LAUSR

BackgroundNucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) are well-accepted in diagnosis and surveillance of sexually infectious pathogens worldwide. However, performance differences between a RNA-based NAAT and DNA-based NAAT are rarely reported. This study compares the performances of the RNA-based SAT (simultaneous amplification and testing) assay and the DNA-based quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assay.MethodsA total of 123 urogenital swabs were collected from outpatients with suspected genital infections in our hospital. Chlamydia trachomatis (CT), Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG), and Ureaplasma urealyticum (UU) in these swabs were simultaneously tested by SAT and qPCR. Any swabs were positive in the qPCR assay were further verified by following cloning and sequencing. All statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS software.ResultsWhen the concentrations of CT, NG, or UU were more than 1 × 103 copies/ml, 100% agreements between SAT and qPCR were observed regardless of the pathogen. No discrepancy was found. However, the sensitivity of SAT is significantly higher than qPCR in samples with concentration less than 1 × 103 copies/ml. When tested by SAT and qPCR, 57.14 and 28.57% were positive for CT, 46.15% and 0 were positive for NG, 80% and 0 were positive for UU, respectively.ConclusionsThe SAT assay has better agreements and higher sensitivities when compared with the qPCR assay, and thus could be a better choice for screening, diagnosis, and surveillance of sexually transmitted diseases, especially for CT and NG.