ABSTRACT

Trichomonas vaginalis is a prevalent sexually transmitted infection (STI). Diagnosis has historically relied on either microscopic analysis or culture, the latter being the previous gold standard. However, these tests are not readily available for male diagnosis, generally only perform well for symptomatic women, and are not as sensitive as nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs). Men are largely asymptomatic but carry the organism and transmit to their sexual partners. This multicenter, prospective study evaluated the performance of the cobas T. vaginalis/Mycoplasma genitalium (TV/MG) assay for detection of T. vaginalis DNA compared with patient infection status (PIS) defined by a combination of commercially available NAATs and culture using urogenital specimens. A total of 2,064 subjects (984 men and 1,080 women, 940 [45.5%] symptomatic, 1,124 [54.5%] asymptomatic) were evaluable. In women, sensitivity ranged from 99.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 96.8 to 99.9%) using vaginal samples to 94.7% (95% CI 90.2 to 97.2%) in PreservCyt samples. Specificity ranged from 98.9 to 96.8% (95% CI 95.4 to 97.8%). In men, the cobas TV/MG assay was 100% sensitive for the detection of T. vaginalis in both male urine samples and meatal swabs, with specificity of 98.4% in urine samples and 92.5% in meatal swabs. The cobas TV/MG is a suitable diagnostic test for the detection of T. vaginalis, which could support public health efforts toward infection control and complement existing STI programs.

INTRODUCTION

Trichomonas vaginalis is considered one of the most common curable sexually transmitted infections (STIs) (1, 2), with the World Health Organization (WHO) estimating 156 million cases in 2016, a higher prevalence than Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, or syphilis (3). T. vaginalis is currently not a reportable disease and the true estimation of disease prevalence is not currently known. Some of the factors contributing to this are a lack of routine testing and nonspecific symptomatology, and infected men being predominantly asymptomatic (4, 5).
A large proportion of T. vaginalis infections are asymptomatic; however, symptoms can include urethral discharge, primarily in males, and abnormal vaginal discharge, dysuria, itching, irritation, and abdominal pain in females (1). The consequences of untreated T. vaginalis infection may include pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) and adverse outcomes of pregnancy (6). T. vaginalis infection has also been shown to increase the risk of HIV by 50% via several mechanisms, including damage to the vaginal epithelial membrane by the protozoa (6).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that women presenting with symptoms are tested for T. vaginalis, but do not recommend generalized screening of asymptomatic women (7). However, screening is recommended for women living in areas with higher than average prevalence or those who report behaviors that may have resulted in exposure to STIs, or who are HIV positive (8). Coinfection of T. vaginalis with C. trachomatis and/or N. gonorrhoeae in women has been previously reported (9) and symptoms can overlap between infections. Therefore, T. vaginalis infections may be missed and left untreated if C. trachomatis and/or N. gonorrhoeae positivity is presumed to be the cause. In populations with high levels of STI exposure, the inclusion of T. vaginalis testing alongside C. trachomatis/N. gonorrhoeae testing is likely to dramatically increase case finding (10). A study by Sena et al. looked at the prevalence of T. vaginalis infections in the male partners of women with trichomoniasis and observed that 71.7% of the men were also infected, of which 77.3% were asymptomatic (11). Men are seldom tested for T. vaginalis at the time of testing for C. trachomatis/N. gonorrhoeae due to a lack of recommendations and testing methodologies, which is further complicated by the largely asymptomatic nature of T. vaginalis infections. Reliable testing platforms and more data are needed to understand the true prevalence of symptomatic and asymptomatic infections, particularly in male populations.
Laboratory diagnosis of T. vaginalis previously relied on either microscopic analysis of a saline wet mount prepared from the female patient’s discharge, examination of spun sediment in male urine (rarely available in outpatient settings), or culture, the latter formerly being the gold standard (7, 12). These tests are highly specific, although they generally only perform well for symptomatic women and, even then, they are not as sensitive as nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) (7, 12). NAATs for T. vaginalis are available, such as the Aptima CV/TV assay (Hologic, San Diego, USA), the cobas TV/MG assay (Roche Diagnostics, Pleasanton, USA), Xpert TV (Cepheid, Sunnydale, USA), and Amplivue Trichomonas Assay (Quidel Corporation, Athens, USA). There are limited studies available on the performance of these assays; however, they generally demonstrate more than 96% sensitivity for the detection of T. vaginalis (1315).
The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of a new NAAT, the cobas TV/MG assay performed on the cobas 6800/8800 systems, for the detection of T. vaginalis in symptomatic and asymptomatic male and female urogenital samples, compared to a prespecified patient infection status (PIS). The PIS was defined using a combination of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-cleared NAAT and T. vaginalis culture.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patient population and ethics.

