Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of two nonculture antigen tests and three serotests for detection of anti-chlamydial antibodies in the diagnosis of ocular chlamydial infections

  • Clinical Investigation
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

• Background: Diagnosis of chlamydial conjunctivitis is difficult in chronic diseases because chlamydial elementary bodies are mostly undetectable in conjunctival scrapings by cell culture. We therefore compared two nonculture antigen tests and three different serotests for anti-chlamydial antibodies with McCoy cell culture, the “gold standard” of chlamydial diagnosis. Conjunctival scrapings and serum samples of 93 patients attending the outpatient eye clinic in Graz because of chronic follicular conjunctivitis were tested.

• Methods: A total of 558 conjunctival scrapings and 93 serum samples were investigated. Chlamydial antigen detection was done by McCoy cell culture, polymerase chain reaction (PCR; Amplicor, Roche), and direct immunofluorescence assay (DFA; Microtrak, Syva). Antichlamydial IgA and IgG antibodies in the sera were detected by an immunoperoxidase assay (IPAzyme, Savyon) and two different enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (SeroELISA, Savyon and rELISA, medac).

• Results: Cell culture and PCR yielded identical results. The positivity rate for chlamydial conjunctivitis was 8.6% (8 of 93 patients). PCR proved most sensitive and most specific. IPAzyme was 75% sensitive for IgA and 100% for IgG; SeroELISA and rELISA were less sensitive. IPAzyme was 81% specific for IgA and 47.3% for IgG. SeroELISA and rELISA were less specific for IgA, but more specific for IgG. Post-test likelihood of disease was greatest in IPAzyme.

• Conclusions: PCR proved to be a good alternative to cell culture; DFA is useful for quick diagnosis. Genus-specific serotests cannot compete with chlamydial antigen detection. They differ in sensitivity and specificity because of the antigen type they present. They are still of only supportive value in cases where chlamydial antigen detection is not possible. Recently introduced species-specific antibody tests should be of greater value.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Altman DG (1991) Practical statistics for medical research, 1st edn. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 244–258

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson AB, Insler MS (1986) Latent ocular manifestations of oculogenital Chlamydia. Ophthalmology 93:67

    Google Scholar 

  3. Auer-Grumbach P, Gogg-Retzer I, Stuenzner D (1991) Die Bedeutung von Serumantikörpern für die Diagnose von chlamydienbedingter Urethritis. Akt Dermatol 17: 174–177

    Google Scholar 

  4. Auer-Grumbach P, Stuenzner D, Haller E-M, Kessler HH, Pierer K, Marth E (1996) Comparison of rapid antigen detection assays and serum antibody tests with cell culture and a polymerase chain reaction assay for the diagnosis of infection with Chlamydia trachomatis. Acta Dermatovenerologica 4:179–184

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bialasiewicz AA, Jahn GJ (1987) Evaluation of diagnostic tools for adult chlamydial keratoconjunctivitis. Ophthalmology 94:532–537

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bialasiewicz AA, Jahn GJ (1989) Chlamydieninfektionen. (Bücherei des Augenarztes, vol 119) Enke, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  7. Blenk H (1993) Genitale Chlamydieninfektionen. Sitzungsbericht der Arbeitsgruppen STD der Paul-Ehrlich-Gesellschaft

  8. Darougar S, Treharne JD, Minassian D, El-Sheikh H, Dines RJ, Jones BR (1978) Rapid serological test for diagnosis of chlamydial ocular infections. Br J Ophthalmol 62:503–508

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dawson C, Thygeson P, Wood R, Jawetz E (1967) Keratitis and other complications in volunteers, infected with inclusion conjunctivitis agents. Rev Int Trach Pathol Ocul Trop Subtrop Sane Publique 1: 7–14

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ehgartner E-M, Faschinger C, Schumann G, Hanselmayer H (1988) Serumantikörper gegen Chlamydia trachomatis bei Patienten ohne chlamydienspezifisches Krankheitsbild. Fortschr Ophthalmol 85:206–209

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ehgartner E-M, Vidic B, Auerbach B, Fellinger Chr, Frieß H-G (1989) Zur Diagnostik von okulären Chlamydieninfektionen. Erfahrungen mit zwei unterschiedlichen Testprinzipien. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 194:156–160

    Google Scholar 

  12. Garland SM, Malatt A, Grando D, Lees MI, Andrew JH, Taylor HR (1992) Chlamydia trachomatis conjunctivis — prevalence and associated genital tract findings. Proc Eur Soc Chlam Res 2:122

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gulletta E, Del Pezzo M, Del Pete A, Covelli I (1990) Laboratory survey of Chlamydia trachomatis ocular infections. Eur J Epidemiol 6:300–303

    Google Scholar 

  14. Haller-Ehgartner E-M, Langmann A, Langman G (1989) Zur Ätiologie chronischer Bindehautentzündungen. Spektr Augenheilkd 3:261–264

