Advertisement

Chlamydia-Induced Reactive Arthritis: Disappearing Entity or Lack of Research?

  • Henning ZeidlerEmail author
  • Alan P. Hudson
Infection and Arthritis (K Winthrop, Section Editor)
  • 64 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Infections and Arthritis

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Recent studies regarding the frequency of Chlamydia-induced reactive arthritis (ReA) are reviewed, with a focus on the question of whether the entity is in fact disappearing or whether it is simply being underdiagnosed/underreported. Epidemiological reports indicate diversity in the frequency of Chlamydia-associated ReA in various parts of the world, with evidence of declining incidence in some regions.

Recent Findings

The hypothesis that early effective treatment with antibiotics prevents the manifestation of Chlamydia-associated ReA requires further investigation.

Summary

For clinicians, it is important to remember that ReA secondary to Lymphogranuloma venereum (LGV) serovars L1–L3 of C. trachomatis is probably underestimated due to a limited awareness of this condition, the re-emergence in Western countries of LGV overall, and the present increasingly rare classical inguinal presentation.

Keywords

Reactive arthritis Chlamydia trachomatis Chlamydia pneumoniae Epidemiology Lymphogranuloma venereum 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    •• Carter, JD HAP. Recent advances and future directions in understanding and treating Chlamydia-induced reactive arthritis. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2017;13:197–206. The review highlights several basic science and clinical aspects of reactive arthritis that are central to our current understanding of the disease. The authors provide suggestions for future research which will provide significant bases for more detailed understanding of, and therefore cure of, the disease.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    •• Zeidler H, Hudson AP. Causality of chlamydiae in arthritis and spondyloarthritis: a plea for increased translational research. Curr Reumatol Rep. 2016;18:9. The review focuses on lacunae in our understanding of the causation of reactive arthritis and spondyloarthritis, ending with a plea for more study leading to better treatments.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Denison HJ, Curtis EM, Clynes MA, Bromhead C, Dennison EM, Grainger R. The incidence of sexually acquired reactive arthritis: a systematic literature review. Clin Rheumatol. 2016;35:2639–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Essenmacher AC, Khurram N, Bismack GT. A case of reactive arthritis due to Clostridium difficile colitis. J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect. 2016;6:30151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schmitt SK. Reactive arthritis. Infect Dis Clin N Am. 2017;31:265–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Taylor-Robinson D, Keat A. Observations on Chlamydia trachomatis and other microbes in reactive arthritis. Int J STD AIDS. 2015;26:139–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Iliopoulos A, Karras D, Ioakimidis D, Arvanitis A, Tsamis N, Iakovou I, et al. Change in the epidemiology of Reiter’s syndrome (reactive arthritis) in the post-AIDS era? An analysis of cases appearing in the Greek Army. J Rheumatol. 1995;22:252–4.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Witkin SS, Minis E, Athanasiou A, et al. Chlamydia trachomatis: the persistent pathogen. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2017;5:24.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    O'Connell CM, Ferone ME. Chlamydia trachomatis genital infections. Microb Cell. 2016;3:390–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lausen M, Christiansen G, Bouet Guldbæk Poulsen T, Birkelund S. Immunobiology of monocytes and macrophages during Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Microbes Infect. 2018. pii: S1286-4579(18)30192-8.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    •• Panzetta, ME VRH, Saka HA. Chlamydia Persistence: A survival strategy to evade antimicrobial effects in-vitro and in-vivo. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:3101. This thorough and well-written review focuses on genetic and metabolic strategies employed by the human chlamydial pathogens to avoid the stress and deleterious effects of antibiotic and other treatments.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cossé MM, Barta ML, Fisher DJ, Oesterlin LK, Niragire B, Perrinet S, et al. The loss of expression of a single Type 3 Effector (CT622) strongly reduces Chlamydia trachomatis infectivity and growth. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2018;8:145.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shaw JH, Key CE, Snider TA, Sah P, Shaw EI, Fisher DJ, et al. Genetic inactivation of Chlamydia trachomatis inclusion membrane protein CT228 alters MYPT1 recruitment, extrusion production, and longevity of infection. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2018;8:415.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang X, Hybiske K, Stephens RS. Orchestration of the mammalian host cell glucose transporter proteins-1 and 3 by Chlamydia contributes to intracellular growth and infectivity. Pathog Dis. 2017;30:75(8.  