate sampling took place.

    Cycle threshold values were entered into a master curve (calculated from over 10 dilution series), to calculate the C. trachomatis load (log10). The initial diagnostic C. trachomatis screening targets the chlamydial plasmid, which is present in abundance compared to the single-copy OmpA gene used in our load assessment. We assigned samples with a load below the quantification limit (30 C. trachomatis bacteria/ml), a load at half the lowest detection limit of our inhouse PCR. This is a generally accepted method to address values below the quantification limit.26

    C. trachomatis and human cell loads were significantly different in genital and anorectal samples. The anorectal and genital C. trachomatis loads were each divided into tertiles (low/middle/high) based on cycle threshold values to compare the anorectal and genital loads in different sample types. Anorectal swabs were divided into tertiles based on cycle threshold values of <33.0, 33.1–38.3 and >38.4, and genital swabs on cycle threshold values of <27.3, 27.4–31.0 and >31.1.

    Three paired samples were excluded because the genital and anorectal swabs were not taken the same day. Four additional paired samples were excluded because HLA could not be detected in either sample. This resulted in the inclusion of the paired samples of 105 women with a concurrent genital and anorectal C. trachomatis for analyses.

    Statistical analyses

    At the group level, the median C. trachomatis load (continuous) was compared between the genital and the anorectal sites and compared between women who reported AI and women who did not report AI using Mann-Whitney U test. At the individual level, the distribution of the C. trachomatis load categories (low/medium/high) at the genital and anorectal sites were compared using Pearson’s χ2 test. Univariate linear regression analyses were performed to identify determinants associated with genital and anorectal load. The determinants tested were; age, number of sexual partners (1, 2–3, ≤4, based on tertiles), AI and symptoms (genital and anorectal). The number of sexual partners, symptoms and AI were assessed for the past 6 months. No determinants were found to be associated with either the genital or anorectal C. trachomatis loads in women besides AI,20 which is why all analyses are performed separately for women with and without AI. The results were considered statistically significant at p≤0.05. All statistical tests were performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, V.24.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, New York, USA).

    Results

    Characteristics of the study population

    The median age of the women was 22 years (range 16–63, IQR 20–28). In the past 6 months, 31% of women had one sexual partner, 38% had two to three partners, and 31% had four or more partners. AI was reported by 45.7% (48/105) of women. Proctitis symptoms were reported by 17% (n=8) of women who reported AI and by 5% (n=2) of women who did not report AI. Genital symptoms were reported by 64% (n=67) of the women included in the analyses.

    Genital and anorectal chlamydial load in women

    Overall, the median genital C. trachomatis load was higher than the median anorectal C. trachomatis load (5.30 log10 C. trachomatis/ml vs 3.42 log10 C. trachomatis/ml, p<0.001), both in women who did not report AI (5.40 log10 C. trachomatis/ml vs 2.65 log10 C. trachomatis/ml, p<0.001) and in women who reported AI (5.06 log10 C. trachomatis/ml vs 3.74 log10 C. trachomatis/ml, p=0.004) (figure 1). The genital load was similar in women who reported AI and women who did not (5.06 log10 C. trachomatis/ml vs 5.40 log10 C. trachomatis/ml; p=0.1).

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Chlamydia load in concurrently infected women, split per anatomical location. The median Chlamydia trachomatis load in genital samples was 5.3, and in anorectal samples 3.4 (p<0.05). Dark grey indicates reported anorectal intercourse, while light grey dots represent women who did not report anorectal intercourse.

    Then we compared the distribution of the load (categories: high/medium/low) between both anatomical sites at the individual level. The categorical distribution of the genital load was similar to that of the anorectal load within the same woman (p=0.99). Results were the same when analyses were stratified for self-reported AI (p=0.60 for women with AI, p=0.52 for women without AI, figure 2 and table 1).

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    .1Chlamydia trachomatis load in concurrently infected women. The anorectal and genital loads are depicted per woman in one dot. Dark grey indicates reported anorectal intercourse, while light grey dots represent women who did not report anorectal intercourse.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    The categorised genital and anorectal Chlamydia trachomatis loads in women

    Although no cut-off for clinical relevance is known, an anorectal C. trachomatis load equal to or higher than the genital C. trachomatis load is likely clinically relevant. As can be seen in table 1, this would mean that 32 (56%) of clinically relevant anorectal infections are found in women without AI, compared with 38 (79%) in women with AI.

