| Popis: |
Yan Han,1,2 Yue-Ping Yin,1,2 Jing-Wei Liu,1,2 Kai Chen,1,2 Bang-Yong Zhu,3 Ke Zhou,1,2 Mei-Qin Shi,1,2 Wen-Qi Xu,1,2 Tulip A Jhaveri,4 Xiang-Sheng Chen1,2 1Institute of Dermatology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Nanjing, People’s Republic of China; 2National Center for STD Control, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Nanjing, People’s Republic of China; 3Institute of Dermatology, Guangxi Autonomous Region, Nanning, People’s Republic of China; 4Division of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USACorrespondence: Yue-Ping YinInstitute of Dermatology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 12 Jiangwangmiao Street, Nanjing, 210042, People’s Republic of ChinaTel/Fax +86 258 547 8024Email yinyp@ncstdlc.orgBackground: Previous studies have investigated rectal Mycoplasma genitalium (MG) in men who have sex with men (MSM), while little is known about the prevalence of rectal MG infection in individuals attending sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics in China. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of rectal MG infection in this population and identified the potential risk factors for rectal MG infection.Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among individuals attending STD clinics located in China from June 2018 to August 2020. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to explore the association of different risk factors for rectal MG infection.Results: A total of 1,382 patients were included in the final analyses. A total of 30 of 1377 rectal swabs (2.2%) and 77 of 1374 urogenital samples (5.6%) were positive for MG. In Guangxi, 18 of 47 patients (38.3%) infected with urogenital MG and 5 of 19 patients (26.3%) infected with rectal MG received the recommended treatment. Factors found to be significantly associated with rectal MG infection included: male (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.232, [95% CI: 0.072– 0.745]) compared to female, homosexual or bisexual (AOR 40.427, [95% CI: 3.880– 421.196]) compared to heterosexual, and those infected with urogenital MG (AOR 7.215, [95% CI: 2.898– 17.965]) compared to those who did not get infected with urogenital MG.Conclusion: Rectal MG infection should be thought of not only in MSM population but also in STD clinic patients, especially females who have urogenital MG infection. Appropriate strategy for rectal MG screening and treatment needs to be developed for these patients in China.Keywords: Mycoplasma genitalium, rectal infection, sexually transmitted disease clinics |
