Is there a place for a molecular diagnostic test for pelvic inflammatory disease in primary care? An exploratory qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: There is currently no test for pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) that is non-invasive and sufficiently sensitive and specific. Clinicians must therefore diagnose PID clinically, ruling out medical emergencies and conducting pelvic examinations where possible. While guidelines state that clinicians should be prepared to over-diagnose PID, it remains an under-diagnosed condition, with severe reproductive health impacts when left untreated. This research is the first to consider the perspectives of end-users on the development of a diagnostic test for PID. METHODS: Semi-structured live video feed online (Zoom) interviews were conducted with 11 clinicians and nine women (aged 18-30 years) in Australia to understand how a diagnostic test might be used, and what characteristics a test would need for it to be acceptable to clinicians and young women. Participants were recruited via researcher and university student networks. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to identify key themes relating to the acceptability and characteristics of a diagnostic test for PID. RESULTS: Seven general practitioners, four clinicians working in sexual health clinics, and nine young women (aged 21-27 years) were interviewed. Clinicians were aged between 31-58 years and were predominantly female. Clinicians recognised that the development of an accurate test to diagnose PID would be valuable to themselves and other clinicians, particularly those who lack experience diagnosing PID, and those working in certain settings, including emergency departments. They discussed how they might use a test to enhance their clinical assessment but highlighted that it would not replace clinical judgement. Clinicians also considered how a test would impact the patient experience and time to treatment, emphasising that it should be minimally invasive and have a quick turnaround time. Young women said a test would be acceptable if endorsed by a trustworthy clinician. CONCLUSIONS: PID remains a challenging diagnosis. Development of a minimally invasive and sufficiently accurate diagnostic test would be acceptable to young women and benefit some clinicians, although no test would completely replace an experienced clinician's judgement in making a PID diagnosis.

Factors associated with pelvic inflammatory disease: A case series analysis of family planning clinic data.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to better understand factors associated with pelvic inflammatory disease in an outpatient setting. METHODS: We analysed the characteristics of pelvic inflammatory disease cases diagnosed in an outpatient setting during 2018. There were 72 cases included in the final analysis. RESULTS: Of the pelvic inflammatory disease cases analysed, 55% were idiopathic, 22.2% were related to a sexually transmitted infection, and 22.2% had onset of symptoms within 6 weeks of a gynaecological procedure. Of the sexually transmitted infection-positive pelvic inflammatory disease cases, Chlamydia trachomatis was present in 56%, Mycoplasma genitalium was present in 38%, and Neisseria gonorrhoeae was present in 12.5% of cases. Many pelvic inflammatory disease cases had evidence of vaginal dysbiosis or features associated with vaginal flora disruption (recent antibiotic usage and/or vulvovaginal candidiasis). CONCLUSION: This case series highlights the burden of Mycoplasma genitalium pelvic inflammatory disease, and clinicians should be aware to include testing for this when diagnosing pelvic inflammatory disease. Our findings also support the hypothesis that host dysbiotic microbiota may contribute to pelvic inflammatory disease pathogenesis, with further research required to explore this proposition.