GOALS: The goal was to ascertain whether urine testing could be used as screening method to detect C. trachomatis infections in commercial sex workers, patients at sexually transmitted diseases clinic, and asymptomatic patients in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
METHODS: First-void urine specimens from 300 men and 300 women were tested by LCR, as well as by a commercially available enzyme immunoassay. The LCR assay amplifies specific sequences within the chlamydial plasmid with ligand-labeled probes, and the resultant amplicons are detected by an automated immunoassay. Specimens with discrepant results were confirmed by another LCR of the specimen that targeted the gene for the major outer membrane protein (OMP1).
RESULTS: There were 31 LCR-positive male urine and 37 LCR-positive female urine specimens. The resolved sensitivity and specificity for the LCR of the male urine specimens were 100% and 99.6%, respectively, whereas for female urine specimens, the sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 98.5%, respectively. After resolution of discrepant test results by OMP1 LCR, the prevalence was 10% for men and 11% for women. The urine enzyme immunoassay was not useful in diagnosing C. trachomatis infections in either men or women, as the resolved sensitivities were 10% and 15.2%, respectively. The specificities were 99.6% for men and 98.9% for women.
CONCLUSIONS: Testing first-void urine specimens by LCR is a highly sensitive and specific method to diagnose C. trachomatis infections in men and women, providing health care workers and public health officials with a new molecular amplification assay that uses noninvasive urine specimens for population-based screening purposes.
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a phase 1/2 clinical study to examine the safety and diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of nonammoniated latex, ammoniated latex, and rubber glove extracts as skin test extracts to identify the most efficacious source material for future skin test reagent development.
METHODS: Twenty-four adults not allergic to latex, 19 adults with hand dermatitis or pruritus, and 59 adults with a latex allergy were identified by clinical history. All provided blood and then received puncture skin tests and intradermal skin tests with nonammoniated latex, ammoniated latex, and rubber glove extracts from Malaysian H. brasiliensis latex by use of sequential titration. A glove provocation test and IgE anti-latex RAST were used to clarify positive history-negative skin test response and negative history-positive skin test response mismatches.
RESULTS: All three extracts were biologically safe and sterile. After normalization to 1 mg/ml of total protein, all three extracts produced equivalent diagnostic sensitivity and specificity in puncture skin tests and intradermal skin tests at various extract concentrations. Optimal diagnostic accuracy was safely achieved at 100 micrograms/ml for intradermal skin tests (e.g., nonammoniated latex: puncture skin test sensitivity 96%, specificity 100%; intradermal skin test sensitivity 93%, specificity 96%). The presence of IgE antibody in skin was highly correlated with IgE anti-latex in serum (nonammoniated latex: r = 0.98, p < 0.001; ammoniated latex: r = 0.94, p < 0.001; rubber glove extract: r = 0.96, p < 0.001). All five available subjects with a positive history, negative skin test response, and absence of IgE antibody in serum had a negative glove provocation test response, indicating no clinical evidence of latex allergy. No systemic or large local allergic reactions were observed with puncture skin tests or intradermal skin tests.
CONCLUSIONS: Equivalent diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were observed with the nonammoniated latex, ammoniated latex, and rubber glove extract skin test reagents after normalization for total protein; nonammoniated latex may be considered the reagent of choice on the basis of practical quality control and reproducibility considerations.