Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis by enzyme immunoassay, immunofluorescence, and cell culture

Evaluation of Pharmacia Chlamydia EIA for diagnosis of genital infections caused by Chlamydia trachomatis

A new enzyme-immunoassay test (EIA), Pharmacia Chlamydia EIA, was evaluated in comparison with isolation in cell culture for the diagnosis of genital infections caused by Chlamydia trachomatis. Endocervical and endourethral specimens were collected from 913 patients (875 female and 38 male patients respectively). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive and negative predictive values for this test were 89.4%, 99.2%, 85.8% and 99.4% respectively. Where discrepancies between the 2 techniques occurred, the remainder of the EIA buffer was stained for chlamydial antigen by direct immunofluorescence using the Syva Microtrak Chlamydia trachomatis Direct Specimen Test. Laboratory strains of various micro-organisms that may be present in genital specimens did not cross react with the EIA test except for Staphylococcus aureus and Group B Streptococcus at very high concentrations. The Pharmacia Chlamydia EIA is suitable for a laboratory which handles a large number of chlamydial specimens daily. However, when interpreting EIA results, the prevalence of chlamydial infection in the patient population should be established. At present, EIA tests are unsuitable as the only test for chlamydial diagnosis in low risk populations.

Laboratory techniques for the diagnosis of chlamydial infections

Yolk-sac inoculation of embryonated eggs was superseded 25 years ago by the use of cell cultures (often McCoy) for the isolation of Chlamydia trachomatis. Centrifugation of specimens onto the cell monolayers was shown to increase sensitivity, but little of late has further improved sensitivity which is at least ten-fold greater than that of eggs. However, culture is slow and labour intensive so that non-cultural techniques without these drawbacks have come to dominate. Direct fluorescent antibody (DFA) tests are rapid and have sensitivities that range from 70% to 100% for men and 68% to 100% for women, and specificities that range from 87% to 99% for men and 82% to 100% for women; if the tests are read by competent observers the values are at the top end of the ranges. The detection rate may be enhanced even further by relatively low-speed centrifugation of specimens before staining. Skilled reading is not a feature of enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) which according to the literature have sensitivities that range from 62% to 97% for men and 64% to 100% for women, and specificities that range from 92% to 100% for men and 89% to 100% for women. However, comparison against poor reference tests is responsible for most of the higher values and the clinician should not be misled into believing that EIAs have excellent sensitivity; the lower values in the ranges are closer to reality. Furthermore, EIAs that are being designed for use by general practitioners should be regarded with the greatest caution since lack of sensitivity means that chlamydia-positive patients will go undetected. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is not bedevilled by insensitivity but it is no more sensitive than the most sensitive cell culture or DFA tests. PCR is unsuitable for routine diagnosis but has a place as a research tool. For men, examination of "first-catch" urine samples by the best of the non-cultural procedures provides an acceptable non-invasive approach to diagnosis; for women, the value of examining urine may be less, but needs to be thoroughly tested. However, there is little doubt that a Cytobrush used to obtain cervical specimens holds no practical advantage over a swab. Serological tests are reliant on the provision of paired sera for making a diagnosis; high antibody titres in single sera may be suggestive of an aetiological association in deep-seated chlamydial infections (epididymitis, arthritis, salpingitis, etc), but unequivocal interpretation is unusual, particularly in an individual case, since the distinction between a current and past infection is problematical.

Comparison of three non-culture techniques for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in genital tract specimens

A direct immunofluorescence (DIF) technique (Imagen) and two enzyme immunoassay (EIA) techniques (Chlamydiazyme and IDEIA) were compared for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in genital specimens from 502 attenders at a genitourinary medicine clinic. Eighty-two attenders were regarded as infected: 67 with positive results by at least two of the three techniques and 15 by virtue of elementary bodies detected in stored EIA buffer samples. With a positivity criterion of greater than or equal to 6 bodies Imagen was 76% sensitive for men and 61% sensitive for women. The sensitivity of Chlamydiazyme was 73% for men and 90% for women; comparative values for IDEIA were 80% and 71%, respectively. All three techniques were over 98% specific. Sampling order appeared to influence the sensitivity of IDEIA for specimens from men. All three techniques were less sensitive in the absence of cervicitis. The performances of the EIA techniques compared favourably with that of the more established technique of DIF.

Testing for Chlamydia trachomatis

Chlamydia trachomatis is a highly prevalent and damaging sexually transmitted disease. Since it may occur in an asymptomatic state, it is important for family physicians to know when screening or testing for this infection is indicated. The value of screening may be increased by correct collection, storage and transport of specimens. The techniques currently used in the laboratory to test specimens for chlamydia include cell culture, ELISA and immunofluorescent antibody (IFA) assay. Cell culture remains the 'gold standard'. The IFA and ELISA are simpler and quicker to perform than is culture and have sufficiently comparable measurements of accuracy.