Nongonococcal urethritis (NGU) is one of the commonest treatable conditions in men attending sexually transmitted diseases (STD) departments yet despite considerable research efforts the etiology of up to 50% of cases remains unknown.1,2 It is assumed that the etiological agents of NGU could potentially cause complications in the female partner.2Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis (CT), and probably Mycoplasma genitalium (MG) have been implicated in upper genital tract inflammation in women, in particular pelvic inflammatory disease.3–5 However, this remains to be substantiated for pathogen-negative NGU.2 Wetmore et al,6 in this issue, report on a case comparison study of men with acute NGU. They conclude that idiopathic urethritis (IU) may not have an infectious etiology or possibly an as yet unidentified infectious agent(s). They comment that if a sizeable proportion is not due to infectious agents it will be important to learn how to distinguish noninfectious cases as they would not require antimicrobial therapy and partner notification.
This is one of the largest, in depth studies of acute NGU reported to date.6,7 A total of 370 men with acute NGU were studied. The majority were clinically symptomatic, that is, complaining of a discharge and/or dysuria or had a discharge on examination and/or had urethritis on Gram stained urethral smear. Information was collected on patient demographics, sexual behavior, clinical symptoms or signs, and detailed microbiology was undertaken using sensitive and specific molecular techniques to detect N. gonorrhoeae, CT, MG, Trichomonas vaginalis (TV), and Ureaplasma urealyticum, the major sexually transmitted infection (STI) pathogens which have been identified as causing urethritis in men. Pathogens were detected in only 50.7% of the 367 eligible cases, and were associated with a variety of traditional risk factors and clinical features, whereas IU tended to be diagnosed among lower-risk men. Notably, sexual behavior influenced the likelihood of a pathogen being detected with CT being associated with men who sex with men, MG with paying for sex and having partner of black ethnicity, and TV with black ethnicity and having an older female partner.
Are the conclusions of Wetmore et al6 reasonable or are there alternative hypotheses which should be considered? More importantly, how should we as clinicians apply the findings of Wetmore et al to our clinical practice and what further research is needed in order to improve our current, imperfect, clinical management algorithms.6 Although this is a large and detailed study, it has some methodological weaknesses. Most importantly, there was no control group of men without NGU. Although the men with IU were at lower risk of acquiring an STI, this is relative to the men presenting with acute NGU. Certainly, this study population of men with acute NGU appear at increased risk of an STI pathogen compared to the general population, in terms of previous incarceration, illicit drug use, and probably previous history of NGU and sexual behaviour. Not having a control group of men who are representative of the population at risk of the condition (sexually active men) introduces bias and does not allow us to comment accurately on whether men with IU are indeed at lower risk of an STI pathogen than men in general. Certainly, the men with IU were at risk of acquiring an STI given the mean duration of sexual relationship is of 32 days (range: 1–503). Men with IU were older and as sexual activity decreases with age this could potentially explain this observation.8 In addition, there was no testing for herpes simplex virus, adenovirus which Bradshaw et al7 undertook, and urinary tract infection9 all of which have been associated with NGU. However, these are infrequent causes1,2 and probably only account for 5% in total and at most 10% which still leaves 40% to 45% of men with IU. Finally, partners were not examined and no information on the prevalence of STI pathogens in partners was available.
What are the other potential explanations for these observations? Is it possible that some men with IU may have recently been exposed to CT and resolved the infection because of a sterilizing immune response? Men with IU were significantly associated with a history of urethritis compared to men with chlamydia urethritis.6 Individuals who are CT-positive can resolve the infection spontaneously, and about 1/3 of partners of CT-positive individuals are themselves CT-negative.10–13 This suggests that the immune response may be important in infection resolution.14,15 Although, there are limited studies which have looked at partners of men with IU, these studies suggest that up to 20% will have a CT-positive partner, indicating recent exposure.16,17 Certainly in trachoma, which is caused by CT serovars A-C, it is recognized that the inflammatory response can continue weeks after the person is CT-negative.18 In this context, it would be of interest to investigate, using the technique developed by Wiggins et al, whether the local mucosal immune response is different in men with IU compared to pathogen-positive NGU.19–22 Whether such mechanisms may be involved following exposure to other pathogens is unknown.
