RESUMEN
The indirect haemagglutination (IHA) test was compared with the complement-fixation (CF) test for the measurement of antibodies to Mycoplasma pneumoniae. A modification of the IHA was used to measure M. pneumoniae IgM antibodies. Sera were obtained from various groups of patients who were either culture or antigen positive for M. pneumoniae in nasopharyngeal aspirates or who had fourfold or greater increase in CF antibody or a titre greater than or equal to 320. The results of these comparisons showed that the modified IHA test was specific and more sensitive (89% as opposed to 64%) than the CF test. The modified IHA test for the detection of IgM antibody was highly effective in the recognition of recent or current infection with the mycoplasma. It was also of equal sensitivity to an indirect enzyme immunoassay for the detection of IgM antibodies to M. pneumoniae.
Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Antibacterianos/análisis , Inmunoglobulina M/análisis , Mycoplasma pneumoniae/inmunología , Neumonía por Mycoplasma/diagnóstico , Pruebas de Fijación del Complemento , Pruebas de Hemaglutinación , Humanos , Técnicas para Inmunoenzimas , Nasofaringe/microbiología , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Factor Reumatoide/análisisRESUMEN
Direct and indirect antigen capture enzyme immunoassays (Ag-EIA) have been developed for the detection of Mycoplasma pneumoniae in nasopharyngeal aspirates or sputum from respiratory infection. The sensitivity of the two Ag-EIA were similar, but the indirect method using polyclonal rabbit and guinea-pig antisera was more convenient. The Ag-EIA had a detection limit of 10(4-4.5) colony-forming units/ml of sample. It was specific for M. pneumoniae and gave a low level response with M. genitalium. There were no cross-reactions with 10 other species of mycoplasmas. Tests with a wide range of bacteria and chlamydia group antigen, representing agents sometimes found in the respiratory tract, were also negative. At the current level of development, the Ag-EIA detected about 90% of specimens that were also positive for culture; 43% of specimens from culture-negative--seropositive patients gave a positive result. The overall pattern of results indicated that while antigen detection is a quick and effective substitute for the slow culture method, serological examination for specific IgM antibody is also necessary to give a complete diagnostic coverage.
Asunto(s)
Antígenos Bacterianos/análisis , Mycoplasma pneumoniae/inmunología , Neumonía por Mycoplasma/diagnóstico , Especificidad de Anticuerpos , Humanos , Técnicas para Inmunoenzimas , Nasofaringe/microbiología , Neumonía por Mycoplasma/inmunología , Neumonía por Mycoplasma/fisiopatología , Pruebas Serológicas , Especificidad de la EspecieRESUMEN
The efficiency of the direct detection of Mycoplasma pneumoniae in respiratory exudates by an antigen capture, indirect enzyme immunoassay (Ag-EIA), has been compared with its detection with a cDNA probe ('Gen-Probe assay') directed against the specific ribosomal RNA sequences of the organism ('Mycoplasma pneumoniae Rapid Diagnostic System', Gen-Probe, San Diego, California). Both assays showed excellent specificity against a range of mycoplasma species suspended in negative nasopharyngeal aspirates; only M. pneumoniae and M. genitalium reacted. In experiments with graded doses of viable M. pneumoniae cells suspended in negative nasopharyngeal aspirate, the Gen-Probe assay was more sensitive than Ag-EIA; detection limits were respectively 2 X 10(3) c.f.u./ml (3.2 X 10(5) genomes) and 2.5 X 10(4) c.f.u./ml (4 X 10(6) genomes); detection levels 10-100 times less sensitive than culture. The two assays were also tested on nasopharyngeal aspirates or sputum specimens from 90 patients with respiratory infection; 67 of these were culture- or seronegative for M. pneumoniae and 23 were culture- or seropositive. Ag-EIA detected 21 (91%) of the latter but the Gen-Probe assay detected only 5 (22%). Both assays were negative with the 67 culture-/sero-negatives; there were no Gen-Probe assay positive/Ag-EIA negatives. Overall, it is concluded that although Ag-EIA and the Gen-Probe assay are effective substitutes for culture as a diagnostic procedure, there is a significant problem with samples which are culture-negative and from patients who have good serological evidence of current infection. Possible reasons for the disparity between the two assays are advanced.