Letters to the Editor
Testing Options for the Detection of Gonorrhea and Chlamydia
FREE PREVIEW Log in or buy this issue to read the full article. AAFP members and paid subscribers get free access to all articles. Subscribe now.
FREE PREVIEW Subscribe or buy this issue. AAFP members and paid subscribers get free access to all articles.
Am Fam Physician. 2013 Sep 1;88(5):290-291.
Original Article: Diagnosis and Management of Gonococcal Infections
Issue Date: November 15, 2012
Available at: http://www.aafp.org/afp/2012/1115/p931.html
TO THE EDITOR: This article mentions a very important idea: “Speculum examination may not be necessary to diagnose gonorrhea in women because of the comparable effectiveness of blind vaginal swabs.” Additionally, a recent American Family Physician article on chlamydial infections states that “the accuracy of [nucleic acid amplification tests] on urine samples has been found to be nearly identical to that of samples obtained directly from the cervix or urethra.”1 However, Dr. Mayor and colleagues cite a study that concluded that the sensitivity of urine polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests in women for the detection of Neisseria gonorrhoeae is too low to recommend routine testing.2
A recent study found that vulvovaginal samples were more sensitive than endocervical samples for detecting chlamydial infection in women with or without symptoms suggestive of a bacterial sexually transmitted infection.3 A similar study concluded that vulvovaginal samples had the highest sensitivity for detecting gonorrheal infection.4 These two well-designed studies suggest that self- or clinician-taken vulvovaginal samples outperform endocervical and urethral swabs for detecting sexually transmitted infections. Because vulvovaginal sampling is also less invasive and more convenient for patients, these studies have the potential to be practice-changing for family physicians.
1. Mishori R, McClaskey EL, Winklerprins VJ. Chlamydia trachomatis infections: screening, diagnosis, and management. Am Fam Physician. 2012;86(12):1127–1132.
2. Cook RL, Hutchison SL, Østergaard L, Braithwaite RS, Ness RB. Systematic review: noninvasive testing for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(11):914–925.
3. Schoeman SA, Stewart CM, Booth RA, Smith SD, Wilcox MH, Wilson JD. Assessment of best single sample for finding chlamydia in women with and without symptoms: a diagnostic test study. BMJ. 2012;345:e8013.
4. Stewart CM, Schoeman SA, Booth RA, Smith SD, Wilcox MH, Wilson JD. Assessment of self taken swabs versus clinician taken swab cultures for diagnosing gonorrhea in women: single centre, diagnostic accuracy study. BMJ. 2012;345:e8107.
IN REPLY: We appreciate Dr. Plavchan's inquiry. Testing options for chlamydial and gonorrheal infections using laboratory-based techniques include culture, nucleic acid hybridization and transformation tests, enzyme immunoassay, direct fluorescent antibody testing, and nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs).1 Commercially available NAATs may use PCR, ligase chain reaction, strand displacement amplification, or transcription-mediated amplification.1 The sensitivity of NAATs when using urine to detect Chlamydia trachomatis in women is similar to the sensitivity when using endocervical swabs.1 However, as stated in our article, the sensitivity of NAATs (in particular, PCR) to detect N. gonorrhoeae in women is lower when using urine compared with endocervical specimens.1
One study collected urine and urethral or endocervical specimens from 344 men and 192 women attending two sexually transmitted disease clinics in Baltimore, Md.2 Results showed that the sensitivity of PCR testing for gonorrhea using urine specimens was lower (78.3%) than that using endocervical specimens (100%). A multicenter trial compared NAAT performance with culture in 2,192 matched endocervical and urine specimens obtained from women and 1,981 matched urethral and urine specimens obtained from men.3 NAAT using the urine specimens from women was less sensitive than culture from endocervical samples for detecting gonorrhea.
A systematic review of 29 studies (n = 20,536) investigated the sensitivity and specificity of NAATs for detecting chlamydia and gonorrhea in urine specimens.4 For the four PCR studies reviewed, the pooled sensitivities and specificities for gonoccocal infections in urine samples from women were 55.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36.3% to 74.9%) and 98.7% (95% CI, 97.5% to 99.9%), respectively. However, for endocervical specimens, the pooled sensitivities and specificities were 94.2% (95% CI, 90.5% to 98.0%) and 99.2% (95% CI, 98.4% to 100%), respectively. The authors concluded that the sensitivity of PCR testing in women “is too low to recommend its routine use to test for gonorrhea in urine specimens.” 4
In 2005 and 2007, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the use of vaginal swabs in testing for chlamydia and gonorrhea using only one type of NAAT: the transcription-mediated amplification test.5
1. Johnson RE, Newhall WJ, Papp JR, et al. Screening tests to detect Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections—2002. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2002;51(RR-15):1–38.
2. Crotchfelt KA, Welsh LE, DeBonville D, Rosenstraus M, Quinn TC. Detection of Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis in genitourinary specimens from men and women by a coamplification PCR assay. J Clin Microbiol. 1997;35(6):1536–1540.
3. Martin DH, Cammarata C, Van Der Pol B, et al. Multicenter evaluation of AMPLICOR and automated COBAS AMPLICOR CT/NG tests for Neisseria gonorrhoeae. J Clin Microbiol. 2000;38(10):3544–3549.
4. Cook RL, Hutchison SL, Østergaard L, Braithwaite RS, Ness RB. Systematic review: noninvasive testing for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(11):914–925.
5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Vaccines, blood & biologics. Cleared nucleic acid tests (NAT) for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhea. http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/TissueSafety/ucm095440.htm#ct. Accessed March 31, 2013.
Send letters to Kenneth W. Lin, MD, MPH, Associate Deputy Editor for AFP Online, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org, or 11400 Tomahawk Creek Pkwy., Leawood, KS 66211-2680.
Please include your complete address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Letters should be fewer than 400 words and limited to six references, one table or figure, and three authors.
Letters submitted for publication in AFP must not be submitted to any other publication. Possible conflicts of interest must be disclosed at time of submission. Submission of a letter will be construed as granting the American Academy of Family Physicians permission to publish the letter in any of its publications in any form. The editors may edit letters to meet style and space requirements.
Copyright © 2013 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact email@example.com for copyright questions and/or permission requests.
Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions