Cross-sectional study compares bacterial load of CT and NG among men who have sex with men, indicating implications for coinfections.
Objective Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) are the most commonly reported sexually transmitted infections globally. Anorectal CT/NG detection among men who have sex with men (MSM) and coinfections is common. Epidemiological studies suggest that CT/NG coinfections might result in greater bacterial load and transmissibility than single infection. The purpose of this study was to compare bacterial load and symptoms between CT/NG single and coinfections in MSM. Methods MSM positive for CT or NG on a triple swab (throat, urethra and rectal locations combined) were enrolled. Before treatment, they self-collected anorectal swabs. Bacterial loads for CT/NG were calculated using real-time PCR and compared between single or coinfected individuals, with or without rectal symptoms. Results We enrolled 382 MSM from December 2021 to December 2024. Among all samples: total CT (n=114), total NG (n=125), CT/NG coinfection 29/382 (7.6%). The bacterial loads in single and coinfected samples were comparable. The mean difference between CT alone and CT/NG was 0.40 target copies/mL (95% CI (−0.09 to 0.89), p value=0.107). The mean difference for NG alone and CT/NG was 0.24 copies/mL (95% CI (−0.49 to 0.99), p value=0.498). Among 382 MSM, 15.4% (n=59/382) experienced anorectal symptoms. There was no statistical difference in bacterial burdens between symptomatic and asymptomatic (CT difference of the means 0.52 copies/mL, 95% CI (−0.51 to 1.55); p value=0.313) (NG difference of the means 0.63, CI (0.01 to 1.28); p value=0.05). Conclusions In contrast to prior research, we found similar bacterial burdens in anorectal MSM samples with single CT/NG versus coinfection. Further research is needed to understand the clinical implications of CT/NG coinfections. Future studies should investigate factors influencing anorectal CT/NG bacterial burden, transmissibility and susceptibility, including the function of pre-exposure prophylaxis and the rectal microbiota.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rayo et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: