International journal of STD & AIDS · 2021
Chlamydia trachomatis anorectal infections by LGV (L1, L2 and L2b) and non-LGV serotypes in symptomatic patients in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
La Rosa Luciana, Svidler López Laura, Entrocassi Andrea C, López Aquino Deysi, Caffarena Dolores, Büttner Karina A, Gallo Vaulet María L, Rodríguez Fermepin Marcelo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) can infect the anorectum producing various signs and symptoms. There is scarce literature regarding the differences between LGV and non-LGV CT anorectal manifestations. We compare the clinical spectrum of LGV and non-LGV infections.
METHODS: Patients over 18 years with presumptive infectious anorectal symptoms were examined in two healthcare centres in Buenos Aires. The patients were studied and treated according to current sexually transmitted infection guidelines. Anorectal swabs were collected to detect and genotype CT.
RESULTS: A three-year-long study on 317 patients with anorectal symptoms showed 45.11% CT infection (85% LGV strains). Of 140 samples, 92 were sequenced: 80/119 LGV (L2b 45%, L1 32.5% and L2 22.5%) and 12/21 non-LGV. Older age and HIV+ status were significantly higher in the LGV group. Anal discharge, bleeding, severe proctitis and anal ulcers were more common in the LGV group. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that HIV infection, anorectal bleeding and oro-anal sex are independent predictors of LGV infection.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with anorectal symptoms, LGV serovars predominate over non-LGV ones. Clinical manifestations are not pathognomonic of a specific biovar. If genotyping is not available, having clinical predictors may help to presume an LGV infection and define length of treatment.
METHODS: Patients over 18 years with presumptive infectious anorectal symptoms were examined in two healthcare centres in Buenos Aires. The patients were studied and treated according to current sexually transmitted infection guidelines. Anorectal swabs were collected to detect and genotype CT.
RESULTS: A three-year-long study on 317 patients with anorectal symptoms showed 45.11% CT infection (85% LGV strains). Of 140 samples, 92 were sequenced: 80/119 LGV (L2b 45%, L1 32.5% and L2 22.5%) and 12/21 non-LGV. Older age and HIV+ status were significantly higher in the LGV group. Anal discharge, bleeding, severe proctitis and anal ulcers were more common in the LGV group. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that HIV infection, anorectal bleeding and oro-anal sex are independent predictors of LGV infection.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with anorectal symptoms, LGV serovars predominate over non-LGV ones. Clinical manifestations are not pathognomonic of a specific biovar. If genotyping is not available, having clinical predictors may help to presume an LGV infection and define length of treatment.