3.8 Article

HIGH-THROUGHPUT TESTING OF UROGENITAL AND EXTRAGENITAL SPECIMENS FOR DETECTION OF CHLAMYDIA TRACHOMATIS AND NEISSERIA GONORRHOEAE WITH cobas® CT/NG

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY AND IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 176-186

Publisher

AKADEMIAI KIADO ZRT
DOI: 10.1556/1886.2017.00018

Keywords

cobas (R) CT/NG; Chlamydia trachomatis; Neisseria gonorrhoeae; molecular diagnostics; PCR; extragenital infection; genital infection

Categories

Funding

  1. Roche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, CA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We compared the analytical and clinical performance of cobas (R) CT/NG for use on the cobas (R) 6800/8800 Systems with the cobas (R) 4800 CT/NG Test from urogenital and extragenital specimens in over 12,000 specimens from both male and female subjects in Germany and the United States. The analytical sensitivity was <= 40 EB/ml for Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and <= 1 CFU/ml for Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG). Using clinical specimens, the overall percent agreement with the cobas (R) 4800 CT/NG Test was >98.5%. Across urogenital specimens, there were 93 discrepant specimens; 76 (93.8%) of 81 CT discrepant specimens were 6800+/4800- and 10 (83.3%) of 12 NG discrepant specimens were 6800+/4800-. Sequencing verified CT results for 45 (61.6%) of 73 samples positive by 6800 and 1 (20%) of 5 positive by 4800. Similarly, 7 (70.0%) of 10 NG samples positive by 6800 and 1 of 2 positive by 4800 were confirmed by sequencing. Among discrepant extragenital specimens (all 6800+/4800-), 7 (50%) of 14 oropharyngeal and 23 (76.7%) of 30 anorectal CT discordant samples were confirmed as CT positive by sequencing; all 8 anorectal and 20 (90.9%) of 22 oropharyngeal NG discordant results were also confirmed as NG positive. In conclusion, cobas (R) CT/NG for use on the cobas (R) 6800/8800 Systems provides high-throughput automated solutions for sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening programs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available