    This is the largest study to date to investigate the C. trachomatis load in concurrently infected women to assess the correlation between the genital and anorectal C. trachomatis loads within one woman. We demonstrated that the median genital load was higher than the median anorectal C. trachomatis load at the group level, with a similar range. At the individual level, the categorical distribution of the genital load was similar to that of the rectal load within the same woman, both in women with and without AI. The anorectal C. trachomatis load was in the same or higher load category as the genital load category in the majority of women, including women that did not report AI, assumably with similar clinical relevance.

    This study describes a unique data set, in that women are rarely sampled at the genital and anorectal sites simultaneously irrespective of symptoms or sexual behaviour, and the C. trachomatis load is quantified even less frequently. Only one other study by Dubbink et al has quantified the genital and anorectal C. trachomatis loads within one woman, but no direct comparison was made.14 In this study, the median genital load was higher than the median anorectal load in concurrently infected women, which was similar to the results found in the present study.

    Direct comparison of the C. trachomatis load in genital and anorectal swabs within one women is problematic, as both the C. trachomatis and human cell loads are differently distributed,27 which indicates different sample types, despite their sharing similar epithelium (data not shown). By dividing the C. trachomatis load into three load categories (low/middle/high), we were able to compare the C. trachomatis loads in the same woman while evading the problem of directly comparing the different sample types. Another way to overcome sample-type differences in load is normalisation of the C. trachomatis load for a common (human) marker, but our previous study showed that the currently used markers (eg, HLA or β-globin) are unsuitable because they cannot distinguish epithelial from inflammatory cells, and the quantity of human cells is further influenced by behavioural factors such as AI.27 The use of lysis buffer in the storage solution necessitates the use of molecular markers for cell type analyses, as microscopy cannot be performed on these samples.

    We are aware that our research is limited due to the use of a convenience sample for practical reasons, as too few women with an anorectal only C. trachomatis infection (n=6) were tested at the STI clinic in the same time period to be used as a control group. This limitation highlights the difficulty of collecting data in the absence of routine anorectal testing. Furthermore, we did not assess (all) possible sources of contamination, such as the order of sampling or hygiene practices. For example, patients were not instructed about the order of vaginal and anorectal sampling, whereas swabbing the anus before the vagina might change the results as contamination might be reduced when doing it in this order. This was assessed more in-depth in a subsequent study.28 An additional possible source of error is the use of qPCR for screening and quantification, which is much more sensitive than culture, allowing the quantification of low loads, however, it does not distinguish between viable and non-viable C. trachomatis bacteria. Congruently, it has been demonstrated that clinical determinants are better correlated to culture results than nucleic acid amplification test-based results.17

    This study demonstrated that the genital and anorectal loads are highly variable within one woman (eg, high genital load with a low anorectal load, and vice versa). To obtain best insight into the data, we have chosen to present the data in two different ways: absolute data and in categories. This latter presentation was chosen due to the different sample types, in which we feel that the load cannot be compared directly. Although no cut-off for clinical relevance is known, we believe that an anorectal C. trachomatis load equal to or higher than the genital C. trachomatis load is unlikely to be due to contamination or exposure, and is therefore likely clinically relevant. This implies that the majority of women without AI (56%) have a clinically relevant anorectal infection (compared with 79% in women with AI). In addition to the C. trachomatis load, other measurements can be taken into account to determine clinical relevance, such as leucocytes or bacterial viability,29 to distinguish infection from contamination or exposure.

    In short, we found that in concurrently infected women the genital C. trachomatis load was on average higher than the anorectal C. trachomatis load in the majority of the women, but the C. trachomatis load range was similar. The categorical distribution of the genital load was similar to that of the rectal load within the same woman, notwithstanding self-reported AI. The anorectal C. trachomatis load appears to indicate a clinically relevant infection in the majority of women, including 56% of women without self-reported AI. Further studies are needed to establish a C. trachomatis load cut-off for clinical relevance, and to investigate the correlation to clinical disease and treatment necessity.

    Key messages

    • ​Chlamydia trachomatis bacterial load cannot be directly compared between genital and anorectal swabs because the samples are too different.

    • At the group level, the median C. trachomatis load was higher in genital than anorectal samples, but both loads were within the same range.

