Direct urine polymerase chain reaction for chlamydia and gonorrhoea: A simple means of bringing high-throughput rapid testing to remote settings?
(Impact Factor: 1.37).
05/2013; 10(4). DOI: 10.1071/SH12108
Background Rapid point-of-care tests (POCTs) for chlamydia (Chlamydia trachomatis) and gonorrhoea (Neisseria gonorrhoeae) have the potential to confer health benefits in certain populations even at moderate sensitivities; however, suitable POCTs for these organisms are currently lacking.
In this study, we investigated the use of direct urine polymerase chain reaction (PCR), with the view of implementing a simplified PCR strategy for high-throughput chlamydia and gonorrhoea screening in remote settings. Briefly, a simple dilution of the urine was performed before adding it directly to a real-time PCR reaction. The method was evaluated using 134 stored urine specimens that had been submitted for chlamydia and gonorrhoea testing and had been tested using a commercial C. trachomatis and N. gonorrhoeae PCR method. These included samples that were PCR-positive for chlamydia (n=87), gonorrhoea (n=16) or both (n=2). Direct urine testing was conducted using previously described in-house real-time PCR methods for C. trachomatis and N. gonorrhoeae as well as for recognised N.gonorrhoeae antimicrobial resistance mechanisms.
The overall sensitivities and specificities of the direct urine PCR were 78% and 100% for chlamydia, and 83% and 100% for gonorrhoea. N.gonorrhoeae penicillin and quinolone resistance mechanisms were characterised in 14 of the 18 N. gonorrhoeae-positive samples.
The results of this study show that the simplified PCR strategy may be a feasible approach for rapid screening and improving chlamydia and gonorrhoea treatment in remote settings.
Available from: PubMed Central
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Diabetes is the most common metabolic disorder affecting pregnancy. Its prevalence seems to be growing in parallel with the epidemics of overweight and obesity. Recognizing and treating diabetes or any degree of glucose intolerance in pregnancy results in lowering maternal and fetal complications. These patients present higher risk for excessive weight gain, preeclampsia, cesarean sections, a high risk of developing type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease in the future. Infants born to these mothers are at higher risk for macrosomia and birth trauma, and after delivery, these infants have a higher risk of developing hypoglycemia, hypocalcemia, hyperbilirubinemia, respiratory distress syndrome, polycythemia and subsequent obesity and type 2 diabetes. Despite several international workshops and a lot of research there is still no unique approach to diagnose and treat diabetes in pregnancy. Who, when and how to screen and diagnose diabetes in pregnancy has been debated in the literature for so many decades and this debate seems to be endless. We present the evolution that screening and diagnosing diabetes in pregnancy has had over time. Besides many evidence of the benefits these procedures bring, health care providers still often prefer to use alternate criteria for this purpose. The myriad of maternal and fetal complications that could be avoided with an appropriate and simple screening procedure are ignored. Robust clinical trials such as the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes (HAPO) study have shown how harmful can even slightly altered blood glucose levels be, but it has been found a resistance in the adoption of the new criteria proposed after this and other trials by many diabetes organizations. These organizations state that these new criteria would increase the incidence of diabetes in pregnancy, would imply in longer term follow-up of these patients and would pose an economic problem; they also state that alerting too many people in order to benefit a relatively few potential diabetics would arise psychologic ill-effects. We think that health care providers should look for an uniformity in the screening and diagnosing diabetes in pregnancy based on evidence based medicine and not on specialists consensus.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.