    Google Scholar 

  15. Haller E-M, Langmann G, Langmann A, Lerchner H (1991) Persistenz von Chlamydia trachomatis bei Patienten mit chronischer therapieresistenter Konjunktivitis. Fortschr Ophthalmol 88:248–251

    Google Scholar 

  16. Haller E-M, Stuenzner D, Kessler HH, Pierer K, Muellner K, Faulborn J, Marth E (1996) Nachweis von Chlamydia trachomatis in Konjunktival-und Pharyngealabstrichen mittels PCR im Vergleich zu herkömmlichen Methoden. Spektr Augenheilkd 10:28–31

    Google Scholar 

  17. Insler MS, Anderson AB, Murray M (1987) Latent oculogenital infection with Chlamydia trachomatis. Ophthalmology 94:27–29

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jahn GJ (1985) Okulogenitale Chlamydieninfektionen. Grundlagen und Laboraspekte. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 187:235

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kessler HH, Pierer K, Stuenzner D, Auer-Grumbach P, Haller E-M, Marth E (1994) Rapid detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in conjunctival, pharyngeal, and urethral specimens with a new polymerase chain reaction. Sex Transm Dis 21: 191–195

    Google Scholar 

  20. Leinonen M, Ekman M-R, Syrjälä H, Herva E, Saikku P (1990) The etiology of pneumoniae in hospitalized patients during a Chlamydia pneumoniae epidemic in Northern Finland. Seventh Int Symp Human Chlam Infect, Harrison Hot Springs, pp 429–432

  21. Ostler HB (1993) Diseases of the external eye and adnexa. In: Mitchell CW (ed) Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  22. Patel HC, Goh PT, Viswalingham MD, Treharne JD (1992) Chlamydia trachomatis antibody response in oculogential infection. Proc Eur Soc Chlam Res 2:90

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ridgway GL (1988) The isolation of Chlamydia spp. in cell culture. Proc Eur Soc Chlam Res 1:227–229

    Google Scholar 

  24. Samara Z, Daye N (1992) Comparison of two methods for detection of antichlamydial antibodies versus culture. Proc Eur Soc Chlam Res 2:229

    Google Scholar 

  25. Schachter J, Cles L, Ray R, Hines PA (1979) Failure of serology in diagnosing chlamydial infections of the female genital tract. J Clin Microbiol 10:647–649

    Google Scholar 

  26. Stenberg K, Mardh PA (1991) Genital infection with Chlamydia trachomatis in patients with chlamydial conjunctivitis: unexplained results. Sex Transm Dis 18:1–4

    Google Scholar 

  27. Stockert K-W, Mahler W, Jakobi E (1992) Okulogenitale Chlamydieninfektionen. Neue Aspekte zu Klinik, Diagnostik und Therapie. In: König B, Keil TU (eds) Fortschritte der Diagnostik 3. Jg. Praxisreport 3. Urban & Vogel, Munich, pp 1–26

    Google Scholar 

  28. Sundmacher R, Harnisch JP, Darougar S, Mattes A, Witschel H, Bredt W (1981) Chlamydienerkrankungen des Auges. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 179:149–156

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sweet RL, Schachter J, Landers DV (1983) Chlamydial infections in obstetrics and gynecology. Clin Obstet Gynecol 26:143–164

    Google Scholar 

  30. Treharne JD, Swyer JStC, Darougar S, Jones BR, Daghfous T (1978) Antichlamydial antibody in tears and sera and serotypes of Chlamydia trachomatis isolated from schoolchildren in southern Tunisia. Br J Ophthalmol 62:509–515

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ward ME (1992) The application of chlamydial immunochemistry to chlamydial diagnosis and sero-epidemiology. Proc Eur Soc Chlam Res 2:47–52

    Google Scholar 

  32. World Health Organization Working Group (1989) Guidelines for the prevention of genital chlamydial infections. WHO report EUR/ICP/CDS 199. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dermatology, Karl-Franzens University, Graz, Austria

    Piet Auer-Grumbach

  2. Department of Hygiene, Karl-Franzens University, Graz, Austria

    Doris Stuenzner, Harald H. Kessler & Karen Pierer

  3. Department of Ophthalmology, Karl-Franzens University, Auenbruggerplatz 4, A-8036, Graz, Austria

    Eva-Maria Haller, Harald Zenz & Klaus Muellner

Authors
  1. Eva-Maria Haller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Piet Auer-Grumbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Doris Stuenzner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Harald H. Kessler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Karen Pierer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Harald Zenz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Klaus Muellner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Haller, EM., Auer-Grumbach, P., Stuenzner, D. et al. Evaluation of two nonculture antigen tests and three serotests for detection of anti-chlamydial antibodies in the diagnosis of ocular chlamydial infections. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 234, 510–514 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00184860

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00184860

Keywords

Search

Navigation