    • At the individual level, the categorical distribution of the genital and anorectal loads was similar to that of the rectal load within the same woman.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. World Health Organisation
      . Who guidelines approved by the guidelines review Committee. Who guidelines for the treatment of Chlamydia trachomatis. 2016. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2016.
    2. ↵
      2. Herzog SA ,
      3. Heijne JCM ,
      4. Althaus CL , et al
      . Describing the progression from Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae to pelvic inflammatory disease: systematic review of mathematical modeling studies. Sex Transm Dis 2012;39:628–37.doi:10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31825159ff
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    3. ↵
      1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
      . Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines. chlamydial infections, 2015. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/std/tg2015/chlamydia.htm
    4. ↵
      1. International Union against Sexually Transmitted Infections (IUSTI)
      . European guideline for the organisation of a consultation for sexually transmitted infections, 2012. Available: http://iusti.org/regions/Europe/pdf/2012/European_guideline_onSTIconsultation2012final.pdf
    5. ↵
      1. Australian STI management guidelines for use in primary care
      . Chlamydia. Diagnosis, 2015. Available: http://www.sti.guidelines.org.au/sexually-transmissible-infections/chlamydia#diagnosis
    6. ↵
      1. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM)
      . Draaiboek consult seksuele gezondheid. Deeldraaiboek 5: Testbeleid, 2015. Available: http://www.rivm.nl/dsresource?objectid=rivmp:284506&type=org&disposition=inline
    7. ↵
      2. Dukers-Muijrers NHTM ,
      3. Schachter J ,
      4. van Liere GAFS , et al
      . What is needed to guide testing for anorectal and pharyngeal Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in women and men? Evidence and opinion. BMC Infect Dis 2015;15.doi:10.1186/s12879-015-1280-6
    8. ↵
      2. Dukers-Muijrers NHTM ,
      3. Schachter J ,
      4. van Liere GAFS , et al
      . What is needed to guide testing for anorectal and pharyngeal Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in women and men? evidence and opinion. BMC Infect Dis 2015;15.doi:10.1186/s12879-015-1280-6
    9. ↵
      2. van Liere GAFS ,
      3. Hoebe CJPA ,
      4. Wolffs PFG , et al
      . High co-occurrence of anorectal Chlamydia with urogenital Chlamydia in women visiting an STI clinic revealed by routine universal testing in an observational study; a recommendation towards a better anorectal Chlamydia control in women. BMC Infect Dis 2014;14.doi:10.1186/1471-2334-14-274
    10. ↵
      2. Musil K ,
      3. Currie M ,
      4. Sherley M , et al
      . Rectal Chlamydia infection in women at high risk of Chlamydia attending Canberra sexual health centre. Int J STD AIDS 2016;27.doi:10.1177/0956462415586317
    11. ↵
      2. Ding A ,
      3. Challenor R
      . Rectal Chlamydia in heterosexual women: more questions than answers. Int J STD AIDS 2014;25:587–92.doi:10.1177/0956462413515637
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    12. ↵
      2. Peters RPH ,
      3. Dubbink JH ,
      4. van der Eem L , et al
      . Cross-sectional study of genital, rectal, and pharyngeal Chlamydia and gonorrhea in women in rural South Africa. Sex Transm Dis 2014;41:564–9.doi:10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000175
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    13. ↵
      2. van Liere GAFS ,
      3. Hoebe CJPA ,
      4. Niekamp A-M , et al
      . Standard symptom- and sexual history-based testing misses anorectal Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections in swingers and men who have sex with men. Sex Transm Dis 2013;40:285–9.doi:10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31828098f8
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    14. ↵
      2. Dubbink JH ,
      3. de Waaij DJ ,
      4. Bos M , et al
      . Microbiological characteristics of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections in South African women. J Clin Microbiol 2016;54:200–3.doi:10.1128/JCM.02848-15
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    15. ↵
      2. Rank RG ,
      3. Yeruva L
      . Hidden in plain sight: chlamydial gastrointestinal infection and its relevance to persistence in human genital infection. Infect Immun 2014;82:1362–71.doi:10.1128/IAI.01244-13
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    16. ↵
      2. Yeruva L ,
      3. Spencer N ,
      4. Bowlin AK , et al
      . Chlamydial infection of the gastrointestinal tract: a reservoir for persistent infection. Pathog Dis 2013;68:88–95.doi:10.1111/2049-632X.12052
