Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Clinical Pathology logoLink to Journal of Clinical Pathology
. 2000 May;53(5):350–354. doi: 10.1136/jcp.53.5.350

Evaluation of a new amplified enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in male urine, female endocervical swab, and patient obtained vaginal swab specimens

M Tanaka 1, H Nakayama 1, K Sagiyama 1, M Haraoka 1, H Yoshida 1, T Hagiwara 1, K Akazawa 1, S Naito 1
PMCID: PMC1731197  PMID: 10889816

Abstract

Aims—To compare the performance of a new generation dual amplified enzyme immunoassay (EIA) with a molecular method for the diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis, using a range of urogenital samples, and to assess the reliability of testing self collected vaginal specimens compared with clinician collected vaginal specimens.

Methods—Two population groups were tested. For the first population group, first void urine samples were collected from 193 male patients with urethritis, and endocervical swabs were collected from 187 high risk commercial sex workers. All urine and endocervical specimens were tested by a conventional assay (IDEIA chlamydia), a new generation amplified immunoassay (IDEIA PCE chlamydia), and the Amplicor polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Discrepant results obtained among the three sample types were confirmed using a nested PCR test with a different plasmid target region. For the second population group, four swab specimens, including one patient obtained vaginal swab, two clinician obtained endocervical swabs, and one clinician obtained vaginal swab, were collected from 91 high risk sex workers. Self collected and clinician collected vaginal swabs were tested by IDEIA PCE chlamydia. Clinician obtained endocervical swabs were assayed by IDEIA PCE chlamydia and Amplicor PCR.

Results—The performance of the IDEIA PCE chlamydia test was comparable to that of the Amplicor PCR test when male urine and female endocervical swab specimens were analysed. The relative sensitivities of IDEIA, IDEIA PCE, and Amplicor PCR on male first void urine specimens were 79.3%, 91.4%, and 100%, respectively. The relative sensitivities of the three tests on female endocervical specimens were 85.0%, 95.0%, and 100%, respectively. The positivity rates for patient collected vaginal specimens and clinician collected vaginal specimens by IDEIA PCE were 25.2% and 23.1%, respectively, whereas those for clinician collected endocervical swabs by PCR and IDEIA PCE were both 27.5%.

Conclusions—IDEIA PCE chlamydia is a lower cost but sensitive alternative test to PCR for testing male urine samples and female endocervical swabs. In addition, self collected or clinician collected vaginal specimens tested by IDEIA PCE chlamydia are a reliable alternative to analysing endocervical specimens.