This multicenter, prospective clinical study recruited participants at nine sites in the USA: Birmingham, AL; Indianapolis, IN; Jackson, MS; Miami, FL; New Haven, CT; New Orleans, LA; Oakland, CA; Providence, RI; and St. Louis, MO. Male and female patients, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic, were eligible if they were (i) aged ≥14 years, (ii) reported sexual activity within the past 6 months, and (iii) were attending family planning, obstetrics and gynecology, or STI clinics.
Patients were ineligible if they had (i) previously enrolled in the study; (ii) used antimicrobial agents active against T. vaginalis (metronidazole or tinidazole) within the 21 days prior to sample collection; (iii) used Replens (Church & Dwight, Co., Inc., Princeton, NJ), RepHresh Odor Eliminating Vaginal Gel (Church & Dwight, Co., Inc., Princeton, NJ), RepHresh Clean and Balance (Church & Dwight, Co., Inc., Princeton, NJ) or products containing metronidazole within 21 days prior to specimen collection; (iv) had undergone a total hysterectomy; or (v) had a contraindication to the Papanicolaou test or cervical sampling.
Participants were classified as symptomatic for T. vaginalis infection if they reported any of the following: dysuria; coital issues (pain, difficulty, or bleeding); pelvic pain; abnormal vaginal discharge; unusual vaginal odor; pelvic, uterine or ovarian pain; penile discharge; testicular pain; scrotal pain; or swelling, itching, burning, redness, or soreness of the genitals. This study was conducted in compliance with the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) Good Clinical Practice (GCP) Guidelines and the US FDA regulations. The study protocol was submitted to an Institutional Review Board (IRB) to ensure the local and FDA requirements were met prior to the start of the study. All participants were required to provide informed signed consent. This manuscript was prepared in accordance with the STARD guidelines for reporting of clinical studies (16).

Specimen collection.

Women provided specimens in the following order: a first catch urine (FCU); vaginal swabs; an endocervical swab in cobas PCR medium; and a cervical specimen in PreservCyt solution obtained with a spatula, cytobrush, or broom. Participants were randomized to either the self-obtained or the clinician-obtained arm for collection of vaginal swabs used in the cobas assay. Participants within the self-collected arm obtained their self-collected vaginal swab first, and the remaining swabs were clinician-collected. In the clinician-collected arm, all vaginal swabs were clinician collected. The T. vaginalis swabs were collected as follows; Hologic APTIMA TV assay, the cobas TV assay, and finally the InPouch TV assay (Biomed Diagnostics, White City, OR) specimen, which was collected last in the series due to the use of a speculum. Following collection, the clinician transferred the swabs to the relevant transport medium, as per the respective comparator test’s standard procedure. Participants randomized to the clinician-collected arm had their vaginal swab specimen for cobas testing collected by the clinician. Both the endocervical swab and the liquid-based cytology (LBC) sample were collected for assessment with the cobas assay only.
Men first provided self- or clinician-collected meatal swabs (collected in randomized order) for use with the cobas test, followed by an FCU sample. The FCU sample was aliquoted into the manufacturer’s collection device for the test assays as per the instructions for use (the penile meatal swab is not an FDA-cleared sample type for the detection of TV in the cobas TV/MG assay for use on the cobas 6800/8800 systems).

Sample testing.

Testing with the cobas TV/MG was performed at three sites using at least three lots of investigational reagents. All cobas specimens from a single subject were tested at one individual test site. Specimens from runs with control/operator failures were retested if sufficient sample remained, and individual invalid results were also repeated if sample volume allowed. If invalid results remained invalid upon retesting and there was insufficient volume for further testing, the result remained invalid.
Female and male urogenital specimens were assessed by NAAT using the APTIMA TV assay and the Cepheid Xpert TV assay (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA), respectively, and the InPouch TV Culture System. For female samples, the PIS was deemed positive if their vaginal samples tested positive by either the APTIMA TV assay or the InPouch TV Culture System tests, in accordance with FDA guidelines (17) at the time of the study inception. A negative culture result, plus an invalid NAAT result, was deemed as indeterminate. For male samples, the PIS was deemed positive if male urine samples tested positive via either the Cepheid Xpert TV assay or the InPouch TV Culture System. Again, where there was a negative result and an invalid result, the PIS was deemed indeterminate.