https://doi.org/10.1093/femspd/ftx108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    • Pokorzynski ND, Thompson CC, Carabeo RA. Ironing out the unconventional mechanisms of iron acquisition and gene regulation in Chlamydia. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2017;7:394. This interesting review focuses on what we do and as yet do not understand regarding the critical issue of iron acquisition by chlamydiae.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Al-Zeer MA, Xavier A, Abu Lubad M, et al. Chlamydia trachomatis prevents apoptosis via activation of PDPK1-MYC and enhanced mitochondrial binding of hexokinase II. EBioMedicine. 2017;23:100–10. doi: 0.1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pruneda JN, Bastidas RJ, Bertsoulaki E, Swatek KN, Santhanam B, Clague MJ, et al. A Chlamydia effector combining deubiquitination and acetylation activities induces Golgi fragmentation. Nat Microbiol. 2018;3:1377–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    • Sixt BS, Valdivia RH. Molecular genetic analysis of Chlamydia Species. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2016;70:179–98. An interesting and important review focused on genetic aspects of chlamydiae and how they may influence pathogenesis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carter JD, Hudson AP. Reactive arthritis: clinical aspects and medical management. Rheum Dis Clin N Am. 2009;35:21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Glossary of Epidemiological Terms. https://courses.cit.cornell.edu/.../Epidemiology%20Terms.pdf. Accessed 23 August 2018
  21. 21.
    c.f. references Mason E, Wray L, Foster R, Jamil MS, Guy R, McNulty A, Donovan B. Reactive arthritis at the Sydney Sexual Health Centre 1992–2012: declining despite increasing chlamydia diagnoses. Int J STD AIDS. 2016;27:882–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    •• Denison HJ, Curtis EM, Clynes MA, et al. The incidence of sexually acquired reactive arthritis: a systematic literature review. Clin Rheumatol. 2016;35:2639–48. First systematic literature review to collate and critically evaluate the published evidence regarding the incidence of SARA. After screening, 55 papers were assessed in full, from which 3 met the relevant inclusion criteria for the review. The studies reported an incidence of SARA of 3.0% - 8.1% and were found to be of low to moderate quality. A suggested screening tool, adapted for use in future studies of the incidence of SARA is included.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Keat AC, Maini RN, Nkwazi GC, et al. Role of Chlamydia trachomatis and HLA-B27 in sexually acquired reactive arthritis. Brit Med J. 1978;1:605–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rich E, Hook IEW, Alarcon GS, Moreland LW. Reactive arthritis in patients attending an urban sexually transmitted diseases clinic. Arthritis Rheum. 1996;39:1172–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carter JD, Rehman A, Guthrie JP, et al. Attack rate of Chlamydia-induced reactive arthritis and effect of the CCR5-Delta-32 mutation: a prospective analysis. J Rheumatol. 2013;40:1578–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kvien TK, Glennås A, Melby K, et al. Reactive arthritis: incidence, triggering agents, and clinical presentation. J Rheumatol. 1994;21:115–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Söderlin MK, Kautiainen H, Puolakkainen M, et al. Infections preceding early arthritis in southern Sweden: a prospective population-based study. J Rheumatol. 2003;30:459–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    •• Mason E, Wray L, Foster R, et al. Reactive arthritis at the Sydney Sexual Health Centre 1992–2012: declining despite increasing Chlamydia diagnoses. Int J STD AIDS. 2016;27:882–9. The first retrospective case-control study of reactive arthritis in a primary care setting in Australia found a decline in reactive arthritis diagnoses despite an increase in Chlamydia diagnoses. This study allows exploration of trends and risk factors in milder presentations of ReA, rather than the more severe presentations seen in specialist rheumatology practice. The reason for this apparent disconnect between Chlamydia and its complications is unknown. The strength of the study was the long time period of analysis; however, the small sample size, the retrospective study design and missing urine and/or blood and synovial PCR testing for Chlamydia are limitations.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    • Ostaszewska-Puchalska I, Zdrodowska-Stefanow B, Kuryliszyn-Moskal A, et al. Incidence of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in patients with reactive arthritis. Reumatologia. 2015;53:69–73. The study reports the rate of C.tr. infection in the urethral and cervical smears of patients with reactive arthritis in a defined area in Poland compared with a control group of volunteers without urogenital or joint symptoms. No correlations between detecting the presence of C.tr. in the urogenital tract and the presence of specific IgA class antibodies in the serum of reactive arthritis patients were observed.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    •• Okamoto H. Prevalence of Chlamydia-associated reactive arthritis. Scan J Rheumatol. 2017;46:415–6. The prospective study from 2009 to 2016 assessed the prevalence of Chlamydia-associated reactive arthritis among patients with proved C.tr. genital infection attending an urban clinic of general practice and rheumatology in Tokyo. Only one patient out of the 123 patients enrolled in this study has developed ReA indicating a lower prevalence of Chlamydia-associated ReA than reported previously.