Ciemins E L, Borenstein L A, Dyer I E, Cordero E, Courtney J G, Harvey S M, Richwald G A
Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, Sexually Transmitted Disease Program, California, USA.
Sex Transm Dis. 1997 Aug;24(7):422-8. doi: 10.1097/00007435-199708000-00007.
Strict handling and transport requirements for the successful use of culture in the detection of Neisseria gonorrhoeae warrant investigation of accurate and cost-effective test alternatives such as the Gen-Probe PACE 2 DNA probe assay (Gen-Probe, Inc., San Diego, CA).
The Gen-Probe PACE 2 DNA probe assay for N. gonorrhoeae was compared with conventional culture methods in the principal Los Angeles County (LAC) Department of Health Services (DHS) Public Health Laboratory and three of its branch laboratories. Urethral and endocervical samples were collected from 1,566 patients (921 males; 645 females) attending six LAC DHS sexually transmitted disease clinics. Cost analysis was performed comparing material and labor costs of the two test methods.
The overall prevalence based on culture was 11.8% (15.7% for males; 6.4% for females). Nine samples were culture positive, Gen-Probe negative and four samples were culture negative, Gen-Probe positive and remained discordant after discrepant analysis. The sensitivity and specificity were 94.6% and 99.7%, respectively, for the PACE 2 assay compared with culture. The positive and negative predictive values were 97.8% and 99.3%, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between the two tests. A cost analysis found an average cost of $3.11/test for culture and $3.85/test for PACE 2, given the approximate 12% disease prevalence in this population.
Gen-Probe's PACE 2 assay may provide an acceptable, cost-effective alternative to culture, especially among high-risk males.
为成功利用培养法检测淋病奈瑟菌,严格的处理和运输要求促使人们研究准确且具成本效益的检测替代方法,如Gen-Probe PACE 2 DNA探针检测法(Gen-Probe公司,加利福尼亚州圣地亚哥)。
在洛杉矶县(LAC)主要的卫生服务部(DHS)公共卫生实验室及其三个分支实验室中,将用于淋病奈瑟菌检测的Gen-Probe PACE 2 DNA探针检测法与传统培养法进行比较。从在LAC DHS的六家性传播疾病诊所就诊的1566名患者(921名男性;645名女性)中采集尿道和宫颈样本。进行成本分析,比较两种检测方法的材料和劳动力成本。
基于培养法的总体患病率为11.8%(男性为15.7%;女性为6.4%)。9份样本培养阳性但Gen-Probe检测阴性,4份样本培养阴性但Gen-Probe检测阳性,经差异分析后仍不一致。与培养法相比,PACE 2检测法的敏感性和特异性分别为94.6%和99.7%。阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为97.8%和99.3%。两种检测方法之间未发现统计学上的显著差异。成本分析发现,鉴于该人群中约12%的疾病患病率,培养法平均每次检测成本为3.11美元,PACE 2检测法为3.85美元。
Gen-Probe的PACE 2检测法可能是一种可接受的、具成本效益的培养法替代方法,尤其是在高危男性中。