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

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.     

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.     

Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis antigens in first-void urine to identify asymptomatic male carriers.

Early morning first-void urine collected from 279 sexually active Swedish male recruits (mean age 19.5 years) was tested by two commercial enzyme immunoassay (EIA) kits, MicroTrak and IDEIA III, and by MicroTrak direct fluorescence assay (DFA), to detect Chlamydia trachomatis antigens. A result was assumed to be true-positive when any of the two non-culture tests were positive for the same specimen. In one case where only DFA was positive, confirmatory chlamydial testing was performed by isolating the organism from a urethral swab. On these premises, the number of true-positive men was 26 (9.3% of all men studied). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for MicroTrak EIA were 85%, 98%, 85%, and 98%, respectively. IDEIA III was less sensitive than MicroTrak EIA (42% vs 85%). In conclusion, the diagnosis of asymptomatic chlamydial infections in men can be established with reasonable accuracy by the detection of Chlamydia antigens in urine samples using MicroTrak EIA.     

Comparison of three non-culture techniques for detection ofChlamydia 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 ofChlamydia 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 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.     

Evaluation of three immunoassays for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in urine specimens from asymptomatic males.

The performances of three commercially available immunoassays (Chlamydiazyme/Antibody Blocking Assay [Abbott Diagnostics, Abbott Park, Ill.], IDEIA [Analytab Products, Plainview, N.Y.], and Microtrak EIA [Syva Co. Palo Alto, Calif.]) were evaluated for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in urine specimens from asymptomatic males. Assay results were compared with direct specimen immunofluorescence (DFA) analysis of urine sediment (Syva Microtrak; Syva Co.), which was chosen as the study confirmation assay. An overall Chlamydia prevalence of 7% (24 of 340) was found in our study population, with peak incidences occurring in the adolescent (8 of 93 specimens) and young adult (11 of 146 specimens) age groups. Sensitivity and specificity data among the Chlamydiazyme, IDEIA, and Microtrak enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) were determined to be 79.1 and 99%, 91.7 and 98%, and 95.8 and 99%, respectively. The Microtrak EIA and IDEIA products demonstrated sensitivities and specificities equal to or greater than those claimed for urine specimens. The diagnostic accuracies of these assays on asymptomatic subjects, along with the ease of this collection method, suggest a role for these products as screening tools. The sensitivity of the Chlamydiazyme assay was lower than that claimed previously in symptomatic patients, with 5 of 24 positive specimens demonstrating false-negative results. In those cases, centrifugation of the original immunoassay aliquot material and then DFA examination confirmed specimen positivity. Urine immunoassay screening in combination with DFA confirmation (which was chosen because it has antibody epitopic specificity different from that of the primary assay) provides a high degree of diagnostic precision. The use of noninvasive collection methods could result in greater testing compliance among asymptomatic males and, subsequently, could reduce the incidences of both symptomatic and silent chlamydial infections.     

Accuracy of results obtained by performing a second ligase chain reaction assay and PCR analysis on urine samples with positive or near-cutoff results in the LCx test for Chlamydia trachomatis

Nucleic acid amplification assays such as the ligase chain reaction and PCR have encountered reproducibility problems. The initial extract and a newly extracted aliquot of urine specimens (n = 120) which had signal-to-cutoff (S/CO) ratios above 0.80 by the LCx Chlamydia assay were retested. Nucleic acid was extracted from an additional urine sample for testing by the AMPLICOR PCR Chlamydia assay. Fifteen percent (18 of 120) of the urine specimens were negative by all repeat tests (initial mean S/CO ratio by the LCx Chlamydia assay, 0.93; S/CO ratio range, 0.80 to 3.30). Repeat testing of the 102 specimens with possible positive results by the LCx Chlamydia assay by use of the initially extracted aliquot confirmed the results for 95 (93.1%) of the specimens; repeat testing of a newly extracted aliquot confirmed the results for 87 (85.3%) of the specimens. Twenty specimens had discordant results by the two repeat LCx Chlamydia assays. A total of 78 of 102 (76.5%) of the specimens were positive by the AMPLICOR PCR, and the AMPLICOR PCR confirmed the results for 82.1% (78 of 95) and 89.6% (78 of 87) of the specimens positive by the two repeat LCx Chlamydia assays, respectively. Some of the discrepancies observed by multiple repeat tests may have been due to specimen mislabeling or contamination during performance of the procedure rather than to the LCx Chlamydia assay. Both assays suffered from a lack of reproducibility on repeat testing with a small proportion of specimens, probably due to the presence of low levels of DNA, the presence of variable amounts of amplification inhibitors, and the loss of DNA during extraction.     

Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in urine samples by polymerase chain reaction and enzyme immunoassay

First-void urine samples collected from sexually transmitted diseases (STD) clinic patients were examined by a nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and a commercial enzyme immunoassay (IDEIA Chlamydia) for the diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis urethritis or cervicitis. The primers for the PCR amplified a target in the major outer membrane protein (MOMP) gene in C trachomatis while the IDEIA detected genus-specific chlamydial lipopolysaccharide. Discrepant results were resolved by retesting urine specimens with a second (plasmid-based) PCR and taking urethral or endocervical swab results into consideration. For 231 men (chlamydial prevalence 20.4%), the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were 59.6%, 99.5%, 96.6% and 90.6% for urine IDEIA, 68.1%, 99.5%, 97% and 92.4% for urethral swab IDEIA and 97.9%, 99.5%, 97.9% and 99.5% for urine PCR. The corresponding rates for 66 women (chlamydial prevalence 54.6%) were 19.4%, 100%, 100% and 50.8% for urine IDEIA, 86.1%, 96.7%, 96.9% and 85.3% for endocervical swab IDEIA and 91.7%, 93.3%, 94.3% and 90.3% for urine PCR. Hence, in a high prevalence population, the urine IDEIA was a suitable alternative to the male urethral swab IDEIA but significantly less sensitive than the endocervical swab IDEIA. The urine PCR was, however, much more sensitive than the urine IDEIA for both men and women and could replace the endocervical swab IDEIA for the diagnosis of chlamydial cervicitis.     

Comparison of the PACE 2 Assay, Two Amplification Assays, and Clearview EIA for Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in Female Endocervical and Urine Specimens

Screening for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) in a greater proportion of sexually active patients has become an accepted protocol by most health care providers. The purpose of this study was to compare the current test methods for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis used at the University of South Alabama, the PACE 2 assay (Gen-Probe) and the Clearview EIA (Wampole Laboratories), with two amplification technologies, the AMP CT (Gen-Probe) and LCx (Abbott) assays. In addition, a number of demographic parameters were ascertained by asking questions at the time of examination as well as for health care provider concerns and preferences. One urine and four endocervical swab specimens were collected in random order from 787 female patients attending one of four obstetrics-gynecology clinics. Eighty-seven percent of patients had no STD-related symptoms. Patients were considered positive for C. trachomatis if three or more assays (swab and/or urine) were positive. Abbott and Gen-Probe confirmed discrepant results by alternate amplified assays. A total of 66 true-positive specimens were detected by use of the combination of endocervical swabs and urine specimens. After discrepant analysis, sensitivities for endocervical swab specimens for the EIA and the PACE 2, LCx, and AMP CT assays were 50, 81, 97, and 100%, respectively. Sensitivities for the LCx and AMP CT assays with urine specimens were 98 and 81%, respectively. The prevalence of C. trachomatis was 8.4%, as determined by amplification technology. Overall, the amplification technologies were the most sensitive methods with either swab (AMP CT assay) or urine (LCx assay) specimens. The PACE 2 assay offered the advantage of a simpler and less expensive assay with acceptable sensitivity. The clearview CT EIA, while yielding a rapid in-office result, had unacceptably low sensitivity. The wide variation in performance with amplification assays with urine specimens as reported in both this study and the literature obviates the need to clarify optimal parameters for this specimen type.     