Is it possible that there are as yet unidentified microorganisms which can cause NGU in men, are sexually transmissible, and can cause upper genital tract disease in women? Of those treated with a tetracycline or azithromycin approximately 80% to 90% are cured, suggesting that if other pathogens do exist they are bacterial.1 A diverse microbial flora has been identified in the male urethra, rectum, and vagina.23–28 Using molecular techniques, it is now clear that the majority of the microbial genital tract flora are not detected using standard culture techniques.2,27–29 Bacterial vaginosis and Gram-negative anaerobes have been associated with IU in men, although their exact causal role remains uncertain.1,2,23 More recently, the work of Bradshaw et al suggest that unidentified oral flora may have a role in IU associated with insertive fellatio.7 Interestingly, a small study has suggested using molecular technology which can identify both culturable and nonculturable bacteria that Pseudomonas sp. or pseudomonas-like organisms may have a role in IU.25 Such microorganisms might be expected to be more pathogenic if the urethral mucosa has been previously disrupted. Such a mechanism has been proposed in trachoma, as CT is only infrequently detected in individuals with chronic disease.18,30 However, there is currently no evidence that such microorganisms can cause upper genital tract disease, even in high-risk women.31 Establishing whether there are indeed unidentified microorganisms which can cause NGU, using traditional case control studies, is likely to be challenging given the large number of potential microorganisms which have recently been identified.
Thus, partner notification is likely to be of importance in some men with IU but not all and it is also likely that antimicrobial therapy will be efficacious in some men with IU. Historical, placebo controlled, studies indicate that about 20% to 40% of men with NGU will resolve without treatment, with higher rates in CT-negative men.22,26,32,33 This suggests that at least some men with IU may not require antimicrobial therapy in order to be clinically cured. However, chronic urethritis is a significant clinical problem in genitourinary medicine2 and it would seem premature to advocate such an approach without the evidence from clinical trials. Nevertheless, all men diagnosed with NGU following treatment are currently advised that they are likely to have an STD and that their partner(s) need to be treated.2,34 As STDs are associated with considerable stigma and have major implications for men and their partners who believe they are in a closed relationship, this has the potential to do harm as well as good, particularly if another partner was not involved and treatment is not necessary.
Thus, a better understanding of IU would have 2 important benefits (1) it would inform the development of more effective management strategies and (2) allow clinicians and patients to make an informed decision about partner(s) management. This is likely also to be valued by patients. The literature currently focuses on expert medical opinion and not the views of patients as to what would benefit them and this imbalance needs to be addressed.2,34–36 The studies by Wetmore et al, Bradshaw et al, and Horner et al have shown the way forward for research in NGU.6,7,37 Their findings do not support the concept that all cases of NGU are due to an STI acquired from a recent sexual partner which is also potentially transmissible, particularly if they do not have a discharge with ≥5PMNs/HPF. This is consistent with other studies.36 Horner has proposed that the risk of detecting an STI pathogen increases with the degree of urethral inflammation and that age, sexual behavior, and clinical presentation also can be used to estimate the risk of a man with urethritis having or being recently exposed to an STI which is consistent with the observations of Wetmore et al.6,36
Large case control studies which collect detailed epidemiologic, sexual behavior, and clinical information, including degree of urethral inflammation, which use NAATs to detect CT, MG, U. urealyticum, TV, herpes simplex virus, and adenovirus, and screen midstream urine specimens for bacterial urinary tract infections and also includes partners will be needed so that we can develop reliable clinical algorithms. Consideration should also be given to detailed molecular microbiologic investigation using broad-range 16S rRNA gene PCR, a cultivation-independent method28 before the existence of unidentified sexually transmissible pathogen(s), which could cause disease in women, can be discounted as causing IU. The potential role of prior exposure to CT, whether recently or in the more distant past also merits further investigation. For this, we need knowledge of their partner(s) infection status and/or a reliable biomarker of exposure to CT in men who are NAAT detection negative. Such a biomarker is not currently available,19 but recent advances in serology with the development of specific assays merits exploration as such a tool, especially if the assay sensitivity in men can be improved.38
Undertaking such studies will be a major challenge for the international research community. Not only are such studies likely to be beyond the resources of a single institution but also, as there is a geographical variation in STI prevalence, probably within sub groups as well, the findings from one institution may not be applicable elsewhere. One potential solution would be to agree to a generic protocol which could be applied internationally so that smaller studies can be combined using the technique of meta-analysis, a methodological approach which is now widely applied to other conditions. Noninvasive home sampling strategies should help facilitate with partner recruitment.39,40 These findings can then inform intervention studies and be incorporated into clinical management algorithms which can then be rigorously evaluated in order to refine their application in clinical practice at a National and/or local level. Last but not least, patient involvement, not just as a participant, will be required in order to maximize patient benefit.
