Literature DB >> 11821171

Evaluation of sequential testing strategies using non-amplified and amplified methods for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in endocervical and urine specimens from women.

Heather Semeniuk1, Ali Zentner, Ron Read, Deirdre Church.   

Abstract

Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) are more sensitive than other methods for the diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) genital infections. Two unique sequential testing strategies that employed two different commercial NAAT methods to detect CT in a population of women with widely varying infection risk were evaluated. Specimens from 504 women aged 15 to 75 years were studied. Two endocervical swabs and a urine sample were collected from each woman. One swab was initially tested using the Access enzyme immunoassay (EIA) (Beckman). An aliquot from the EIA extraction was subsequently amplified using the COBAS AMPLICOR CT assay (PCR) (Roche). The second swab was initially tested using the PACE 2 CT hybridization assay (Gen-Probe). An aliquot was pipetted off prior to performing the PACE 2 assay and also amplified using the AMP-CT assay (TMA) (Gen-Probe). Urine samples were tested for CT using both NAAT methods. True CT infections were defined as any woman that was confirmed to be positive on both NAAT results from endocervical swabs. The results of all other CT assays were compared against this expanded gold standard. 28 women were confirmed to have CT infection giving an overall prevalence of 5.6%; low-risk women had a rate of 1.3% while high-risk women had a rate of 9.8%. NAAT methods have a higher sensitivity for detecting CT cervicitis when swabs are tested compared to urine. The positive predictive value of NAAT is decreased when testing low risk women. Limited automation makes it difficult to test a high volume of samples (i.e., > 100 swabs and/or urines) using either of these NAAT methods and continue to provide same day results. Laboratories performing CT testing must define the female population served so that appropriate diagnostic strategies can be employed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11821171     DOI: 10.1016/s0732-8893(01)00315-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis        ISSN: 0732-8893            Impact factor:   2.803


  6 in total

1.  Comparative evaluation of BDProbeTec ET, LCx and PACE 2 assays for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in urogenital specimens.

Authors:  C Pollara; L Terlenghi; M A De Francesco; F Gargiulo; F Perandin; N Manca
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2003-07-18       Impact factor: 3.267

2.  Reasons for testing women for genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in the Calgary region.

Authors:  Deirdre L Church; Ali Zentner; Heather Semeniuk; Elizabeth Henderson; Ron Read
Journal:  Can J Infect Dis       Date:  2003-01

3.  Prevalence of Chlamydia infection among women visiting a gynaecology outpatient department: evaluation of an in-house PCR assay for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis.

Authors:  Achchhe L Patel; Divya Sachdev; Poonam Nagpal; Uma Chaudhry; Subash C Sonkar; Suman L Mendiratta; Daman Saluja
Journal:  Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob       Date:  2010-09-08       Impact factor: 3.944

4.  Cost-effectiveness of screening strategies for Chlamydia trachomatis using cervical swabs, urine, and self-obtained vaginal swabs in a sexually transmitted disease clinic setting.

Authors:  Diane R Blake; Nancy Maldeis; Mathilda R Barnes; Andrew Hardick; Thomas C Quinn; Charlotte A Gaydos
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 2.830

5.  Diagnostic efficacy of a real time-PCR assay for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in infertile women in north India.

Authors:  Benu Dhawan; Jyoti Rawre; Arnab Ghosh; Neena Malhotra; Mir Muneer Ahmed; Vishnubhatla Sreenivas; Rama Chaudhry
Journal:  Indian J Med Res       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 2.375

6.  Frequency and genotypes of Chlamydia trachomatis in patients attending the obstetrics and gynecology clinics in Jalisco, Mexico and correlation with sociodemographic, behavioral, and biological factors.

Authors:  Néstor Casillas-Vega; Rayo Morfín-Otero; Santos García; Jorge Llaca-Díaz; Eduardo Rodríguez-Noriega; Adrián Camacho-Ortiz; Ma de la Merced Ayala-Castellanos; Héctor J Maldonado-Garza; Jesús Ancer-Rodríguez; Guadalupe Gallegos-Ávila; Alberto Niderhauser-García; Elvira Garza-González
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2017-09-15       Impact factor: 2.809

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.