 |
Journal of IMAB - Annual Proceeding (Scientific Papers)
Publisher: Peytchinski, Gospodin Iliev
ISSN: 1312 773X (Online)
Issue: 2011, vol. 17, book 1
Subject Collection: Medicine
Page: 158-160
DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2011171.158
Online date: October 14, 2011
J of IMAB 2011; 17(1):158-160
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CONTEMPORARY METHODS IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF CHLAMYDIA TRACHOMATIS UROGENITAL INFECTIONS.
Ilko Bakardzhiev1, George Pehlivanov2, E. Kovachev3
1) Medical College, Medical University of Varna, Bulgaria;
2) Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Medical University of Sofia,Bulgaria
3) Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Varna, Bulgaria
ABSTRACT:
The subject of this study were 486 outpatients between the ages of 17 and 62, diagnosed with urethritis, epidydimitis, prostatitis, cervicitis, endocervicitis, pelvic inflammatory disease and sterility. The following tests were used to make the diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis: Enzyme Immunoassay (EIA), Enzyme-Linked Fluorescent Assay (ELFA), Polymerase Chain Reaction DNA amplification for Chlamydia Trachomatis, Neisseria Gonorrhoeae, Mycoplasma Genitalium and Ureaplasma Urealyiticum. Comparison PCR and EIA showed statistically significant difference between the positive results obtained by the two methods (p<0,001). Comparing PCR and ELFA on the other hand, did not show any statistically significant difference (p>0,1). EIA is a method that gives a higher percentage of nonspecific positive reactions, while the results obtained from ELFA are much closer to the ones obtained by PCR. According to contemporary evidence based medicine, the developmet of unified standard methods for diagnosis and evaluation is of vital importance, not only for the patient and the treating physician but also concerns for the healthcare system, the general public and the pharmaceutical companies as well.
Key words: Chlamydia Trachomatis, EIA, ELFA, PCR.
- Download FULL TEXT (PDF - 135 KB)
REFERENCES:
1. Anagrius C, Loré B, Jensen JS. Mycoplasma genitalium: prevalence, clinical significance, and transmission. Sex Transm Infect. 2005 Dec;81(6):458-62. doi:10.1136/sti.2004.012062 CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Black, C.M. Current methods of laboratory diagnosis of Clamydia trachomatis infections. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 1997 Jan;10(1):160-184. [PubMed]
3. Mitchell, S. A., S. R. Shukla, R. N. Thin. Aetiology of non-gonococcal urethritis: A possible relation to other infections. Int. J. STD & AIDS. 1990 Nov;1(6):429-431. [PubMed]
4. Modarress KJ, Cullen AP, Jaffurs WJ Sr, Troutman GL, Mousavi N, Hubbard RA, et al. Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in swab specimens by the Hybrid Capture II and PACE 2 nucleic acid probe tests.- Sex. Transm. Dis. 1999 May;26(5):303-308. [PubMed]
5. Moncada, J., J. Schachter, G. Bolan, Engelman J, Howard L, Mushahwar I, et al. Confirmatory assay increases specificity of the Chlamydiazyme test for Chlamydia trachomatis infection of the cervix.- J. Clin. Microbiol., 1990 Aug;28(8):1770-1773. [PubMed]
6. Ouzounova V, J. Haralambieva, J. Jankov, D. Petrov, I. Mitov. Prevalence of Chlamydia Trachomatis infections in symptomatic patients in Bulgaria. Journal of IMAB, 2004; 10(1):11-14. doi: 10.5272/jimab.2004101.11 CrossRef]
7. Petrova E., B. Dimitrov. Serological monitoring of patients with sexually transmitted chlamydia infections. Dermatol. and Venereol. Bulg.,1994, No 2-3, 20-23
8. Rabenau, H. F., E. Kohler, M. Peters, H. W. Doerr, B. Weber. Low correlation of serology with detection of Chlamydia trachomatis by ligase chain reaction and antigen EIA. Infection. 2000 Mar-Apr;28(2):97-102. doi:10.1007/s150100050054 CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Tchoudomirova K, Nuhov P, Tchapanova A. Prevalence, epidemiological and clinical correlates of genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 1998 Nov;11(3):214-20. [PubMed]
10. Tchoudomirova, K., A. Tchapanova, F. Nouchov. Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in first-void urine from men and women as an alternative to swabs. Folia Med (Plovdiv), 39, 1997, No 4, 30-36. [PubMed]
11. Thejls, H., J. Gnarpe, H. Gnarpe, P. G. Larsson, J. J. Platz-Christensen, L. Ostergaard, A. Victor. Expanded gold standard in the diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis in a low prevalence population: diagnostic efficacy of tissue culture, direct immunofluorescence, enzyme immunoassay, PCR and serology. Genitourin. Med., 70, 1994, No 5, 300-303.
12. Van Dyck E, Ieven M, Pattyn S, Van Damme L, Laga M. Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae by enzyme immunoassay, culture, and three nucleic acid amplification tests. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2001 May;39(5):1751-1756. doi:10.1128/JCM.39.5.1751-1756.2001 CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Verkooyen RP, Peeters MF, van Rijsoort-Vos JH, van der Meijden WI, Mouton JW. Sensitivity and specificity of three new commercially available Chlamydia trachomatis tests.- Int. J. STD AIDS. 2002 Dec;13 Suppl. 2:23-25. doi: 10.1258/095646202762226119 CrossRef] [PubMed]
Please cite this article as: Bakardjiev I. Pehlivanov G. Kovachev E. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CONTEMPORARY METHODS IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF CHLAMYDIA TRACHOMATIS UROGENITAL INFECTIONS. J of IMAB 2011; 17(1):158-160. doi: 10.5272/jimab.2011171.158