COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF EFFICIENCY OF “DIRECT” METHODS FOR UREAPLASMOSIS DIAGNOSIS IN PREGNANT WOMEN

Abstract

Aim. To compare the diagnostic value of some “direct” methods for diagnosis of ureaplasmosis in pregnant women. Materials and methods. The variant of polymerase chain reaction and direct immunofluorescence were used to examine 112 Ur. urealyticum-infected pregnant women, including 53 women with the level of colonization < 104 CFU/ml and 59 women with the titer > 104 CFU/ml. The group of comparison consisted of practically healthy women with negative results of bacteriological investigation for ureaplasmosis. Results. In the studied material of all ureaplasma-infected (by bacteriological test data) pregnant women, DNA fragments of the pathogen were detected; in 86,44 % of women with a high ureaplasma titer (by bacteriological test data), DNA of the pathogen in the concentration of 5,0·104 DNAcopies/ml and more was registered. The same high concentrations of DNA were stated in 43,4 % of the examined women with ureaplasma titer (by bacteriological test data) lower than etiologically significant values. Direct immunofluorescence was less effective. Conclusions. For laboratory diagnosis of pregnant ureaplasmosis, it is necessary to combine bacteriological method with PCR that permits to diagnose ureaplasmosis more effectively.

Keywords

Ureaplasmosis / pregnancy / laboratory diagnosis

References

[1] Базина М.И. Беременность и роды при внутриутробных инфекциях: автореф. дис.. канд. мед. наук. Омск. 2000; 21.

[2] Гущин А.Е., Рыжих П.Г., Хайруллина Г.А. Алгоритм лабораторного обследования пациентов на наличие инфекций, вызванных Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamidia trahomatis, Mycoplasma genitalium, Trichomonas vaginalis, методами полимеразной цепной реакции и транскрипционной амплификации. Клиническая дерматология и венерология 2015; 2: 74-81.

[3] Зильберберг Н.В., Евстигнеева Н.П., Кузнецова Ю.Н. Разработка подходов к диагностике урогенитальных инфекций вирусной и бактериальной этиологии. Приоритетные направления развития дерматологической помощи: материалы конференции, 10-11 апреля 2014 г. Екатеринбург; 42-47.

[4] Кудрина М.И., Колмогорова И.В. Аспекты лабораторной диагностики урогенитального микоплазмоза. Вестник дерматологии и венерологии 2004; 6: 13-16.

[5] Povlsen K., Thorsen P., Lin L. Relationship of Ureaplasma urealyticum biovars to the presence or absence of bacterial vaginosis in pregnant women and to the time of delivery. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2001; 20: 65-67.

[6] Markenson G.R. Prevalence of Mycoplasma bacteria in amniotic fluid at the time of gene-tic amniocentesis using the polymerase chain reaction. J Reprod Med 2003; 10: 775-779.

[7] Taylor-Robinson D. Mycoplasma genitalium - making its presence felt. Сотрудничество во благо: материалы I Сибирского съезда акушеров-гинекологов, дерматовенерологов и урологов с междунар. участием. Новосибирск 2007; 3-4.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Melnikova T.A., Gorovits E.S., Padrul M.M., Rabotnikova G.I.