Black Carolyn M, Marrazzo Jeanne, Johnson Robert E, Hook Edward W, Jones Robert B, Green Timothy A, Schachter Julius, Stamm Walter E, Bolan Gail, St Louis Michael E, Martin David H
National Center for Infectious Diseases, Mailstop C17, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), 1600 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA.
J Clin Microbiol. 2002 Oct;40(10):3757-63. doi: 10.1128/JCM.40.10.3757-3763.2002.
Few evaluations of tests for Chlamydia trachomatis have compared nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) with diagnostic tests other than those by culture. In a five-city study of 3,551 women, we compared the results of commercial ligase chain reaction (LCR) and PCR tests performed on cervical swabs and urine with the results of PACE 2 tests performed on cervical swabs, using independent reference standards that included both cervical swabs and urethral swab-urine specimens. Using cervical culture as a standard, the sensitivities of PACE 2, LCR, and PCR tests with cervical specimens were 78.1, 96.9, and 89.9%, respectively, and the specificities were 99.3, 97.5, and 98.2%, respectively. Using either cervical swab or urine LCR-positive tests as the standard decreased sensitivities to 60.8% for PACE 2 and to 75.8 and 74.9% for PCR with cervical swabs and urine, respectively. Specificities increased to 99.7% for PACE 2 and to 99.7 and 99.4% for PCR with cervical swabs and urine, respectively. Sensitivities with a cervical swab-urine PCR standard were 61.9% for PACE 2 and 85.5 and 80.8% for LCR with cervical swabs and urine, respectively. Specificities were 99.6% for PACE 2 and 99.0 and 98.9% for LCR with cervical swabs and urine, respectively. Cervical swab versus urine differences were significant only for PCR specificities (P = 0.034). Overall, LCR sensitivity exceeded that of PCR, and sensitivities obtained with cervical swabs exceeded those obtained with urine specimens by small amounts. These data have substantiated, using a large multicenter sample and a patient standard, that LCR and PCR tests performed on endocervical swabs and urine are superior to PACE 2 tests for screening C. trachomatis infections in women. In our study, NAATs improved the detection of infected women by 17 to 38% compared to PACE 2.
对沙眼衣原体检测方法的评估中,很少有将核酸扩增检测(NAATs)与除培养法之外的诊断检测方法进行比较的。在一项针对3551名女性的五城市研究中,我们将对宫颈拭子和尿液进行的商业连接酶链反应(LCR)和PCR检测结果,与对宫颈拭子进行的PACE 2检测结果进行了比较,采用了包括宫颈拭子和尿道拭子 - 尿液标本在内的独立参考标准。以宫颈培养作为标准,对宫颈标本进行PACE 2、LCR和PCR检测的敏感性分别为78.1%、96.9%和89.9%,特异性分别为99.3%、97.5%和98.2%。以宫颈拭子或尿液LCR阳性检测结果作为标准时,PACE 2的敏感性降至60.8%,对宫颈拭子和尿液进行PCR检测的敏感性分别降至75.8%和74.9%。PACE 2的特异性增至99.7%,对宫颈拭子和尿液进行PCR检测的特异性分别增至99.7%和99.4%。以宫颈拭子 - 尿液PCR标准进行检测时,PACE 2的敏感性为61.9%,对宫颈拭子和尿液进行LCR检测的敏感性分别为85.5%和80.8%。PACE 2的特异性为99.6%,对宫颈拭子和尿液进行LCR检测的特异性分别为99.0%和98.9%。仅PCR特异性在宫颈拭子与尿液之间存在显著差异(P = 0.034)。总体而言,LCR的敏感性超过PCR,且通过宫颈拭子获得的敏感性略高于通过尿液标本获得的敏感性。这些数据使用大量多中心样本和患者标准证实,对宫颈内拭子和尿液进行的LCR和PCR检测在筛查女性沙眼衣原体感染方面优于PACE 2检测。在我们的研究中,与PACE 2相比,NAATs将感染女性的检测率提高了17%至38%。