Cargando…

Point-of-Care Test for Detection of Urogenital Chlamydia in Women Shows Low Sensitivity. A Performance Evaluation Study in Two Clinics in Suriname

BACKGROUND: In general, point-of-care (POC) tests for Chlamydia trachomatis (Ct) show disappointing test performance, especially disappointing sensitivity results. However, one study sponsored by the manufacturer (Diagnostics for the Real World) reported over 80% sensitivity with their Chlamydia Rap...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van der Helm, Jannie J., Sabajo, Leslie O. A., Grunberg, Antoon W., Morré, Servaas A., Speksnijder, Arjen G. C. L., de Vries, Henry J. C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3290553/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22393383
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032122
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: In general, point-of-care (POC) tests for Chlamydia trachomatis (Ct) show disappointing test performance, especially disappointing sensitivity results. However, one study sponsored by the manufacturer (Diagnostics for the Real World) reported over 80% sensitivity with their Chlamydia Rapid Test (CRT). We evaluated the performance of this CRT in a non–manufacturer-sponsored trial. METHODS: Between July 2009 and February 2010, we included samples from 912 women in both high- and low-risk clinics for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in Paramaribo, Suriname. Sensitivity, specificity, positive- and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) for CRT compared to NAAT (Aptima, Gen-Probe) were determined. Quantitative Ct load and human cell load were determined in all CRT and/or NAAT positive samples. RESULTS: CRT compared to NAAT showed a sensitivity and specificity of 41.2% (95% CI, 31.9%–50.9%) and 96.4% (95% CI, 95.0%–97.5%), respectively. PPV and NPV were 59.2% (95% CI, 47.5%–70.1%) and 92.9% (95% CI, 91.0%–94.5%), respectively. Quantitative Ct bacterial load was 73 times higher in NAAT-positive/CRT-positive samples compared to NAAT-positive/CRT-negative samples (p<0.001). Human cell load did not differ between true-positive and false-negative CRT results (p = 0.835). Sensitivity of CRT in samples with low Ct load was 12.5% (95% CI, 5.2%–24.2%) and in samples with high Ct load 73.5% (95% CI, 59.9%–84.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of CRT for detecting urogenital Ct in this non–manufacturer-sponsored study did not meet the expectations as described previously. The CRT missed samples with a low Ct load. Improved POC are needed as meaningful diagnostic to reduce the disease burden of Ct.