Evaluation of five immunoassays for detection of Chlamydia psittaci in cloacal and conjunctival specimens from turkeys.

Five commercially available immunoassays were evaluated for the detection of Chlamydia psittaci in cloacal and conjunctival swabs from industrially raised turkeys: IMAGEN (DAKO Diagnostics, Ely, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom), Chlamydia CEL-VET IF (Cellabs, Brookvale, Australia), IDEIA (DAKO Diagnostics), CELISA (Cellabs), and CLEARVIEW (Unipath, Bedford, United Kingdom). Results were compared with isolation in Buffalo Green Monkey cells as a reference method. For the conjunctival samples, the sensitivities of the IMAGEN test, the Chlamydia CEL-VET IF test, the IDEIA, the CELISA, and the CLEARVIEW test were found to be 100, 66, 0, 0, and 0%, respectively, as compared to the reference test. Also for the conjunctival samples, the specificities of the IMAGEN test, the Chlamydia CEL-VET IF test, and the IDEIA were found to be 100, 11, and 92.8%, respectively. For the cloacal specimens, the sensitivities of the IMAGEN test, the Chlamydia CEL-VET IF test, the IDEIA, the CELISA, and the CLEARVIEW test were found to be 100, 93.3, 26.6, 0, and 53.3%, respectively. Also for the cloacal specimens, the specificities of the IMAGEN test, the Chlamydia CEL-VET IF test, the IDEIA, and the CLEARVIEW test were found to be 92, 12, 100, and 88%, respectively. The IMAGEN test was the most sensitive and specific direct chlamydia antigen detection test for cloacal and conjunctival samples from turkeys.     

Sensitivities of PCR, MicroTrak, ChlamydiaEIA, IDEIA, and PACE 2 for purified Chlamydia trachomatis elementary bodies in urine, peripheral blood, peripheral blood leukocytes, and synovial fluid.

Routine microbiological diagnosis of Chlamydia-induced reactive arthritis is based mainly on the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis with urogenital swabs or in urine. Because chlamydial antigen, rRNA, and DNA are present in low quantities in the inflamed joint, highly sensitive assays are needed to detect C. trachomatis not only at the primary site of infection but also in peripheral blood and peripheral blood leukocytes, which are suspected carriers for dissemination, and in synovial fluid. To evaluate possible tools for this purpose, the sensitivities of PCR, MicroTrak, Chlamydia EIA, IDEIA, and PACE 2 for the detection of defined numbers of purified C. trachomatis elementary bodies (EB) in urine, peripheral blood, peripheral blood leukocytes, and synovial fluid were determined. In urine, PCR detected 2, MicroTrak and ChlamydiaEIA detected 2 x 10(3), and PACE 2 and IDEIA detected 2 x 10(4) EB per ml. In peripheral blood, only PCR and MicroTrak detected C. trachomatis, with detection limits of 100 and 2 x 10(7) EB per ml, respectively. For peripheral blood leukocytes, the detection limits were 2 EB per ml for PCR and 2 x 10(4) EB per ml for MicroTrak, ChlamydiaEIA, IDEIA, and PACE 2. In synovial fluid, PCR detected 200, MicroTrak and IDEIA detected 2 x 10(5), and PACE 2 detected 10(6) EB per ml. ChlamydiaEIA was unable to detect 2 x 10(6) EB per ml in synovial fluid. In summary, PCR was found to be the most sensitive method. The sensitivities of the other methods tested were at least 1,000 times lower than that of PCR. PCR should therefore be considered a most promising tool for routine diagnosis of Chlamydia-induced arthritis.     

Establishment of a particle-counting method for purified elementary bodies of chlamydiae and evaluation of sensitivities of the IDEIA Chlamydia kit and DNA probe by using the purified elementary bodies.

To evaluate the sensitivity of commercially available test kits for detection of chlamydiae, we established a method of purifying Chlamydia trachomatis and Chlamydia pneumoniae elementary bodies (EBs). We then subjected the purified EBs, together with the purified EBs of Chlamydia psittaci, to the IDEIA Chlamydia (IDEIA) and DNA probe test kits to determine the EB numbers at the detection limits. The sensitivities of the test kits were thus compared. The results can be summarized as follows. (i) Intact EBs in the purified preparations were present at 100, 96.3, and 97% for the C. psittaci Cal 10, C. trachomatis L2/434/Bu (L2), and C. pneumoniae TW-183 strains, respectively. The preparations of the L2 and TW-183 EBs contained a few EB envelopes, which reacted with antilipopolysaccharide monoclonal antibodies, as did the intact EBs, indicating that elimination of EB envelopes is not required for testing of the IDEIA kit's sensitivity. (ii) We established a method of counting intact EBs and EB envelopes under a scanning electron microscope after sedimentation of EBs on a coverslip by centrifugation. (iii) The EB numbers per assay at the cutoff level, which is set up in the IDEIA kit, were 9.6 x 10(2), 6.5 x 10(3), and 2.5 x 10(4) for the L2, TW-183, and Cal 10 strains, respectively. When the same EB preparations were applied to the DNA probe kit, the EB number at the cutoff level was 7.5 x 10(3) per assay for the L2 strain, but no reaction occurred for the Cal 10 and TW-183 strains at any EB number, indicating that the DNA probe kit is highly specific for C. trachomatis. Although the IDEIA kit designed for detection of C. trachomatis showed a sensitivity superior to that of the DNA probe, the chlamydial species was not determined by the IDEIA kit.     

Importance of methodology in determination of Chlamydia pneumoniae seropositivity in healthy subjects and in patients with coronary atherosclerosis

Enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) for the detection of Chlamydia pneumoniae antibodies were compared to the microimmunofluorescence (MIF) test, the reference method. Furthermore, we assessed the hypothesis that a possible relationship between Chlamydia pneumoniae immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies and coronary artery disease is dependent on the type of EIA. Sera from 112 healthy men (mean age, 50.1 years) were tested for antibodies against Chlamydia pneumoniae by five commercial test kits: Focus Chlamydia MIF IgG test, Labsystems Chlamydia pneumoniae IgG EIA (LS EIA), R-Biopharm Elegance Chlamydia pneumoniae IgG EIA (RB EIA), Medac Chlamydia pneumoniae IgG sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay ELISA (MCp sELISA) and Medac Chlamydia IgG recombinant enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay ELISA (MC rELISA). Sera from 106 consecutive male patients (mean age, 63.6 years) undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography were also examined using the Focus MIF, LS EIA, MCp sELISA, and MC rELISA techniques. The agreement between LS EIA (65 to 83% [controls-patients]) or MC rELISA (49 to 61%) and Focus MIF (78 to 83%) was average to fair (kappa = 0.597 and 0.234, respectively). MCp sELISA and RB EIA showed good agreement with MIF (kappa = 0.686 and 0.665, respectively), with 80 to 89 and 79% of individuals reacting positively. A significant difference in seroprevalence between patients and healthy subjects was observed with the LS EIA, while seropositivities in the two study groups appeared equal when the Focus MIF assay was applied. The MC rELISA and MCp sELISA gave statistically significant differences in antibody seroprevalence in patients with two-vessel disease or when the patient group combined individuals with a two- or a three-vessel disease, respectively. The concordance between MIF and other commonly used serological assays for C. pneumoniae IgG antibody detection is good to fair. The choice of serological assay has important implications for C. pneumoniae antibody seroprevalence, as well as for the relationship between C. pneumoniae seropositivity and coronary artery disease.     

Comparison of the RIDASCREEN norovirus enzyme immunoassay to IDEIA NLV GI/GII by testing stools also assayed by RT-PCR and electron microscopy

RIDASCREEN norovirus enzyme immunoassay (EIA) detected 80.3% of norovirus-infected feces samples compared to 60.6% by IDEIA NLV GI/GII from 228 patients with no false positives by either assay. RT-PCR and electron microscopy percent sensitivity and specificity were 98.5, 100 and 36.4 and 96.9, respectively.     