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    •• Brinster A, Guillot X, Prati C. Wendling D. Evolution over thirty years of the profile of inpatients with reactive arthritis in a tertiary rheumatology unit. Rheumatol Clin. 2018;14:36–9. The retrospective monocentric study did not find a decline in the frequency of C.tr. ReA in inpatients in one French rheumatological department.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hannu T, Puolakkainen M, Leirisalo-Repo M. Chlamydia pneumoniae as a triggering infection in reactive arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 1999;38:411–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Carter JD, Gérard HC, Espinoza LR, et al. Chlamydiae as etiologic agents in chronic undifferentiated spondylarthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;60:1311–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Burillo A, Bouza E. Chlamydophila pneumoniae. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2010;24:61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    • Sachse K, Rahman KS, Schnee C, et al. A novel synthetic peptide microarray assay detects Chlamydia species-specific antibodies in animal and human sera. Sci Rep. 2018;8:4701. A novel microarray was designed carrying 52 synthetic peptides representing B-cell epitopes from immunodominant proteins of all 11 chlamydial species. In samples from humans, dual infection with C.tr. and C.pn. could be demonstrated.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gaydos CA, Quinn TC, Willis D, et al. Performance of the APTIMA Combo 2 Assay for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in female urine and endocervical swab specimens. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41:304–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    • Foschi C, Banzola N, Gaspari V, et al. A case of reactive arthritis associated with Lymphogranuloma venereum infection in a woman. Sex Transm Dis. 2016;43:584–6. First case of reactive arthritis associated with LGV in a human immunodeficiency virus – negative woman with urogenital and rectal C. tr. L2 serovar infection.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Desclaux A, Mehsen-Cetre N, Peuchant O, et al. Reactive arthritis associated with Chlamydia trachomatis genovar L2b proctitis. Med Mal Infect. 2017;47:177–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stoner BP, Cohen SE. Lymphogranuloma venereum 2015: Clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61(Suppl 8):S865–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dal Conte I, Mistrangelo M, Cariti C, et al. Lymphogranuloma venereum: an old, forgotten re-emerging systemic disease. Panminerva Med. 2014;56:73–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sawada T, Suehiro M, Takaya K. Lower-leg cellulitis-like manifestations of erythema nodosum induced by Chlamydophila pneumoniae infection. Indian J Dermatol. 2016;61:237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    •• Zeidler H, Hudson A. Coinfection of chlamydiae and other bacteria in reactive arthritis and spondyloarthritis: need for future research. Microorganisms. 2016;4:30. The review reports coinfections involving chlamydiae, M. hominis, and U. urealyticum in patients with post-venereal ReA, indicating a clear and critical unmet need for future research to understand the nature and consequences of coinfections for diagnostics, clinical course, and treatment of chlamydial arthritis and SpA.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wolford LM. Understanding TMJ reactive arthritis. Cranio. 2017;35:274–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Henry CH, Hughes CV, Gérard HC, et al. Reactive arthritis: preliminary microbiologic analysis of the human temporomandibular joint. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000;58:1137–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Edvinsson M, Welvaart N, Ryttberg L, et al. No evidence of Chlamydia pneumoniae in the synovia of patients with osteoarthritis. J Int Med Res. 2019;47:635–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Páez-Canro C, Alzate JP, González LM, et al. Antibiotics for treating urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in men and non-pregnant women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;1:CD010871.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010871.pub2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    •• Carter JD, Hudson AP. Recent advances and future directions in understanding and treating Chlamydia-induced reactive arthritis. Expert Rev. Clin Immunol. 2017;13:197–206. The most recent and comprehensive article reviewing approaches to treatment of Chlamydia-induced reactive arthritis in the context of clinical aspects and the biology of the chlamydiae as it relates to elicitation of the disease.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zigangirova NA, Morgunova EY, Fedina ED, et al. Lycopene inhibits propagation of Chlamydia infection. Scientifica (Cairo). 2017;2017:1478625.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hannover Medical SchoolHannoverGermany
  2. 2.School of MedicineWayne State UniversityDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations