Chlamydia infection laboratory findings: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 30: Line 30:
| Urinalysis || >5 WBCS per high power field   
| Urinalysis || >5 WBCS per high power field   
|-
|-
| ESR || normal or increased
| ESR || normal or increased
|-  
|-  
| CRP || normal or increased
| CRP || normal or increased
Line 36: Line 36:
! rowspan="3" style="border: 1; background: none;"| [[Atypical pneumonia]]
! rowspan="3" style="border: 1; background: none;"| [[Atypical pneumonia]]
| CBC || Increased absolute [[eosinophil]] count
| CBC || Increased absolute [[eosinophil]] count
!
|-
|-
|}
|}





Revision as of 15:00, 9 September 2016

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Aysha Anwar, M.B.B.S[2]

Sexually transmitted diseases Main Page

Chlamydia infection Microchapters

Home

Patient Information

Overview

Historical Perspective

Pathophysiology

Causes

C. trachomatis
Other Chlamydiae

Differentiating Chlamydia Infection from other Diseases

Epidemiology and Demographics

Risk Factors

Screening

Natural History, Complications and Prognosis

Diagnosis

History and Symptoms

Physical Examination

Laboratory Findings

Ultrasound

Other Imaging Findings

Treatment

Medical Therapy

Surgery

Primary Prevention

Secondary Prevention

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapy

Future or Investigational Therapies

Case Studies

Case #1

Chlamydia infection laboratory findings On the Web

Most recent articles

Most cited articles

Review articles

CME Programs

Powerpoint slides

Images

American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Chlamydia infection laboratory findings

All Images
X-rays
Echo & Ultrasound
CT Images
MRI

Ongoing Trials at Clinical Trials.gov

US National Guidelines Clearinghouse

NICE Guidance

FDA on Chlamydia infection laboratory findings

CDC on Chlamydia infection laboratory findings

Chlamydia infection laboratory findings in the news

Blogs on Chlamydia infection laboratory findings

Directions to Hospitals Treating Chlamydia infection

Risk calculators and risk factors for Chlamydia infection laboratory findings

Overview

Laboratory tests used in the diagnosis of chlamydia infection include nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), transcription mediated amplification (TMA), and the DNA strand displacement assay (SDA). NAAT for chlamydia infection may be performed on swab specimens sampled from the cervix (women) or urethra (men), on self-collected vaginal swabs, or on voided urine.[1][2][3]

Laboratory Findings

Laboratory findings consistent with the diagnosis of Chlamydial infection and its complications include:

Type of Chlamydia Tests Findings
Neonatal Conjuctivitis CBC Normal
ESR Normal
Neonatal pneumonia CBC Absolute increase in eosinophil count
ESR increased
CRP increased
Genital infection CBC increased leukocyte count
Urinalysis >5 WBCS per high power field
ESR normal or increased
CRP normal or increased
Atypical pneumonia CBC Increased absolute eosinophil count


Laboratory tests used in the diagnosis of chlamydia infection include nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) such as:

  • Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)
  • Transcription mediated amplification (TMA)
  • DNA strand displacement amplification (SDA)

As of January 2007, the most commonly used and widely studied chlamydia NAATs in the US and many other industrialized countries are Aptima (Gen-Probe), Probe-Tec (Becton-Dickinson), and Amplicor (Roche). The Aptima Combo II assay tests simltaneously for C. trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae, the cause of gonorrhea. NAAT for chlamydia may be performed on swab specimens collected from the cervix (women) or urethra (men), on self-collected vaginal swabs, or on voided urine. Urine and self-collected swab testing facilitates the performance of screening tests in settings where genital examination is impractical.

At present, the NAATs have regulatory approval only for testing urogenital specimens, although rapidly evolving research indicates that the Aptima test may give reliable results on rectal specimens.

Because of improved test accuracy, ease of specimen management, convenience in specimen management, and ease of screening sexually active men and women, the NAATs have largely replaced culture, the historic gold standard for chlamydia diagnosis, and the non-amplified probe tests, such as Pace II (Gen-Probe). The latter test is relatively insensitive, successfully detecting only 60-80% of infections in asymptomatic women, and often giving falsely positive results. Culture remains useful in selected circumstances and is currently the only assay approved for testing non-genital specimens.

References

  1. Peipert JF (2003). "Clinical practice. Genital chlamydial infections". N Engl J Med. 349 (25): 2424–30. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp030542. PMID 14681509.
  2. Enwemeka CS, Rodriguez O, Mendosa S (1990). "The biomechanical effects of low-intensity ultrasound on healing tendons". Ultrasound Med Biol. 16 (8): 801–7. PMID 2095010.
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014). "Recommendations for the laboratory-based detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae--2014". MMWR Recomm Rep. 63 (RR-02): 1–19. PMC 4047970. PMID 24622331.


Template:WikiDoc Sources