Data analysis.

Test results for each assay were interpreted according to the instructions for use. All data analyses were performed using SAS/STAT software (version 9.4) (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and in accordance with FDA guidance (18). The clinical performance of the cobas test for the detection of T. vaginalis was evaluated by comparing test results for each sample type to the PIS. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated by sex, specimen type, and symptom status and compared to an infected status algorithm for each sex. In the algorithm, the designation of a subject as infected or noninfected was based on the combination of results obtained from comparator assays. Additionally, results were analyzed separately for self-collected and clinician-collected vaginal and penile meatal swab specimens and by testing sites. The two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the estimates of sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were estimated using the Score method (19).

RESULTS

Patient characteristics.

A total of 2,064 subjects were evaluable for T. vaginalis, including 984 men and 1,080 women (Table 1). Twenty-six samples were excluded from T. vaginalis analyses for invalid results, protocol deviation, or insufficient sample volume: 3 female urine, 1 clinician-collected vaginal swab sample, 1 self-collected vaginal swab sample, 6 PreservCyt samples, 6 endocervical swab samples, 1 male urine sample, 2 male clinician-collected samples, 2 male self-collected samples, 1 vaginal swab without collection method information (self or clinician) and 3 meatal swabs without collection method information (self or clinician). Of the women in the final analysis, 542 were included in the clinician-collected and 535 were included in the self-collected arm of the study, with 1,074 women providing valid samples for PreservCyt and endocervical swab analysis and 1,077 women providing valid urine samples. Of the men, 488 were included in the clinician-collected meatal arm and 489 were included in the self-collected meatal arm of the study. A total of 983 men provided valid urine samples for analysis. Positivity for T. vaginalis in this study, based on the PIS, was 15.8% (171/1,080) among all women, and 2.3% (23/983) among all men evaluated (Table 2). The prevalence of T. vaginalis in asymptomatic and symptomatic women was 12.1% (55/455) and 18.6% (11/625), respectively. The prevalence of T. vaginalis in asymptomatic and symptomatic men was 1.5% (10/668) and 4.1% (13/315), respectively. Additional information regarding male and female T. vaginalis positivity by state location can be found in Table S1 in the supplemental information.
TABLE 1
TABLE 1 Baseline demographics and characteristics
CharacteristicaValue(s)
Total (n)2,064
Age, yrs (mean ± SD)35.5 ± 12.5
 Male (n [%])
Female (n [%])
984 (47.7)
1,080 (52.3)
American Indian/Alaskan Native (n [%])
Asian (n [%])
Black/African American (n [%])
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (n [%])
White (n [%])
Multiple/other (n [%])
Not reported (n [%])
3 (0.1)
13 (0.6)
1,433 (69.4)
5 (0.2)
536 (26.0)
54 (2.6)
20 (1.0)
Symptomatic (n [%])
Asymptomatic (n [%])
940 (45.5)
1,124 (54.5)
Pregnant (female only (n [%]))3 (0.3)
Family planning clinic (n [%])
Obstetrics/gynecology clinic (n [%])
STI clinic (n [%])
Family planning/STI clinic (n [%])
521 (25.2)
260 (12.6)
741 (35.9)
542 (26.3)
a
n, number of samples; SD, standard deviation; STI, sexually transmitted infection.
TABLE 2
TABLE 2 Clinical performance compared with PIS by gender, sample type, and symptom statusa
Sample typeTotal (N)% Prevalence (n/N)% Sensitivity (n/N)95% CI% Specificity (n/N)95% CI
Female participants
 Urine
  Symptomatic
  Asymptomatic
  Overall
622
455
1,077
18.6 (116/622)
12.1 (55/455)
15.9 (171/1077)
97.4 (113/116)
98.2 (54/55)
97.7 (167/171)
92.7–99.1
90.4–99.7
94.1–99.1
98.8 (500/506)
98.5 (394/400)
98.7 (894/906)
97.4–99.5
96.8–99.3
97.7–99.2
 Vaginal swab (both clinician- and self-collected)
  Symptomatic
  Asymptomatic
  Overall
623
454
1,077
18.6 (116/623)
12.1 (55/454)
15.9 (171/1077)
100 (116/116)
98.2 (54/55)
99.4 (170/171)
96.8–100
90.4–99.7
96.8–99.9
97.0 (492/507)
96.5 (385/399)
96.8 (877/906)
95.2–98.2
94.2–97.9
95.4–97.8
 PreservCyt samples
  Symptomatic
  Asymptomatic
  Overall
622
452
1,074
18.5 (115/622)
12.2 (55/452)
15.8 (170/1074)
93.9 (108/115)
96.4 (53/55)
94.7 (161/170)
88.0–97.0
87.7–99.0
90.2–97.2
99.2 (503/507)
98.5 (391/397)
98.9 (894/904)
98.0–99.7
96.7–99.3
98.0–99.4
 Endocervical swab
  Symptomatic
  Asymptomatic
  Overall
620
454
1,074
18.5 (115/620)
12.1 (55/454)
15.8 (170/1074)
97.4 (112/115)
98.2 (54/55)
97.6 (116/170)
92.6–99.1
90.4–99.7
94.1–99.1
98.8 (499/505)
97.2 (388/399)
98.1 (887/904)
97.4–99.5
95.1–98.5
97.0–98.8
 All female subjectsb
  Symptomatic
  Asymptomatic
  Overall
625
455
1,080
18.6 (116/625)
12.1 (55/455)
15.8 (171/1080)
    
