1. Enhancing the Specificity of the COBAS AMPLICOR CT/NG Test for Neisseria gonorrhoeae by Retesting Specimens with Equivocal Results
- Author
-
Buffy Turner, Judith B. Weiss, Julius Schachter, Jeanne Moncada, Charlotte A. Gaydos, Barbara Van Der Pol, James F. Kelly, D. Jungkind, Cynthia Peyton, Maurice Rosenstraus, David H. Martin, Robert B. Jones, Thomas C. Quinn, and Kimberly Crotchfelt
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,Microbiology (medical) ,Population ,Chlamydia trachomatis ,Biology ,medicine.disease_cause ,Polymerase Chain Reaction ,Sensitivity and Specificity ,Gonorrhea ,Multicenter trial ,False positive paradox ,Cobas amplicor ,medicine ,Humans ,False Positive Reactions ,education ,Neisseria subflava ,education.field_of_study ,Bacteriology ,Chlamydia Infections ,biology.organism_classification ,Virology ,Neisseria gonorrhoeae ,Neisseria cinerea ,Female ,Neisseriaceae ,Neisseria ,Algorithms - Abstract
The COBAS AMPLICOR CT/NG test for Neisseria gonorrhoeae cross-reacts with certain strains of nonpathogenic Neisseria species. In some strains, the target sequence is identical to that of N. gonorrhoeae, whereas other strains have a small number of mismatches within the regions recognized by the primers or probe used in the COBAS AMPLICOR NG test. These cross-reactive strains are occasionally present in urogenital specimens, causing false-positive results in the COBAS AMPLICOR NG test. Analysis of the data generated in a large multicenter clinical trial showed that 2.9% of the specimens gave signals between A660s of 0.2 and 3.5 but that one-half of these equivocal specimens did not contain N. gonorrhoeae. Most of these equivocal specimens were correctly classified as true positive or true negative by retesting in duplicate and defining a PCR-positive result as two of three results with an A660 of >2.0. If specimens had been classified as positive or negative based on a single test result using a cutoff of an A660 of 0.2, specificity would have ranged from 96.2 to 98.9% depending on specimen type, sex, and presence of symptoms. By employing the equivocal zoneretesting algorithm, specificity increased to 98.6 to 99.9% with little effect (0.1 to 4.9% decrease) on sensitivity in most specimen types, enabling the test to achieve a positive predictive value of at least 90% in populations with a prevalence of 4% or higher. In lower-prevalence populations, the test could be used to screen for presumptive infections that would have to be confirmed by an independent test. The COBAS AMPLICOR CT/NG test provides a powerful diagnostic tool for screening for both chlamydial and gonococcal infections. We and others have observed that the NG portion of the test (COBAS AMPLICOR NG) cross-reacts with some isolates of certain nonpathogenic Neisseria species (4). When the original, recommended cutoff (A660 of 0.2) is used, the COBAS AMPLICOR NG test can produce false-positive results for Neisseria gonorrhoeae, presumably due to the presence of cross-reactive Neisseria species in some urogenital specimens. In one population, approximately 26% of COBAS AMPLICOR NG-positive results were false positives, which corresponded to approximately 3% of the total population (4). In contrast, the same laboratory observed fewer than 1% falsepositive results among urogenital specimens from a second population (4). In this paper, we confirm that the test does cross-react with some isolates of Neisseria subflava (4) and Neisseria cinerea and compare the target sequences in these cross-reactive species with that of N. gonorrhoeae. Using data from a multicenter trial (n 4,173 patients; prevalence 13.1%) conducted at six sites in the United States (8), we show how test sensitivity and specificity vary with the cutoff value used. We then assess whether both sensitivity and specificity can be optimized by establishing a large equivocal zone and using an algorithm that involves additional testing of specimens yielding equivocal results. Implementation of the equivocal zone-retesting algorithm identified by this analysis produced good specificity (98.8 to 99.9%) without sacrificing sensitivity in the multicenter trial (8).
- Published
- 2001
- Full Text
- View/download PDF