Comparison of the Kallested Pathfinder EIA, cytocentrifuged direct fluorescent antibody, and cell culture for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis

Prevalence of Hepatitis C virus antibody in patients with sexually transmitted diseases attending a Harrisburg, PA, STD clinic

OBJECTIVE

The prevalence of hepatitis B and hepatitis C in a sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinic population was studied, along with the prevalence of various STD agents, in an attempt to identify possible STD markers for the hepatitis C virus and help delineate the role of hepatitis C as an STD. The hepatitis C antibody rates found in the STD clinic were also compared with those found among patients attending a local OB/GYN clinic and those enrolled in a blood donor program, all from the same geographical area.

METHODS

A total of 150 women attending an STD clinc were examined for each of the following agents: Chlamyadia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, syphilis, hepatitis B surface antigen, hepatitis B core antibody, hepatitis B surface antibody, and hepatitis C virus antibody. Additionally, several patients who signed informed consent to be evaluated for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) antibody were tested by an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) screen method. The prevalence of each agent was then compared with the other agents.

RESULTS

The overall prevalence rates detected were as follows: hepatitis B 16%, hepatitis C 4%, chlamydia 18.7%, gonorrhea 7.4%, syphilis 0.7%, and HIV 0%. Hepatitis C antibody was detected in 4% of patients in the STD clinic, 0.76% of volunteer blood donors from central Pennsylvania, and 0% of patiants studied from the Harrisburg Hospital (Harrisburg, PA) prentatal population.

CONCLUSIONS

This screening study reveals an association between attending a Harrisburg, PA, area STD clinic and having an increased prevalence of hepatitis C antibody, but larger matched control studies will be needed to help clarify sexual transmission as a mode of transmission for the hepatitis C virus.

Confirmation of the Syva MicroTrak enzyme immunoassay for chlamydia trachomatis by Syva Direct Fluorescent Antibody Test

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The Syva Micro Trak enzyme immunoassay (EIA) is used widely for screening women infected with Chlamydia trachomatis. Confirmatory tests used in conjunction with EIA screening have shown that false-positive results are common.

GOALS

To evaluate the specificity of the Syva MicroTrak EIA by confirmation of positive specimens with the Syva Direct Fluorescent Specimen Test.

STUDY DESIGN

Of 6,039 endocervical specimens collected from women attending Colorado family planning clinics, 328 positive EIA results (5.4%) were obtained by Syva MicroTrak EIA. A random subset of 136 positive specimens was tested by Syva Direct Specimen Test. Twenty of 136 specimens (14.7%) negative by Syva Direct Specimen testing were also tested by Syva blocking antibody tests (9 of 20 positive, 45%) and Roche Amplicor polymerase chain reaction (PCR; 6 of 20 positive, 30%). Of 20 specimens positive by Syva MicroTrak EIA and negative by Syva Direct Specimen Test, 11 (55%) were also negative by blocking antibody and PCR, including three specimens with initial EIA sample-to-cutoff ratios greater than 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Confirmatory testing of Syva MicroTrak EIA positive specimens with Syva Direct Specimen Test showed that 14.7% were false positive. Coupling the Syva Direct Specimen test with either blocking antibody or PCR reduces the rate of false-positive results to 8%.

Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis antigen by enzyme immunoassay: importance of confirmatory testing

AIM--To determine when a fluorescence assay for Chlamydia trachomatis elementary bodies in the specimen buffer is of most value as a verification test for genital specimens reactive on screening enzyme immunoassay (EIA). METHOD--Genital swabs from high and medium prevalence populations were tested using EIA. Samples with absorbance values greater than the positive threshold and those within the range of 30% below this value were verified by the MicroTrak direct fluorescence assay (DFA) test. Quotients derived from the threshold value and specimen absorbances were used to establish confidence limits for the EIA. RESULTS--Of 13,283 swabs tested, 474 from the high risk group and 236 from the medium risk group were reactive on EIA and confirmed by DFA. Thirty six (5.9%) patients with confirmed reactive samples would have been missed if the kit criteria alone were followed. When confidence limits were applied to the calculated quotients, only those samples with an EIA quotient of > or = 4.0 were universally confirmed by the DFA. CONCLUSION--A scheme of testing which uses the DFA to verify EIA reactive specimens over a specified range was found to improve the sensitivity and specificity of the EIA screening test.