Thanks a lot Doctor. Have a good rest of the day.
Yes, that is what I said. It is normal in the male urethra. EWH
Thanks Doctor. Appreciate the quick response. Just to end this question, you mention that UU is likely to come back, so even if a test shows negative it can grow back naturally anyway?
For PCR testing there is no significant difference between testing using urine versus a swab.
There are no useful data on what you refer to as an incubation period since the infection can be asymptomatic. Testing could certainly be performed with accuracy at any time more than two weeks after exposure.
Testing for ureaplasma was a waste of time. Ureaplasmas are part of the organisms found normally I the genital tract. Treatment might make it go away for a while but it will be back. Doxycycline does suppress M. genitalium so, if you choose to test, I'd suggest you wait two weeks before testing. EWH
Thanks Doctor but just to confirm I've not yet been tested at all but am planning on being so privately.
It would be appreciated if you could answer my questions re. urine Vs. swab accuracy - eg. is there any meaningful difference in accuracy as some clinics carry out a urine test for mycoplasma genitalium and others a swab test for the bacteria.
Also, If my understanding is correct that the window period for testing is 2-3 weeks and that when reference is made to 'incubation periods' this is something different and related to the onset of symptoms.
Finally, something I didn't mention previously, I have tested for ureaplasma recently by urine sample (home test from an online kit) and have finished my doxycline course yesterday. If is it safe to test for mycoplasma genitalium immediately (ie, tomorrow) or could bacteria be 'suppressed' by the doxycline so as not to show up on a test but still be there or is it the case that if no infection is found you can assume you're clear of infection - eg. no need to wait several weeks to test?
Thanks Doctor
Welcome to our Forum. I'll try to help. Thanks for looking into the topic of M. genitalium to help refine your questions. You are correct, this organism is the topic of increasing research and it's role as an STI pathogen is not clear. When it causes infection in men however, M. genitalium causes detectable signs of inflammation which should have been detected when you were examined. If testing for M. genitalium was not performed, you still would have been given a diagnosis of non-specific urethritis (NSU- here in the U.S. we call it NGU [nongonococcal urethritis]) and treated. You can resolve you continuing concerns about M. genitalium by contacting the clinic you were seen at and asking if you were tested for M. genitalium or NSU. If you were and either was not present you can move forward without further concern.
As for you concerns about improper testing, I would not be concerned. If e tests were done, they would have been done correctly and were the specimens inadequate, the lab would have informed the clinic so further testing could be carried out.
My advice would be assume that you were properly evaluated. I would also suggest staying off of the Internet for more information. The statements there are often misleading, taken out of context, or even just wrong. EWH