Lowering the cut off value of an automated chlamydia enzyme immunoassay and confirmation by PCR and direct immunofluorescent antibody test

Vulvovaginal-swab or first-catch urine specimen to detect Chlamydia trachomatis in women in a community setting?

Screening for chlamydia in women is widely recommended. We evaluated the performance of two nucleic acid amplification tests for detecting Chlamydia trachomatis in self-collected vulvovaginal-swab and first-catch urine specimens from women in a community setting and a strategy for optimizing the sensitivity of an amplified enzyme immunoassay on vulvovaginal-swab specimens. We tested 2,745 paired vulvovaginal-swab and urine specimens by PCR (Roche Cobas) or strand displacement amplification (SDA; Becton Dickinson). There were 146 women infected with chlamydia. The assays detected 97.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.1 to 99.2%) of infected patients with vulvovaginal-swab specimens and 91.8% (86.1 to 95.7%) with urine specimens. We tested 2,749 vulvovaginal-swab specimens with both a nucleic acid amplification test and a polymer conjugate-enhanced enzyme immunoassay with negative-gray-zone testing. The relative sensitivities obtained after retesting specimens in the negative gray zone were 74.3% (95% CI, 62.8 to 83.8%) with PCR and 58.3% (95% CI, 46.1 to 69.8%) with SDA. In community settings, both vulvovaginal-swab and first-catch urine specimens from women are suitable substrates for nucleic acid amplification tests, but enzyme immunoassays, even after negative-gray-zone testing, should not be used in screening programs.

Enhanced enzyme immunoassay with negative-gray-zone testing compared to a single nucleic Acid amplification technique for community-based chlamydial screening of men

We evaluated a low-cost diagnostic strategy for detecting Chlamydia trachomatis in a low-prevalence population. We used an amplified enzyme immunoassay (EIA) with a reduced-cutoff "negative gray zone" to identify reactive specimens for confirmation by a nucleic acid amplification test. As part of the Chlamydia Screening Studies project, men provided a first-pass urine specimen, which they returned by post for testing. We tested 1,003 specimens by IDEIA PCE EIA (Dako) and Cobas PCR (Roche). There were 32 (3.2%) true positive specimens according to a combined standard using an algorithm requiring concordant results from at least two independent tests. All of these were positive by Cobas PCR and 24 were confirmed to be positive by PCE EIA, including 2 that gave results in the negative gray zone. There were 971 true negative specimens, 2 of which were positive by Cobas PCR and 19 of which were initially inhibitory for PCR. The relative sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of PCE EIA with PCR confirmation were 75.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 56.6 to 88.5%), 100% (95% CI, 99.7 to 100%), 100% (95% CI, 88.3 to 100%), and 99.2% (95% CI, 98.4 to 99.6%), respectively. The corresponding values for Cobas PCR were 100% (95% CI, 89.1 to 100%), 99.8% (95% CI, 99.3 to 100%), 94.1% (95% CI, 76.9 to 98.2%), and 100% (95% CI, 99.6 to 100%), respectively, with 1.9% (19/1003) of the samples being initially indeterminate. When the prevalence of C. trachomatis is low, the use of an amplified EIA on urine specimens, with confirmation of results in the negative gray zone by use of a nucleic acid amplification technique, is not suitable for screening asymptomatic men. In addition, positive nucleic acid amplification test results should be confirmed and an inhibition control should be used.

The accuracy and efficacy of screening tests for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review

Screening women for lower genital tract infection with Chlamydia trachomatis is important in the prevention of pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy and infertility. This systematic review aims to state clearly which of the available diagnostic tests for the detection of C. trachomatis would be most effective in terms of clinical effectiveness. The review included all studies published from 1990 onward that evaluated diagnostic tests in asymptomatic, young, sexually active populations. Medline and Embase were searched electronically and key journals were hand-searched. Further studies were identified through the Internet and contact with experts in the field. All studies were reviewed by two reviewers and were scored by Irwig's assessment criteria. Additional quality assessment criteria included a documented sexual history and recording of previous chlamydial infection. The reviews were subjected to meta-analysis and meta-regression. The 30 studies that were included examined three types of DNA-based test--ligase chain reaction (LCR), PCR and gene probe--as well as enzyme immuno-assay (EIA). The results showed that while specificities were high, sensitivities varied widely across the tests and were also dependent on the specimen tested. Pooled sensitivities for LCR, PCR, gene probe and EIA on urine were 96.5%, 85.6%, 92% and 38%, respectively, while on cervical swabs the corresponding sensitivities of PCR, gene probe and EIA were 88.6%, 84% and 65%. Meta-analysis demonstrated that DNA amplification techniques performed best for both urine and swabs in low prevalence populations. We conclude that nucleic acid amplification tests used on non-invasive samples such as urine are more effective at detecting asymptomatic chlamydial infection than conventional tests, but there are few data to relate a positive result with clinical outcome.