1.Martin DH. Urethritis in males. In: Holmes KK, Sparling PF, Stamm WE, et al, eds. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 2008:1107–1126.
2.Shahmanesh M, Moi H, Lassau F, et al. 2009 European guideline on the management of male non-gonococcal urethritis. Int J STD AIDS 2009; 20:458–464.
3.Short VL, Totten PA, Ness RB, et al. The demographic, sexual health and behavioural correlates of Mycoplasma genitalium
infection among women with clinically suspected pelvic inflammatory disease. Sex Transm Infect 2010; 86:29–31.
4.Svenstrup HF, Fedder J, Kristoffersen SE, et al. Mycoplasma genitalium
, Chlamydia trachomatis
, and tubal factor infertility—a prospective study. Fertil Steril 2008; 90:513–520.
5.Simms I, Stephenson JM. Pelvic inflammatory disease epidemiology: What do we know and what do we need to know? Sex Transm Infect 2000; 76:80–87.
6.Wetmore CM, Manhart LE, Lowens MS, et al. Demographic, behavioral, and clinical characteristics of men with nongonococcal urethritis differ by etiology: A case-comparison study. Sex Transm Dis. 2010; 38:180–186.
7.Bradshaw CS, Tabrizi SN, Read TR, et al. Etiologies of nongonococcal urethritis: Bacteria, viruses, and the association with orogenital exposure. J Infect Dis 2006; 193:336–345.
8.Johnson AM, Mercer CH, Erens B, et al. Sexual behaviour in Britain: Partnerships, practices, and HIV risk behaviours. Lancet 2001; 358:1835–1842.
9.Leung A, Taylor S, Smith A, et al. Urinary tract infection in patients with acute non-gonococcal urethritis. Int J STD AIDS 2002; 13:801–804.
10.Clad A, Prillwitz J, Hintz KC, et al. Discordant prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis
in asymptomatic couples screened using urine ligase chain reaction. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2001; 20:324–328.
11.Molano M, Meijer CJ, Weiderpass E, et al. The natural course of Chlamydia trachomatis
infection in asymptomatic Colombian women: A 5-year follow-up study. J Infect Dis 2005; 191:907–916.
13.Quinn TC, Gaydos C, Shepherd M, et al. Epidemiologic and microbiologic correlates of Chlamydia trachomatis
infection in sexual partnerships. JAMA 1996; 276:1737–1742.
14.Batteiger BE, Xu F, Johnson RE, et al. Protective immunity to Chlamydia trachomatis
genital infection: Evidence from human studies. J Infect Dis 2010; 201:178–189.
15.Geisler WM. Duration of untreated, uncomplicated Chlamydia trachomatis
genital infection and factors associated with chlamydia resolution: A review of human studies. J Infect Dis 2010; 201:104–113.
16.Falk L, Fredlund H, Jensen JS. Symptomatic urethritis is more prevalent in men infected with Mycoplasma genitalium
than with Chlamydia trachomatis.
Sex Transm Infect 2004; 80:289–293.
17.Manavi K, McMillan A, Young H. Non-chlamydial non-gonococcal urethritis or undiagnosed chlamydial urethritis? Int J STD AIDS 2006; 17:296–298.
18.West S. Trachoma: Prospects for elimination by 2020. Chlamydial infections. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on human Chlamydial Infections; San Francisco, CA; 2010:3–12.
19.Gottlieb S, Martin D, Xu F, et al. Summary: The natural history and immunobiology of Chlamydia trachomatis
genital infection and implications for chlamydia control. J Infect Dis 2010; 201:190–204.