Male participants
 Urine
  Symptomatic
  Asymptomatic
  Overall
315
668
983
4.1 (13/315)
1.5 (10/668)
2.3 (23/983)
100 (13/13)
100 (10/10)
100 (23/23)
77.2–100
72.2–100
85.7–100
98.3 (297/302)
98.5 (648/658)
98.4 (945/960)
96.2–99.3
97.2–99.2
97.4–99.1
 Meatal swab (both clinician- and self-collected)
  Symptomatic
  Asymptomatic
  Overall
315
662
977
4.1 (13/315)
1.7 (11/662)
2.5 (24/977)
100 (13/13)
100 (11/11)
100 (24/24)
77.2–100
74.1–100
86.2–100
91.1 (275/302)
93.2 (607/651)
92.5 (882/953)
87.3–93.8
91.0–94.9
90.7–94.1
 All male subjectsb
  Symptomatic
  Asymptomatic
  Overall
315
668
983
4.1 (13/315)
1.5 (10/668)
2.3 (23/983)
    
a
CI, confidence interval; N, total number of samples; n, number of T. vaginalis-positive samples (for prevalence), number of positive samples with accurate result (for sensitivity), or number of negative samples with accurate result (for specificity); PIS, patient infected status.
b
These numbers represent the overall prevalence of TV infection in male and female subjects.

Assay performance for the detection of T. vaginalis.

For female specimens (asymptomatic and symptomatic) the sensitivity ranged from 99.4% (95% CI 96.8 to 99.9%) for vaginal samples to 94.7% (95% CI 94.1 to 99.1%) for LBC samples in PreservCyt (Table 2). Specificity across the female specimen types was >96.8%. The cobas TV/MG assay was 100% sensitive for the detection of T. vaginalis in both male urine samples and meatal swabs. Specificity of the cobas assay was higher in male urine samples (98.4%) compared with meatal swabs (92.5%).
Compared with patient infection status (PIS), both clinician-collected and self-collected male and female samples had similar performance with the cobas TV assay (Table 3). Self-collected vaginal swab samples had slightly higher sensitivity and specificity versus clinician-collected samples; however, the differences were not significant (P = 1.00 and P = 0.21 for sensitivity and specificity, respectively). Self-collected meatal swab samples showed similar sensitivity (both 100%) and specificity (92.5% versus 92.6%) performance to clinician-collected samples (P = 1.00 for both sensitivity and specificity, respectively). In female samples, the PPV of the cobas assay for T. vaginalis across different clinics and sample types was 50.0 to 100% and the NPV was 97.3 to 100% (Table S2). In male samples, the PPV of the cobas assay for T. vaginalis was 13.3 to 100% and the NPV was 100% (Table S2).
TABLE 3
TABLE 3 Clinical performance of self-collected versus clinician collected vaginal/meatal swab samplesc
Sample typeTotal (N)% Sensitivity (n/N)95% CI% Specificity (n/N)95% CI
Female vaginal swab samplesa
 Clinician-collected
  Symptomatic
  Asymptomatic
  Overall
335
207
542
100 (71/71)
96.4 (27/28)
99.0 (98/99)
94.9–100
82.3–99.4
94.5–99.8
96.6 (255/264)
95.0 (170/179)
95.9 (425/443)
93.6–98.2
90.7–97.3
93.7–97.4
 Self-collected
  Symptomatic
  Asymptomatic
  Overall
288
247
535
100 (45/45)
100 (27/27)
100 (72/72)
92.1–100
87.5–100
94.9–100
97.5 (237/243)
97.7 (215/220)
97.6 (452/463)
94.7–98.9
94.8–99.0
95.8–98.7
Male meatal swab samplesb     
 Clinician-collected
  Symptomatic
  Asymptomatic
  Overall
169
319
488
100 (7/7)
100 (7/7)
100 (14/14)
64.6–100
64.6–100
78.5–100
91.4 (148/162)
93.3 (291/312)
92.6 (439/474)
86.0–94.8
89.9–95.6
89.9–94.6
 Self-collected
  Symptomatic
  Asymptomatic
  Overall
146
343
489
100 (6/6)
100 (4/4)
100 (10/10)
61.0–100
51.0–100
72.2–100
90.7 (127/140)
93.2 (316/339)
92.5 (443/479)
84.8–94.5
90.0–95.4
89.8–94.5
a
Overall difference in sensitivity (95% CI) and specificity (95% CI) for clinician-collected versus self-collected vaginal swabs was −1.0 (−3.0, 1.0), P = 1.00; and −1.7% (−4.0%, 0.6%), P = 0.21, respectively.
b
Overall difference in sensitivity (95% CI) and specificity (95% CI) for clinician-collected versus self-collected meatal swabs was 0% (−23.2%, 30.9%), P = 1.00; and 0.1% (−3.2%, 3.5%), P = 1.00, respectively.
c
CI, confidence interval; N, total number of samples; n, number of positive samples with accurate result (for sensitivity) or number of negative samples with accurate result (for specificity).
Figure 1 illustrates cobas T. vaginalis positivity across all samples, regardless of infection status. For female samples, most positive samples were positive across all sample types (Fig. 1A). In Fig. 1B, the data show 71/104 meatal swab-only positives. For male urine, only 23/41 positives were confirmed by PIS. However, the cobas meatal swab and urine results were both positive for 10 patients not identified as such by the PIS. On average, both male urine and meatal swab samples that were positive by cobas and negative by PIS had higher cycle threshold (CT) values compared with those samples positive by both cobas and PIS (Fig. 2). The CT values for male urine and meatal swab samples that were positive by the cobas assay can be found in Table S3.
FIG 1
FIG 1 Venn diagrams comparing the cobas T. vaginalis positives in female urogenital samples (A) and male urogenital samples (B).
FIG 2
FIG 2 Distribution of CT values from T. vaginalis positive results with the cobas TV/MG assay in evaluable males. The diamonds represent the mean values and the lines inside the boxes represent the median values. The error bars represent standard deviation, with the circles representing individual samples outside of the error bars. CT, cycle threshold; PIS, patient infection status.

