Mandatory use of confirmation stage with Chlamydiazyme during urinary sediment analysis

Current methods of laboratory diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis infections

Infections caused by Chlamydia trachomatis are probably the most common sexually transmitted diseases in the United States. Commonly unrecognized and often inadequately treated, chlamydial infections can ascend the reproductive tract and cause pelvic inflammatory disease, which often results in the devastating consequences of infertility, ectopic pregnancy, or chronic pelvic pain. C. trachomatis infections are also known to increase the risk for human immunodeficiency virus infection. The obligate intracellular life cycle of C. trachomatis has traditionally required laboratory diagnostic tests that are technically demanding, labor-intensive, expensive, and difficult to access. In spite of these historical challenges, however, laboratory diagnosis of C. trachomatis has been a rapidly advancing area in which there is presently a wide array of commercial diagnostic technologies, costs, manufacturers. This review describes and compares the diagnostic methods for C. trachomatis infection that are currently approved for use in the United States, including the newest DNA amplification technologies which are yet to be licensed for commercial use. Issues to consider in selecting a test for purposes of screening versus diagnosis based on prevalence, performance, legal, social, and cost issues are also discussed.

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%.