20.Wiggins RC, Holmes CH, Andersson M, et al. Quantifying leukocytes in first catch urine provides new insights into our understanding of symptomatic and asymptomatic urethritis. Int J STD AIDS 2006; 17:289–295.
21.Wiggins R, Horner PJ, Whittington K, et al. Quantitative analysis of epithelial cells in urine from men with and without urethritis: Implications for studying epithelial: Pathogen interactions in vivo. BMC Res Notes 2009; 2:139.
22.Handsfield HH, Alexander ER, Pin WS, et al. Differences in the therapeutic response of chlamydia-positive and chlamydia-negative forms of nongonococcal urethritis. J Am Vener Dis Assoc 1976; 2:5–9.
23.Mazuecos J, Aznar J, Rodriguez-Pichardo A, et al. Anaerobic bacteria in men with urethritis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 1998; 10:237–242.
24.Montagnini SD, Mamizuka EM, Pereira CA, et al. Microbiologic aerobic studies on normal male urethra. Urology 2000; 56:207–210.
25.Riemersma WA, van der Schee CJ, van der Meijden WI, et al. Microbial population diversity in the urethras of healthy males and males suffering from nonchlamydial, nongonococcal urethritis. J Clin Microbiol 2003; 41:1977–1986.
26.Munday PE. Persistent and recurrent non-gonococcal urethritis. In: Taylor-Robinson D, ed. Clinical Problems in Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinum Nijhoff, 1985:15–34.
27.Devillard E, Burton JP, Reid G. Complexity of vaginal microflora as analyzed by PCR denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis in a patient with recurrent bacterial vaginosis. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 2005; 13:25–31.
28.Oakley BB, Fiedler TL, Marrazzo JM, et al. Diversity of human vaginal bacterial communities and associations with clinically defined bacterial vaginosis. Appl Environ Microbiol 2008; 74:4898–4909.
29.Serour F, Samra Z, Kushel Z, et al. Comparative periurethral bacteriology of uncircumcised and circumcised males. Genitourin Med 1997; 73:288–290.
30.Rajak SN, Abera B, Weiss H, et al. Bacterial infection in trachomatous trichiasis in Ethiopia. In: Chlamydial infections: Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Human Chlamydial Infections; San Francisco, CA; 2010:59–62.
31.Ness RB. Bacterial vaginosis and risk of pelvic inflammatory disease. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 104:761–769.
32.Horner PJ, Coker RJ. The diagnosis and management of urethral discharge in males. In: Barton SE, Hay PE, eds. Handbook of Genitourinary Medicine. London, United Kingdom: Arnold, 1999:123–138.
33.Prentice MJ, Taylor-Robinson D, Csonka GW. Non-specific urethritis: A placebo controlled trial of minocycline in conjunction with laboratory investigations. Br J Vener Dis 1976; 52:269–275.
34.Workowski KA, Berman SM; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2006. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Recomm Rep 2006; 55:1–94.
35.Shahmanesh M, Radcliffe KW. Is the urethral smear necessary in asymptomatic men attending a genitourinary medicine clinic? Sex Transm Infect 2007; 83:79–81.
36.Horner P. Asymptomatic men: Should they be tested for urethritis? Sex Transm Infect 2007; 83:81–84.
37.Horner PJ, Thomas B, Gilroy CB, et al. Do all men attending departments of genitourinary medicine need to be screened for non-gonococcal urethritis? Int J STD AIDS 2002; 13:667–673.
38.Wills GS, Horner PJ, Reynolds R, et al. Pgp3 antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, a sensitive and specific assay for seroepidemiological analysis of Chlamydia trachomatis
infection. Clin Vaccine Immunol 2009; 16:835–843.
39.Gaydos CA, Barnes M, Aumakhan B, et al. Can e-technology through the internet be used as a new tool to address the Chlamydia trachomatis
epidemic by home sampling and vaginal swabs? Sex Transm Dis 2009; 36:577–580.
40.Low N, McCarthy A, Macleod J, et al. Epidemiological, social, diagnostic and economic evaluation of population screening for genital chlamydial infection. Health Technol Assess 2007; 11:iii–iv, ix–xii, 1–165.