DISCUSSION

In this study, the cobas assay was highly sensitive and specific for the detection of T. vaginalis in both male and female urogenital samples, with sensitivities greater than or similar to those seen with other NAATs for T. vaginalis (7, 9, 12, 20, 21). The sensitivity and specificity of cobas, when compared to the PIS, showed that male urine samples and female vaginal swab samples are preferred for detection of T. vaginalis infection. It is interesting to observe that regardless of the PIS, cobas TV-positive results for men show a higher detection rate in penile meatal swabs (104) versus urine (41), and only 33 men had T. vaginalis detected in both their urine and meatal swab samples (Fig. 1B). A previous study observed that among the paired specimens of meatal swabs and urine, T. vaginalis was detected in a higher percentage of meatal swabs compared with urine samples (80.4% versus 39.3%) (22). Similar to our clinical trial study, Dize et al. collected the meatal swabs prior to the collection of urine (22). Another study also observed a higher detection rate among the paired collections of meatal swabs (8.0%) versus urine (1.7%) (23). It is important to note that in this particular study, Chernesky et al. randomized the sequence of collection between these two specimens (23) and therefore this mitigates the concern that the meatal swab collected the majority of T. vaginalis if it was collected prior to the urine collection. This would suggest that the higher detection rates in meatal swabs may be inherently due to the parasite’s pathophysiology; T. vaginalis might adhere to the urethra and be less likely to detach in urine versus other samples (24). The higher CT values for male samples positive by cobas and negative by PIS compared with the lower CT values for samples positive by both cobas and PIS may also indicate the increased sensitivity of cobas for detecting samples with lower parasite load compared with the previous methods used to define PIS (Fig. 2). Ultimately, the clinical significance of meatal swabs as a viable alternative sample type compared to urine remains to be determined.
Although there are no official guidelines or recommendations for T. vaginalis testing in men, if testing becomes readily available then those guidelines may change, and male partners of females diagnosed with T. vaginalis infection can be offered testing with urine or urethral swabs to confirm diagnosis prior to treatment (25). The clinical significance and utility of the penile meatal swab is currently unknown, although this sample has been shown to have potential utility in a number of studies for the detection of T. vaginalis and other STI pathogens (C. trachomatis, N. gonorrhea, and M. genitalium) (22, 23, 26). The collection process for penile meatal swabs may also be more comfortable for patients compared with urethral swab collection.
The high performance of the vaginal swab samples collected in cobas PCR medium indicate that this sampling method is the optimal specimen type for use with the cobas CT/NG assay, which should facilitate ease of testing during a patient clinic visit (27). Only one sample tested positive with the APTIMA TV alone, in an asymptomatic female patient, who would have been defined by PIS as infected.
As noted, both the clinician-collected and self-collected male meatal and female vaginal swab samples were highly sensitive and specific. This is very important, as self-testing can increase the likelihood that patients will access testing and, in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic and rising incidence of STIs, it may be increasingly important in enabling patients to access medical care and diagnosis (28).
The prevalence of T. vaginalis in this study, at 15.8% in female subjects and 2.3% in male subjects, was higher than some previous estimates of T. vaginalis prevalence, particularly in asymptomatic female subjects, which was 12.1% in this study (7, 9, 12). The prevalence of T. vaginalis in male subjects was low, as was expected based on data in the literature (7, 12, 26), and may have been underestimated due to the collection of meatal swabs prior to urine specimens which were used to define infection status. If one assumes that those meatal swabs that gave positive results when the cobas urine result was also positive, but where PIS was negative, were in fact true positives, then positivity would have been 4.2% (41/983). Furthermore, if the 71 meatal samples that were not confirmed with other urine tests were compared head to head with meatal samples using a comparator NAAT (which is a study limitation due to the lack of another FDA-cleared NAAT for the detection of T. vaginalis in men) the positivity would be estimated to be 11.5% (113/983).
In conclusion, the high performance of the cobas TV/MG assay for use on the cobas 6800/8800 systems, in both clinician- and self-collected urogenital samples from symptomatic and asymptomatic men and women, means the cobas assay can reliably detect the presence and absence of T. vaginalis in urogenital samples and is a suitable clinical test for the diagnosis of T. vaginalis. The cobas 6800/8800 offers an optimal systems approach for use alongside other commercially available STI tests. The cobas TV/MG assay fulfils an unmet medical need for the testing of patients for diagnosis, supports public health efforts toward the control of T. vaginalis, and complements existing STI programs.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Roche Molecular Systems would like to acknowledge the efforts of Merlin Njoya and Sai Kotha from our Clinical Operations & Biometrics team for the data provided in the manuscript. This study was funded by Roche Molecular Diagnostics.
Medical writing support was provided by Rose Falconer, Elements Communications, Westerham, UK, and was funded by Roche Molecular Diagnostics.
The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. COBAS is a trademark of Roche. All other product names and trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

Supplemental Material

File (jcm.00264-21-s0001.pdf)
ASM does not own the copyrights to Supplemental Material that may be linked to, or accessed through, an article. The authors have granted ASM a non-exclusive, world-wide license to publish the Supplemental Material files. Please contact the corresponding author directly for reuse.