Key Words: Chlamydia trachomatis • enzyme immunoassay • clinical specimens

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (89.5 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Chernesky M. A., Jang D., Lee H., Burczak J. D., Hu H., Sellors J., Tomazic-Allen S. J., Mahony J. B. Diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis infections in men and women by testing first-void urine by ligase chain reaction. J Clin Microbiol. 1994 Nov;32(11):2682–2685. doi: 10.1128/jcm.32.11.2682-2685.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Chernesky M. A., Jang D., Sellors J., Luinstra K., Chong S., Castriciano S., Mahony J. B. Urinary inhibitors of polymerase chain reaction and ligase chain reaction and testing of multiple specimens may contribute to lower assay sensitivities for diagnosing Chlamydia trachomatis infected women. Mol Cell Probes. 1997 Aug;11(4):243–249. doi: 10.1006/mcpr.1997.0109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Chernesky M. A., Lee H., Schachter J., Burczak J. D., Stamm W. E., McCormack W. M., Quinn T. C. Diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis urethral infection in symptomatic and asymptomatic men by testing first-void urine in a ligase chain reaction assay. J Infect Dis. 1994 Nov;170(5):1308–1311. doi: 10.1093/infdis/170.5.1308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Dean D., Ferrero D., McCarthy M. Comparison of performance and cost-effectiveness of direct fluorescent-antibody, ligase chain reaction, and PCR assays for verification of chlamydial enzyme immunoassay results for populations with a low to moderate prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis infection. J Clin Microbiol. 1998 Jan;36(1):94–99. doi: 10.1128/jcm.36.1.94-99.1998. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hadgu A. The discrepancy in discrepant analysis. Lancet. 1996 Aug 31;348(9027):592–593. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)05122-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hook E. W., 3rd, Smith K., Mullen C., Stephens J., Rinehardt L., Pate M. S., Lee H. H. Diagnosis of genitourinary Chlamydia trachomatis infections by using the ligase chain reaction on patient-obtained vaginal swabs. J Clin Microbiol. 1997 Aug;35(8):2133–2135. doi: 10.1128/jcm.35.8.2133-2135.1997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Howell M. R., Quinn T. C., Brathwaite W., Gaydos C. A. Screening women for chlamydia trachomatis in family planning clinics: the cost-effectiveness of DNA amplification assays. Sex Transm Dis. 1998 Feb;25(2):108–117. doi: 10.1097/00007435-199802000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Jensen I. P., Thorsen P., Møller B. R. Sensitivity of ligase chain reaction assay of urine from pregnant women for Chlamydia trachomatis. Lancet. 1997 Feb 1;349(9048):329–330. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(05)62829-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Lee H. H., Chernesky M. A., Schachter J., Burczak J. D., Andrews W. W., Muldoon S., Leckie G., Stamm W. E. Diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis genitourinary infection in women by ligase chain reaction assay of urine. Lancet. 1995 Jan 28;345(8944):213–216. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(95)90221-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Loeffelholz M. J., Lewinski C. A., Silver S. R., Purohit A. P., Herman S. A., Buonagurio D. A., Dragon E. A. Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in endocervical specimens by polymerase chain reaction. J Clin Microbiol. 1992 Nov;30(11):2847–2851. doi: 10.1128/jcm.30.11.2847-2851.1992. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Notomi T., Okadome A., Ariyoshi A., Nagayama A. [Basic evaluation of Chlamydia antigen detection by EIA using a dual amplification enhanced immunoassay method]. Kansenshogaku Zasshi. 1998 Jan;72(1):45–53. doi: 10.11150/kansenshogakuzasshi1970.72.45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Ostergaard L., Møller J. K., Andersen B., Olesen F. Diagnosis of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women based on mailed samples obtained at home: multipractice comparative study. BMJ. 1996 Nov 9;313(7066):1186–1189. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7066.1186. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Peeling R. W., Toye B., Jessamine P., Gemmill I. Pooling of urine specimens for PCR testing: a cost saving strategy for Chlamydia trachomatis control programmes. Sex Transm Infect. 1998 Feb;74(1):66–70. doi: 10.1136/sti.74.1.66. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Schachter J., Moncada J., Whidden R., Shaw H., Bolan G., Burczak J. D., Lee H. H. Noninvasive tests for diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis infection: application of ligase chain reaction to first-catch urine specimens of women. J Infect Dis. 1995 Nov;172(5):1411–1414. doi: 10.1093/infdis/172.5.1411. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Schachter J., Stamm W. E., Quinn T. C., Andrews W. W., Burczak J. D., Lee H. H. Ligase chain reaction to detect Chlamydia trachomatis infection of the cervix. J Clin Microbiol. 1994 Oct;32(10):2540–2543. doi: 10.1128/jcm.32.10.2540-2543.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Scholes D., Stergachis A., Heidrich F. E., Andrilla H., Holmes K. K., Stamm W. E. Prevention of pelvic inflammatory disease by screening for cervical chlamydial infection. N Engl J Med. 1996 May 23;334(21):1362–1366. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199605233342103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Stary A., Najim B., Lee H. H. Vulval swabs as alternative specimens for ligase chain reaction detection of genital chlamydial infection in women. J Clin Microbiol. 1997 Apr;35(4):836–838. doi: 10.1128/jcm.35.4.836-838.1997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Tanaka M., Nakayama H., Sakumoto M., Matsumoto T., Akazawa K., Kumazawa J. Trends in sexually transmitted diseases and condom use patterns among commercial sex workers in Fukuoka City, Japan 1990-93. Genitourin Med. 1996 Oct;72(5):358–361. doi: 10.1136/sti.72.5.358. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Tanaka M., Nakayama H., Yoshida H., Takahashi K., Nagafuji T., Hagiwara T., Kumazawa J. Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in vaginal specimens from female commercial sex workers using a new improved enzyme immunoassay. Sex Transm Infect. 1998 Dec;74(6):435–438. doi: 10.1136/sti.74.6.435. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Witkin S. S., Inglis S. R., Polaneczky M. Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Trichomonas vaginalis by polymerase chain reaction in introital specimens from pregnant women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Jul;175(1):165–167. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70268-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Clinical Pathology are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES