Matthews-Greer J M, McRae K L, LaHaye E B, Jamison R M
Diagnostic Virology Laboratory, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at Shreveport, 1501 Kings Highway, Shreveport, LA 71130-3932, USA.
Clin Lab Sci. 2001 Spring;14(2):82-4.
Validation of the Roche Amplicor polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using the Comprehensive Bio-Analytical System (COBAS) automated PCR analyzer in our laboratory.
Endocervical swab specimens for both EIA and PCR were collected from a total of 193 women. EIA for chlamydia was performed using the MicroTrak Chlamydia Kit (Wampole Labs, Cranbury, NJ). PCR was performed using Roche Amplicor reagents on the COBAS instrument.
Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at Shreveport, Shreveport LA.
All cervical swab specimens, (n = 193), collected from patients presenting either to the Women's Health or Primary Care Clinic (Obstetrics and Gynecology and Family Practice) were included in this study.
Most of the specimens, 138/193 or 71.5%, tested negative by both techniques. Three of the 193 specimens, 1.5%, were inhibitory for PCR since the internal control was negative. Fifty-one specimens, 26.4%, tested positive by both techniques or by PCR alone. No specimens were positive by EIA only. Twenty-eight of the 51 were positive by both methods, (14.5% of the total tested; 54.9% agreement among the specimens testing positive). An additional 23 were positive by PCR alone, i.e., 11.9% total discrepant positive specimens; 45% discordant results among the specimens testing positive). Seventeen PCR-positive specimens divided among four separate runs were retested by PCR. Of these, 15 were repeat positive, giving the test a reproducibility of 88.2%.
Our results concur with previously published comparison data for EIA and PCR testing. We conclude that the PCR should detect a significantly increased number of chlamydia infections among our LSUHSC-S population, but there are drawbacks to using this technique. Specimen preparation time for PCR is almost twice as long as EIA, and the Roche PCR assay is not licensed for ocular specimens as is our EIA procedure. In addition, since neither technique is accepted for testing for medicolegal purposes, we must continue the use of culture for cases of suspected sexual abuse.
在我们实验室中使用综合生物分析系统(COBAS)自动化聚合酶链反应(PCR)分析仪对罗氏Amplicor PCR进行验证。
从总共193名女性中收集用于酶免疫测定(EIA)和PCR的宫颈拭子标本。使用MicroTrak衣原体检测试剂盒(Wampole实验室,新泽西州克兰伯里)进行衣原体的EIA检测。在COBAS仪器上使用罗氏Amplicor试剂进行PCR检测。
路易斯安那州立大学什里夫波特健康科学中心,什里夫波特,路易斯安那州。
本研究纳入了从妇女健康或初级保健诊所(妇产科和家庭医学科)就诊患者中收集的所有宫颈拭子标本(n = 193)。
大多数标本,138/193或71.5%,两种技术检测均为阴性。193份标本中有三份,1.5%,对PCR有抑制作用,因为内部对照为阴性。51份标本,26.4%,两种技术检测均为阳性或仅PCR检测为阳性。没有标本仅EIA检测为阳性。51份中有28份两种方法检测均为阳性(占总检测数的14.5%;检测为阳性的标本中一致性为54.9%)。另外23份仅PCR检测为阳性,即总差异阳性标本的11.9%;检测为阳性的标本中不一致结果占45%)。在四个独立批次中划分出的17份PCR阳性标本通过PCR重新检测。其中,15份重复阳性,该检测的重现性为88.2%。
我们的结果与先前发表的关于EIA和PCR检测的比较数据一致。我们得出结论,PCR应该能在我们路易斯安那州立大学什里夫波特健康科学中心的人群中检测到显著增加的衣原体感染数量,但使用该技术存在缺点。PCR的标本制备时间几乎是EIA的两倍,并且罗氏PCR检测不像我们的EIA程序那样获得眼部标本检测的许可。此外,由于两种技术都不被接受用于法医学检测,对于疑似性虐待的病例我们必须继续使用培养法。