REFERENCES

1.
Kissinger P. 2015. Trichomonas vaginalis: a review of epidemiologic, clinical and treatment issues. BMC Infect Dis 15:307.
2.
Silver BJ, Guy RJ, Kaldor JM, Jamil MS, Rumbold AR. 2014. Trichomonas vaginalis as a cause of perinatal morbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sex Transm Dis 41:369–376.
3.
The World Health Organization. 2018. Report on global sexually transmitted infection surveillance. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/277258/9789241565691-eng.pdf?ua=1. Accessed 27 May 2021.
4.
Hillier SL, Austin M, Macio I, Meyn LA, Badway D, Beigi R. 2021. Diagnosis and treatment of vaginal discharge syndromes in community practice settings. Clin Infect Dis 72:1538–1543.
5.
Poole DN, McClelland RS. 2013. Global epidemiology of Trichomonas vaginalis. Sex Transm Infect 89:418–422.
6.
Masha SC, Cools P, Sanders EJ, Vaneechoutte M, Crucitti T. 2019. Trichomonas vaginalis and HIV infection acquisition: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sex Transm Infect 95:36–42.
7.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2015. Trichomoniasis. https://www.cdc.gov/std/tg2015/trichomoniasis.htm. Accessed 27 May 2021.
8.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2015. Screening recommendations and considerations referenced in treatment guidelines and original sources. https://www.cdc.gov/std/tg2015/screening-recommendations.htm. Accessed 27 May 2021.
9.
Ginocchio CC, Chapin K, Smith JS, Aslanzadeh J, Snook J, Hill CS, Gaydos CA. 2012. Prevalence of Trichomonas vaginalis and coinfection with Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in the United States as determined by the Aptima Trichomonas vaginalis nucleic acid amplification assay. J Clin Microbiol 50:2601–2608.
10.
Roth AM, Rosenberger JG, Reece M, Van Der Pol B. 2013. Expanding sexually transmitted infection screening among women and men engaging in transactional sex: the feasibility of field-based self-collection. Int J STD AIDS 24:323–328.
11.
Seña AC, Miller WC, Hobbs MM, Schwebke JR, Leone PA, Swygard H, Atashili J, Cohen MS. 2007. Trichomonas vaginalis infection in male sexual partners: implications for diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. Clin Infect Dis 44:13–22.
12.
Van Gerwen OT, Muzny CA. 2019. Recent advances in the epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of Trichomonas vaginalis infection. F1000Res 8:1666.
13.
Schwebke JR, Taylor SN, Ackerman R, Schlaberg R, Quigley NB, Gaydos CA, Chavoustie SE, Nyirjesy P, Remillard CV, Estes P, McKinney B, Getman DK, Clark C. 2020. Clinical validation of the Aptima Bacterial Vaginosis and Aptima Candida/Trichomonas Vaginitis assays: results from a prospective multicenter clinical study. J Clin Microbiol 58:e01643-19.
14.
Jacobsson S, Boiko I, Golparian D, Blondeel K, Kiarie J, Toskin I, Peeling RW, Unemo M. 2018. WHO laboratory validation of Xpert® CT/NG and Xpert® TV on the GeneXpert system verifies high performances. APMIS 126:907–912.
15.
Gaydos CA, Hobbs M, Marrazzo J, Schwebke J, Coleman JS, Masek B, Dize L, Jang D, Li J, Chernesky M. 2016. Rapid diagnosis of Trichomonas vaginalis by testing vaginal swabs in an isothermal helicase-dependent AmpliVue assay. Sex Transm Dis 43:369–373.
16.
Cohen JF, Korevaar DA, Altman DG, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Hooft L, Irwig L, Levine D, Reitsma JB, de Vet HCW, Bossuyt PMM. 2016. STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration. BMJ Open 6:e012799.
17.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2015. Class II special controls guideline: nucleic acid amplification assays for the detection of Trichomonas vaginalis https://www.fda.gov/media/92927/download. Accessed 27 May 2021.
18.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2007. Statistical guidance on reporting results from studies evaluating diagnostic tests https://www.fda.gov/media/71147/download. Accessed 27 May 2021.
19.
Newcombe RG. 1998. Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med 17:857–872.
20.
Muzny CA, Blackburn RJ, Sinsky RJ, Austin EL, Schwebke JR. 2014. Added benefit of nucleic acid amplification testing for the diagnosis of Trichomonas vaginalis among men and women attending a sexually transmitted diseases clinic. Clin Infect Dis 59:834–841.
21.
Marlowe EM, Gohl P, Steidle M, Arcenas R, Bier C. 2019. Trichomonas vaginalis detection in female specimens with cobas® TV/MG for use on the cobas® 6800/8800 Systems. Eur J Microbiol Immunol (Bp) 9:42–45.
22.
Dize L, Agreda P, Quinn N, Barnes MR, Hsieh YH, Gaydos CA. 2013. Comparison of self-obtained penile-meatal swabs to urine for the detection of C. trachomatis, N. gonorrhoeae and T. vaginalis. Sex Transm Infect 89:305–307.
23.
Chernesky M, Jang D, Smieja M, Arias M, Martin I, Weinbaum B, Getman D. 2017. Urinary meatal swabbing detects more men infected with Mycoplasma genitalium and four other sexually transmitted infections than first catch urine. Sexual Trans Dis 44:489–491.
24.
Mercer F, Johnson PJ. 2018. Trichomonas vaginalis: pathogenesis, symbiont interactions, and host cell immune responses. Trends Parasitol 34:683–693.
25.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016. Trichomoniasis questions & answers 2015 STD treatment guidelines. https://www.cdc.gov/std/tg2015/qa/trichomoniasis-qa.htm. Accessed 27 May 2021.
26.
Dize L, Barnes P, Jr, Barnes M, Hsieh YH, Marsiglia V, Duncan D, Hardick J, Gaydos CA. 2016. Performance of self-collected penile-meatal swabs compared to clinician-collected urethral swabs for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Trichomonas vaginalis, and Mycoplasma genitalium by nucleic acid amplification assays. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 86:131–135.
27.
Van Der Pol B, Fife K, Taylor SN, Nye MB, Chavoustie SE, Eisenberg DL, Crane L, Hirsch G, Arcenas R, Marlowe EM. 2019. Evaluation of the performance of the cobas CT/NG test for use on the cobas 6800/8800 systems for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in male and female urogenital samples. J Clin Microbiol 57:e01996-18.
28.
Wilson E, Leyrat C, Baraitser P, Free C. 2019. Does internet-accessed STI (e-STI) testing increase testing uptake for chlamydia and other STIs among a young population who have never tested? Secondary analyses of data from a randomised controlled trial. Sex Transm Infect 95:569–574.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Volume 59Number 1020 September 2021
eLocator: 10.1128/jcm.00264-21
Editor: Bobbi S. Pritt, Mayo Clinic

