Chlamydia keratoconjunctivitis determination of Chlamydia trachomatis specific secretory immunoglobulin A in tears by enzyme immunoassay

The use of serologic tests for the diagnosis of chlamydial infections

Serology is commonly used for the diagnosis of acute Chlamydia pneumoniae infections and also for the diagnosis of complicated Chlamydia trachomatis infections. Furthermore, recent sero-epidemiological studies have linked C. pneumoniae infection with several diseases traditionally considered non-infectious. The objectives of this mini-review are to critically review and discuss some selected analytical and methodological aspects, controversies and current problems in chlamydial serodiagnosis. To illustrate our views we present some original data of the comparison of current technologies. The review of the literature revealed high variability in methodologies applied to different studies. This observation was supported by our own data, which explains occasional conflicting clinical interpretation. Although the microimmunofluorescence (MIF) technique is generally considered as the gold standard for serodiagnosis of chlamydial infections, assay conditions are highly variable and hence pose a major problem in the interpretation of the results. For instance, many recent studies linking C. pneumoniae and atherosclerosis have utilized MIF techniques with variable threshold criteria for the positivity, in combination with selection bias of cases and controls possibly leading to conflicting results. Variability of assay conditions is also a common problem with Western blots, and interpretation is problematic when both anti-C. pneumoniae and anti-C. trachomatis antibodies are present. Furthermore, there is a lot of disagreement in serological criteria applied to recently emerged enzyme immunoassay (EIA) techniques when these assays are used for acute and non-acute clinical conditions and their association with Chlamydiae. In conclusion, standardization of serological techniques and the development of uniform criteria for interpretation of serologic findings is necessary to increase our knowledge of the biology of Chlamydiae, pathogenesis of any chlamydial infection and chronic infections in particular.

Detection of antichlamydial antibodies in tears: a diagnostic aid?

OBJECTIVES

The antibody response in sera and tears of 167 patients with suspected chlamydial conjunctivitis was compared with the antibody response in sera and tears of 45 patients with symptoms of urogenital chlamydial infection to discover whether and which type of antichlamydial antibody detected in tears may be of diagnostic help in chlamydial conjunctivitis.

METHODS

Diagnosis was based on chlamydial antigen detection from the conjunctiva and urogenital tract, done by a direct immunofluorescence assay, McCoy cell culture, and polymerase chain reaction. Additionally, antichlamydial immunoglobulin A (IgA) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) were determined in sera and tears of all patients by an immunoperoxidase assay.

RESULTS

Two hundred twelve patients were examined--167 with conjunctivitis, 45 with symptoms of urogenital chlamydial infection. Cell culture, direct immunofluorescence assay, and polymerase chain reaction brought identical results. Conjunctival specimens taken from 33 (20%) of the patients with conjunctivitis were Chlamydia antigen positive; specimens taken from 134 (80%) were negative. Antichlamydial antibodies were found in tears of 29 (88%) of the patients with conjunctivitis whose specimens were Chlamydia antigen positive. Fifty-four (40%) of the patients with conjunctivitis whose specimens were Chlamydia antigen negative had antichlamydial antibodies in their tears. Twenty-five patients with urethritis (56%) were Chlamydia antigen positive in urethral swabs; 20 (44%) were negative. Antichlamydial antibodies were found in the tears of eight (32%) of the Chlamydia antigen-positive and two (10%) of the Chlamydia antigen-negative patients with urethritis. In contrast to patients with conjunctivitis, findings for patients with urethritis always were negative for antichlamydial IgG in the tears.

CONCLUSION

Antichlamydial antibodies in tears were seen significantly more often in patients with conjunctivitis than in those with urethritis (P < or = 0.05). Antichlamydial IgG was found only in tears of patients with conjunctivitis. Therefore, the authors conclude that the detection of antichlamydial IgG in the tears might be helpful for diagnosis in patients with suspected chlamydial conjunctivitis who have antigen-negative conjunctival swabs.