Following is my situation. I'm a male aged 50 years, marrried for last 18 years. Three months back went for urine PCR test for STI's , evrything came back negative except Ureaplasma. Retested,again came back positive. Had tested many times before during last 17 years (PCR) but not a single time came positive.  The reason why i tested this time was because my wife had  vaginal discharge,itching and discomfort . After my ureaplasma came positive my wife also took the PCR tests for all sti's , everything came back normal except positive for UREAPLASMA. Her gynocologist prescribed treatment for both----Josamycin 1g twice daily for 7 days,  Azithromycin 500 mg daily for 3 days during menses, ornidazole for 3 days, probiotics and fluconazole. I took josamycin for 10 days without Azithromycin.  We both tested after 3 weeks-----i was cleared but my wife still had ureaplasma. Doc gave her clarithromycin 500 mg for  6 days, tested by PCR again after 3 weeks , again came back positive but all symptoms cleared. Doc says no more treatment but UP still exists. My questions: 

1. How come in earlier pcr tests it always came negative and now positive----i did not have penetrative sex except with her. Is it considered STD?

2. Now that i am negative and she still is not cleared of the bacteria can I have unprotected sex with my wife ? If yes I will again  contract it and again we will be giving to each other back and forth-----concerned for her as she may develop symptoms again and and she will have to again take the antibiotic treatment which is too much to handle. Or does it mean we will have to have only protected sex so as not to infect each other?

3. Doctor Hunter and Dr.Hook say it is present in 50-80%  healthy adults?  Does it mean these adults acquired it sexually but are assymptomatic ?  Or does it mean that a person is born with ureaplasma as a normal bacteria(like hundreds of ot in the urogenital tract and has it irrespective of whether he/she is sexually active ? 

Welcome to our Forum.  I will try to help.  It appears that you have read comments by Dr. Handsfield and me regarding ureaplasma colonization so I suspect that what I am about to write will be familiar.  Ureaplasma are acquired by most sexually active persons around the time they become sexually active.  There are no solid data to suggest that ureaplasma is a pathogen or causes problems for normal hosts.  Why that occurs is unknown but there are numerous studies, many of which are 40-50 years old, which clearly demonstrate that in the genital tract, ureaplasma is a normal constituent of the bacteria colonization.  Detection and amounts or ureaplasma vary over time, again for reasons that are unclear.  Treatment typically will reduce the amount of ureaplasma present but it is also typical for the bacteria to return at some time in the future.  Factors which affect ureaplasma appearance/disappearance and concentrations in the genital tract are no known.  Unfortunately, all too many "STI panels" include ureaplasma in their tests, leading to concern and misdirected efforts to treat what is a normal part of the bacteria colonizing the genital tract.  It is no surprise to me to hear that you had a test which was positive for ureaplasma.  Nor is it surprising to hear that you and your wife are both colonized with the organism.  I would not worry about it and suspect that it is unrelated to your wife's symptoms.  With that background, let me briefly address your specific questions:

1.  Please see above.  The ureaplasma is not considered an STI.  Why it has only been detected recently is not clear and may reflect variation in your level of colonization or some change in the test.

2.  There is no reason related to your tests for ureaplasma to abstain from sex or use condoms.  I would expect that much of the time both you and your wife would have ureaplasma but that should not concern you.

3.  Please see above.

I hope these comments will be helpful to you.  The ureaplasma detected in you and your wife is unlikely to be related to the symptoms your wife has experienced. I see no reason for treatment of the ureaplasma i either of you.   EWH

1. If a couple  never had sex before marriage and are in monogamous relationship post marriage could they be having ureaplasma colonization ? I mean can a person be ureaplasma carrier before he/she becomes sexually active?

2. Gynacologist says U.Parvum is less aggressive than U.Urealiticum ---Is it so? 

3. CDC says it is considered as an opportunistic Pathogen----When the immune system gets suppresed the Ureaplasma titers go up and causes problems like NGU and urethritis in men and BV in women----in todays world stress is part and parcel of life and with stress immunity goes down----Does it mean we have to live in constant fear that any time we may be affected due to Ureaplasma?

4. Experts also opine that titer of more than 10^4 needs to be treated invariably.  Ureaplasma is a bacteria and not a virus---why does it not get completely eradicated after antibiotic treatment? 

5.We have had only the PCR test -----is it warranted to have the culture done with antibiotic susceptibility test?  May be the PCR is detecting the dead organisms? 

6. Can UU be contracted by  1. man---hand to vagina contact and then immediate hand to penis contact 2. Oral sex. ?

Thanks in Advance. 

Straight to your follow-up questions:

1.  Yes although the prevalence of infection increases following the onset of sexual activity

2.  There is ongoing research as to the relative prevalence of the two colonizations but there is nothing definitive.  If there are differences, the differences are small and there is much overlap between the two types of colonization.

3.  By immunosuppressed, the CDC is referring to persons with profound, usually genetically inherited immune deficiencies of the sort that jeopardize survival, not the effects of stress.

4.  I am not sure who the experts you refer to are.  I disagree that colonization, irrespective of the concentration, needs treatment.  One of the biological features of colonization is that it cannot be readily eradicated.   In fact, this is part of the functional definition of colonization.

5.  I see no need for further testing of any sort.

6.  There are no data to support or disprove these sorts of statements

You seem fixated on the idea that your ureaplasma colonization is pathological and needs treatment.  I disagree.  Thus I find the direction of your questions regarding further tests and treatment off base.  I hope you will understand.  EWH

Thanks.  One of the problems with the all too common mis-understandings about Ureaplasma (and Mycoplasma hominis) is  just the sort of problems you mention- raising questions about fidelity and/or leading to unnecessary treatment which in some cases leads to treatment-related medication side effects.  

This thread will be closed later today.   Take care.  Please don't worry and I suggest you stay off the internet.  EWH