Læknablaðið - 15.07.1995, Side 29

LÆKNABLAÐIÐ 1995; 81
541
Clinical Evaluation of two
Immunoassay Methods for the Rapid
Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis
Antigen in Endocervical Specimens from
High Risk Female Patients
Ólafur Steingrímsson1), Jón H. Ólafsson2*, Sigfús M. Karlsson1’, Lauren Dolphin3*, Steingrímur Davíös-
son2), Catherine Pawlak31, Allan Pronovost3’, Rannveig Pálsdóttir21
Steingrímsson Ó11, Ólafsson JH2', Karlsson SM11,
Dolphin L”, Davíðsson S2), Pawlak C3), Pronovost
A3), Pálsdóttir R21
Læknablaðið 1995; 81: 541-4
Two rapid immunoassay methods, QuickVue-C/r/a-
mydia (Quidel Corp., San Diego California) and
Kodak Surecell (Kodak Corp. Rochester, N.Y.)
were evaluated for the detection of Chlamydia tra-
chomatis antigen in endocervical swabs from high
risk females attending a sexually transmitted disease
clinic. The results were compared to McCoy cell
culture and a polymerase chain reaction assay (Am-
plicor®-PCR, Roche Molecular Systems). Of the
240 females enrolled in the study 45 were considered
infected (18.8%). Sensitivity, specificity, predictive
value of a positive (PVP) and predictive value of a
negative (PVN) of the QuickVue-Chlamydia assay
were 96%, 99%, 96% and 99% respectively. Sensi-
tivity, specificity, PVP and PVN of the Surecell
assay were 96%, 100%, 100% and 99% respectively.
The performance of the two immunoassay methods
was similar, the sensitivity was the same and the
specificity of the Kodak Surecell was slightly better
than that of the QuickVue. On the other hand, the
QuickVue-Chlamydia assay was considerably sim-
pler to perform (fewer steps) than the Kodak Sure-
cell assay and took significantly less of technologists
time.
From the Departments of Microbiology” and Venereology21
at the University of lceland, Reykjavík, lceland, and Quidel
Corporation31, San Diego, California. Correspondence: Óla-
fur Steingrímsson, Department of Microbiology, P.O.Box
1465, 101 Reykjavík, lceland. Phone: 560 1900. Fax: 560
1904.
Introduction
Genital infections caused by Chlamydia tra-
chomatis have been a significant health care
problem in the Western world in recent years
(1,2). Cell culture has traditionally been the
gold standard for diagnosing these infections
but it is expensive and time consuming. Rapid
diagnosis of Chlamydia infections is obviously
of major importance for treatment of individu-
al patients and for effective contact tracing.
Since a significant number of patients is
asymptomatic, screening of asymtomatic pop-
ulations may be of major importance (3). In
recent years a number of rapid methods have
been introduced for direct detection of Chla-
mydial antigens in patient specimens (4-8).
These rapid tests have come into widespread
use although they lack sensitivity compared to
culture. Initially, most of these new rapid tests
were intended for use in laboratories, but
more recently, tests have been introduced for
use in physicians offices or at the bedside
(9,10). Taking the test to the patient instead of
having to send a specimen to a laboratory can
obviously save significant time and save pa-
tients some anxiety. The performance of two
of these rapid tests was compared to the results
of culture in high risk females. The tests were
the Kodak SureCell which has been on the
Frá sýklafræðideild Landspítalans”, húð- og kynsjúkdóma-
deild Landspítalans21, Quidel Corporation, San Diego, Calif-
ornia3’. Fyrirspurnir, bréfaskipti: Ólafur Steingrímsson
sýklafræðideild Landspítalans, 101 Reykjavík.