HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Tanaka, M. Articles by Naito, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Tanaka, M. Articles by Naito, S.

Evaluation of a new amplified enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in male urine, female endocervical swab, and patient obtained vaginal swab specimens

¹ Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kyushu University, 3–1–1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka 812-8582, Japan
² Department of Medical Informatics, Faculty of Medicine, Kyushu University
³ Nakayama Urologic Clinic, Fukuoka 812-0038, Japan
⁴ Division of Urology, Harasanshin Hospital, Fukuoka 812-0033, Japan
⁵ Department of Virology, National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Tokyo 162-0052, Japan

Dr Tanaka email: masatosh{at}uro.med.kyushu-u.ac.jp Aims—To compare the performance of a new generation dual amplified enzyme immunoassay (EIA) with a molecular method for the diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis, using a range of urogenital samples, and to assess the reliability of testing self collected vaginal specimens compared with clinician collected vaginal specimens.

Methods—Two population groups were tested. For the first population group, first void urine samples were collected from 193 male patients with urethritis, and endocervical swabs were collected from 187 high risk commercial sex workers. All urine and endocervical specimens were tested by a conventional assay (IDEIA chlamydia), a new generation amplified immunoassay (IDEIA PCE chlamydia), and the Amplicor polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Discrepant results obtained among the three sample types were confirmed using a nested PCR test with a different plasmid target region. For the second population group, four swab specimens, including one patient obtained vaginal swab, two clinician obtained endocervical swabs, and one clinician obtained vaginal swab, were collected from 91 high risk sex workers. Self collected and clinician collected vaginal swabs were tested by IDEIA PCE chlamydia. Clinician obtained endocervical swabs were assayed by IDEIA PCE chlamydia and Amplicor PCR.

Results—The performance of the IDEIA PCE chlamydia test was comparable to that of the Amplicor PCR test when male urine and female endocervical swab specimens were analysed. The relative sensitivities of IDEIA, IDEIA PCE, and Amplicor PCR on male first void urine specimens were 79.3%, 91.4%, and 100%, respectively. The relative sensitivities of the three tests on female endocervical specimens were 85.0%, 95.0%, and 100%, respectively. The positivity rates for patient collected vaginal specimens and clinician collected vaginal specimens by IDEIA PCE were 25.2% and 23.1%, respectively, whereas those for clinician collected endocervical swabs by PCR and IDEIA PCE were both 27.5%.

Conclusions—IDEIA PCE chlamydia is a lower cost but sensitive alternative test to PCR for testing male urine samples and female endocervical swabs. In addition, self collected or clinician collected vaginal specimens tested by IDEIA PCE chlamydia are a reliable alternative to analysing endocervical specimens.

Key Words: Chlamydia trachomatis • enzyme immunoassay • clinical specimens

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Skidmore, P. Horner, A. Herring, J. Sell, I. Paul, J. Thomas, E. O. Caul, M. Egger, A. McCarthy, E. Sanford, et al. Vulvovaginal-Swab or First-Catch Urine Specimen To Detect Chlamydia trachomatis in Women in a Community Setting? J. Clin. Microbiol., December 1, 2006; 44(12): 4389 - 4394. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H Jalal, H Stephen, A Al-Suwaine, C Sonnex, and C Carne The superiority of polymerase chain reaction over an amplified enzyme immunoassay for the detection of genital chlamydial infections Sex. Transm. Inf., February 1, 2006; 82(1): 37 - 40. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Horner, S. Skidmore, A. Herring, J. Sell, I. Paul, O. Caul, M. Egger, A. McCarthy, E. Sanford, C. Salisbury, et al. Enhanced Enzyme Immunoassay with Negative-Gray-Zone Testing Compared to a Single Nucleic Acid Amplification Technique for Community-Based Chlamydial Screening of Men J. Clin. Microbiol., May 1, 2005; 43(5): 2065 - 2069. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K Eastick, J P Leeming, E O Caul, P J Horner, and M R Millar A novel polymerase chain reaction assay to detect Mycoplasma genitalium Mol. Pathol., February 1, 2003; 56(1): 25 - 28. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Chernesky, D. Jang, D. Copes, J. Patel, A. Petrich, K. Biers, A. Sproston, and J. Kapala Comparison of a Polymer Conjugate-Enhanced Enzyme Immunoassay to Ligase Chain Reaction for Diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis in Endocervical Swabs J. Clin. Microbiol., June 1, 2001; 39(6): 2306 - 2307. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]