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    17. ↵
      2. Vodstrcil LA ,
      3. McIver R ,
      4. Huston WM , et al
      . The epidemiology of Chlamydia trachomatis organism load during genital infection: a systematic review. J Infect Dis 2015;211:1628–45.doi:10.1093/infdis/jiu670
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    18. ↵
      2. Geisler WM ,
      3. Whittington WLH ,
      4. Suchland RJ , et al
      . Epidemiology of anorectal chlamydial and gonococcal infections among men having sex with men in Seattle: utilizing serovar and auxotype strain typing. Sex Transm Dis 2002;29:189–95.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    19. ↵
      2. van Rooijen MS ,
      3. van der Loeff MFS ,
      4. Morré SA , et al
      . Spontaneous pharyngeal Chlamydia trachomatis RNA clearance. A cross-sectional study followed by a cohort study of untreated STI clinic patients in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Sex Transm Infect 2015;91:157–64.doi:10.1136/sextrans-2014-051633
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    20. ↵
      2. van Liere GAFS ,
      3. Dirks JAMC ,
      4. Hoebe CJPA , et al
      . Anorectal Chlamydia trachomatis load is similar in men who have sex with men and women reporting anal sex. PLoS One 2015;10:e0134991.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0134991
    21. ↵
      2. Marlowe EM ,
      3. Hardy D ,
      4. Krevolin M , et al
      . High-Throughput Testing of Urogenital and Extragenital Specimens for Detection of Chlamydia Trachomatis and Neisseria Gonorrhoeae with Cobas® CT/NG. Eur J Microbiol Immunol 2017;7:176–86.doi:10.1556/1886.2017.00018
      OpenUrl
    22. ↵
      2. Nye MB ,
      3. Osiecki J ,
      4. Lewinski M , et al
      . Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae with the cobas CT/NG v2.0 test: performance compared with the BD ProbeTec CT Qx and GC Qx amplified DNA and Aptima AC2 assays. Sex Transm Infect 2019;95.doi:10.1136/sextrans-2018-053545
    23. ↵
      2. Van Der Pol B ,
      3. Liesenfeld O ,
      4. Williams JA , et al
      . Performance of the cobas CT/NG test compared to the Aptima AC2 and Viper CTQ/GCQ assays for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae. J Clin Microbiol 2012;50:2244–9.doi:10.1128/JCM.06481-11
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    24. ↵
      2. Jalal H ,
      3. Stephen H ,
      4. Curran MD , et al
      . Development and validation of a rotor-gene real-time PCR assay for detection, identification, and quantification of Chlamydia trachomatis in a single reaction. J Clin Microbiol 2006;44:206–13.doi:10.1128/JCM.44.1.206-213.2006
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    25. ↵
      2. van der Helm JJ ,
      3. Sabajo LOA ,
      4. Grunberg AW , et al
      . Point-of-care test for detection of urogenital Chlamydia in women shows low sensitivity. a performance evaluation study in two clinics in Suriname. PLoS One 2012;7:e32122.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032122
    26. ↵
      2. Hornung RW ,
      3. Reed LD
      . Estimation of average concentration in the presence of Nondetectable values. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 1990;5:46–51.doi:10.1080/1047322X.1990.10389587
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    27. ↵
      2. Dirks JAMC ,
      3. Hoebe CJPA ,
      4. van Liere GAFS , et al
      . Standardisation is necessary in urogenital and extragenital Chlamydia trachomatis bacterial load determination by quantitative PCR: a review of literature and retrospective study. Sex Transm Infect 2019.doi:10.1136/sextrans-2018-053522
    28. ↵
      2. Dukers-Muijrers NHTM ,
      3. Wolffs PFG ,
      4. Eppings L , et al
      . Design of the FemCure study: prospective multicentre study on the transmission of genital and extra-genital Chlamydia trachomatis infections in women receiving routine care. BMC Infect Dis 2016;16.doi:10.1186/s12879-016-1721-x
    29. ↵
      2. Janssen KJH ,
      3. Hoebe CJPA ,
      4. Dukers-Muijrers NHTM , et al
      . Viability-PCR shows that NAAT detects a high proportion of DNA from non-viable Chlamydia trachomatis. PLoS One 2016;11:e0165920.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0165920

    Footnotes

    • JAMCD and GAFSvL contributed equally.

    • Handling editor Jackie A Cassell

    • Contributors CJPAH, PW, NHTMD-M, JAMCD and GAFSvL contributed to the design of the work. JAMCD and GAFSvL partook in the acquisition and analyses of the data for the work. GAFSvL and GAFSvL drafted the work, which was revised critically by PW, NHTMD-M and CJPAH.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Ethics approval Medical Ethical Committee of the University of Maastricht, The Netherlands (METC 11-4-108).

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

    Linked Articles