This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Leonardi, G P Articles by Szabo, K Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Leonardi, G P Articles by Szabo, K

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

Department of Pathology, Nassau County Medical Center, East Meadow, New York 11554.

ABSTRACT

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.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• WATSON, E. J., TEMPLETON, A., RUSSELL, I., PAAVONEN, J., MARDH, P.-A., STARY, A., PEDERSON, B. S. (2002). The accuracy and efficacy of screening tests for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review. J Med Microbiol 51: 1021-1031 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Chernesky, M A (2002). Chlamydia trachomatis diagnostics. Sex. Transm. Infect. 78: 232-234 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Pierpoint, T., Thomas, B., Judd, A., Brugha, R., Taylor-Robinson, D., Renton, A. (2000). Prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis in young men in north west London. Sex. Transm. Infect. 76: 273-276 [Abstract] [Full Text]