Schachter J
Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of California, San Francisco 94143-0842, USA.
Immunol Invest. 1997 Jan-Feb;26(1-2):157-61. doi: 10.3109/08820139709048923.
For many years, isolation in tissue culture (TC) was considered the test of choice for diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Non-culture tests, such as direct fluorescent antibody (DFA) and enzyme immunoassay (EIA) which detected chlamydial antigens in clinical specimens, made chlamydia diagnostic tests more widely available. DFA and EIA were less sensitive than TC and had some false positive results which compromised our ability to use these tests in low prevalence settings. Direct nucleic acid probes are available, but do not appear to be more sensitive than EIA. It was only with the introduction of amplified DNA tests [polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and ligase chain reaction (LCR)] that non-culture tests became available that were actually more sensitive than TC. Unfortunately these tests are also more expensive than the antigen detection methods. Until there is a fairly sophisticated cost benefit analysis or a change in the pricing of these tests, it seems obvious that TC will remain, the best choice where medical/legal implications are important, DFA will probably remain a widely used tests for laboratories that process relatively small numbers of specimens and EIAs will play a role where cost is major factor and large numbers of specimens require bulk processing. Where they are affordable, the amplified DNA tests are to be preferred as they are far more sensitive than these other non-culture tests.
多年来,组织培养(TC)分离法一直被视为诊断沙眼衣原体感染的首选检测方法。非培养检测方法,如直接荧光抗体法(DFA)和酶免疫分析法(EIA),可检测临床标本中的衣原体抗原,使衣原体诊断检测方法得到更广泛应用。DFA和EIA的敏感性低于TC,且存在一些假阳性结果,这削弱了我们在低流行率情况下使用这些检测方法的能力。直接核酸探针虽已问世,但似乎并不比EIA更敏感。直到引入扩增DNA检测方法[聚合酶链反应(PCR)和连接酶链反应(LCR)],非培养检测方法才变得比TC更敏感。不幸的是,这些检测方法也比抗原检测方法更昂贵。在进行相当复杂的成本效益分析或这些检测方法的定价发生变化之前,很明显,在医学/法律意义重大的情况下,TC仍将是最佳选择;DFA可能仍会被处理相对少量标本的实验室广泛使用;而在成本是主要因素且需要大量处理标本的情况下,EIA将发挥作用。在价格可承受的情况下,扩增DNA检测方法更受青睐,因为它们比其他非培养检测方法敏感得多。