Evaluation of an enzyme immunoassay kit for detecting cryptosporidium in faeces and environmental samples.

AIMS: To evaluate a commercially available enzyme immunoassay based on a monoclonal antibody to a genus specific Cryptosporidium (IDEIA Cryptosporidium; Dako) antigen for detecting Cryptosporidium oocysts in faecal and environmental samples. METHODS: 435 human faecal samples and post-filtration deposits from 10 reservoir samples, and from six tap water samples seeded with Cryptosporidium oocysts, were examined by EIA according to the manufacturer's instructions, and by microscopic examination of phenolauramine stained smears. Samples giving discrepant results were examined by specific immunofluorescence, before and after concentration of oocysts. RESULTS: Sixteen (3.6%) faecal samples were positive by both microscopy and EIA; five (1.1%) were positive by microscopy of auramine-phenol stained smears (but were not confirmed by specific immunofluorescence) and negative by EIA; one (0.2%) was positive by EIA alone, but confirmed by specific immunofluorescence; and 362 (83.2%) were negative by both microscopy and EIA. Compared with immunofluorescence positive faecal samples, the sensitivity of conventional microscopy and EIA were 94% and 100%, and specificity 76.4% and 100%, respectively. Fifty one (11.7%) were not examined by microscopy due to detection of other pathogens in a previous sample from that patient, but were found to be negative by EIA. Ten reservoir water samples (not suspected of being linked to cases of cryptosporidiosis) were negative by both microscopy and EIA. Of six samples of tap water seeded with varying concentrations of Cryptosporidium oocysts, two (10(2) and 10(3) oocysts/l) were positive by both microscopy and EIA, two (10 and 1/l) by EIA alone, and two (0.1/l and unseeded water) were negative by both microscopy and EIA. CONCLUSIONS: The kit is simple and rapid to use and offers a less subjective method than microscopy for detecting Cryptosporidium in faecal samples submitted to a busy diagnostic laboratory.     

Comparison of detection procedures for Chlamydia trachomatis, including enzyme immunoassays, in a mouse model of genital infection

Two chlamydial enzyme immunoassays, Chlamydiazyme and IDEIA, were evaluated in a mouse model of chlamydial genital-tract infection. The Chlamydiazyme assay and the IDEIA were assessed on specimens from 10 and 11 mice, respectively. The animals were infected with Chlamydia trachomatis, strain SA2f, and the results obtained by these methods on vaginal specimens taken on 4 or 5 occasions during 41-42 days were compared with those obtained in cell culture and to a less extent by the MicroTrak direct immunofluorescence test. In comparison with culture, the Chlamydiazyme assay had a sensitivity of 62% and a specificity of 92%; IDEIA had a sensitivity of 76% and a specificity of 94%. These assays sometimes did not detect chlamydiae in specimens taken immediately before specimens which proved positive by culture and the immunoassays were less sensitive if swabs were taken after those for culture. The IDEIA also failed to detect chlamydiae in the late stage of the murine infection when chlamydial elementary bodies were seen by immunofluorescence. The implications of the observations for investigations in the human field as well as for further studies in the mouse are discussed.     

Improved sensitivity of an enzyme immunoassay IDEIA for detecting Chlamydia trachomatis.

In tests on 375 genital tract specimens a commercially available enzyme immunoassay for Chlamydia trachomatis (IDEIA; Boots-Celltech) was found to have sensitivity values of 62% for men and 74% for women, and a specificity of 97% for both groups, relative to the results obtained by a fluorescence assay (Micro Trak; Syva). The positive predictive value and the negative predictive value of the immunoassay were 91% and 87%, respectively. Collection of samples for IDEIA in transport medium in plastic phials, as opposed to glass phials recommended by the manufacturer, had no effect on these values. Tests of the sensitivity of IDEIA using laboratory strains of C trachomatis showed that the assay detected chlamydial elementary bodies only at dilutions at least 10-fold lower than those at which they could be detected by Micro Trak. Tests of the specificity of the assay with microorganisms found in the genital tract, other than chlamydiae, showed that reactions occurred with a number of these. Testing three cervical swabs from the same patient, with the material taken into a single phial of transport medium, increased the sensitivity of IDEIA from 74% to 96%, without reducing the specificity which remained at 97%. It is concluded that this approach enchances the value of the test in a sexually transmitted disease clinic population and may do so in a population with a low prevalence of chlamydiae.     

Diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis genital infections by cell culture and two enzyme immunoassays detecting different chlamydial antigens.

The enzyme-amplified immunoassay IDEIA (CellTech Diagnostics), which measures lipopolysaccharide antigen, and Chlamydiazyme (Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, Ill.), which measures several antigenic components of Chlamydia trachomatis, were compared for specimens from urethral swabs from 235 men attending a clinic for sexually transmitted diseases (culture prevalence of 14.9%) and 458 endocervical swabs from women attending planned parenthood and obstetrics-gynecology clinics (culture prevalences of 5.9 and 7.7%, respectively). Compared with cell culture, the percent sensitivites, specificities, and positive and negative predictive values for IDEIA were 62.5, 99.5, 95.2, and 94.3%, respectively, for specimens from men and 96.3, 97.9, 74.3, and 99.8%, respectively, for specimens from women; results for Chlamydiazyme for specimens from men were 81.8, 99.5, 96.4, and 97.1%, respectively, and for specimens from women, results were 85.2, 99.3, 88.5, and 99.1%, respectively. Although the specificities of IDEIA and Chlamydiazyme were comparable, the sensitivity of IDEIA appeared higher for women (96.3%) than for men (67.5%), while the sensitivities of Chlamydiazyme were similar for men (81.8%) and women (85.2%). Western blot (immunoblot) analysis of the detector reagents from the two immunoassays indicated that the differences in performance observed for the two immunoassays may be due to measurement of different antigens.     

Comparison of DNA probe, monoclonal antibody enzyme immunoassay, and cell culture for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis.

A total of 201 endocervical specimens were obtained from patients with a clinical or epidemiological history suggestive of chlamydial infection. These specimens were tested by DNA probe (Gen-Probe, San Diego, Calif.) and the IDEIA III (Boots-Celltech, Berkshire, United Kingdom) monoclonal antibody enzyme immunoassay and compared with cell culture for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis. Discrepancies between cell culture and antigen detection methods were resolved by direct fluorescent-antibody testing. In a population with a 17.4% prevalence, the sensitivities and specificities of these assays were 82.8 and 99.4%, respectively, for the DNA probe assay and 97.1 and 98.1%, respectively, for the IDEIA III.     

Comparison of an industry-derived LCx Chlamydia pneumoniae PCR research kit to in-house assays performed in five laboratories

In a multicenter comparison of PCR assays utilizing 120 quantitated samples of 16 Chlamydia pneumoniae isolates, an LCx research-use-only (RUO) PCR developed by Abbott Laboratories demonstrated 100% sensitivity on 48 samples with >1 copy of DNA per microl of specimen. The sensitivities of five in-house PCR assays ranged from 54 to 94% for the same samples. All six assays showed decreased sensitivities as the DNA copy numbers of the samples decreased. Overall, sensitivities ranged from 68% for the LCx PCR assay to 29% for one of the in-house tests. The LCx RUO PCR and three of the five in-house PCR tests reported no false positives with the 24 negative samples. Increasing the number of replicates tested increased the sensitivities of all of the assays, including the LCx PCR. The LCx RUO assay showed high reproducibility for a single technologist and between technologists, with a kappa agreement of 0.77. The within-center agreements of the five in-house PCR tests varied from 0.19 to 0.74 on two challenges of 60 specimens 1 month apart. The LCx C. pneumoniae RUO PCR shows excellent potential for use in clinical studies, which could enable standardization of results in the field.