History

Received: 5 February 2021
Returned for modification: 11 April 2021
Accepted: 6 July 2021
Accepted manuscript posted online: 28 July 2021
Published online: 20 September 2021

Keywords

  1. NAAT
  2. Trichomonas vaginalis
  3. molecular methods
  4. urogenital

Contributors

Authors

School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
Arundhati Rao
Baylor Scott & White Health, Temple, Texas, USA
Melinda B. Nye
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, Burlington, North Carolina, USA
Steven Chavoustie
Segal Trials, Inc., Miami Lakes, Florida, USA
Aaron Ermel
Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
Clair Kaplan
Planned Parenthood of Southern New England, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
David Eisenberg
School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Philip A. Chan
Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA
Leandro Mena
The University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, USA
Sixto Pacheco
BioCollections Worldwide, Inc., Miami, Florida, USA
School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
Smitha Krishnamurthy
Roche Molecular Systems Inc., Pleasanton, California, USA
Ruchika Mohan
Roche Molecular Systems Inc., Pleasanton, California, USA
Rasa Bertuzis
Roche Molecular Systems Inc., Pleasanton, California, USA
Chris L. McGowin
Roche Molecular Systems Inc., Pleasanton, California, USA
Rodney Arcenas
Roche Molecular Systems Inc., Pleasanton, California, USA
Quest Diagnostics Infectious Disease, San Juan Capistrano, California, USA
Stephanie N. Taylor
Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA

Editor

Bobbi S. Pritt
Editor
Mayo Clinic

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Note: There is a 3- to 4-day delay in article usage, so article usage will not appear immediately after publication.

Citation counts come from the Crossref Cited by service.

Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. For an editable text file, please select Medlars format which will download as a .txt file. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

View Options

Figures and Media

Figures

Media

Tables

Share

Share

Share the article link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share on social media

American Society for Microbiology ("ASM") is committed to maintaining your confidence and trust with respect to the information we collect from you on websites owned and operated by ASM ("ASM Web Sites") and other sources. This Privacy Policy sets forth the information we collect about you, how we use this information and the choices you have about how we use such information.
FIND OUT MORE about the privacy policy