Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author’ response
Author’s reply
Authors' response
Authors#x2019; response
Book Received
Book Review
Book Reviews
Centenary Review Article
Clinical Image
Clinical Images
Commentary
Communicable Diseases - Original Articles
Correspondence
Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Correspondences
Correspondences & Authors’ Responses
Corrigendum
Critique
Current Issue
Editorial
Errata
Erratum
Health Technology Innovation
IAA CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
Innovations
Letter to Editor
Malnutrition & Other Health Issues - Original Articles
Media & News
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Perspective
Perspectives
Policy
Policy Document
Policy Guidelines
Policy, Review Article
Policy: Correspondence
Policy: Editorial
Policy: Mapping Review
Policy: Original Article
Policy: Perspective
Policy: Process Paper
Policy: Scoping Review
Policy: Special Report
Policy: Systematic Review
Policy: Viewpoint
Practice
Practice: Authors’ response
Practice: Book Review
Practice: Clinical Image
Practice: Commentary
Practice: Correspondence
Practice: Letter to Editor
Practice: Obituary
Practice: Original Article
Practice: Pages From History of Medicine
Practice: Perspective
Practice: Review Article
Practice: Short Note
Practice: Short Paper
Practice: Special Report
Practice: Student IJMR
Practice: Systematic Review
Pratice, Original Article
Pratice, Review Article
Pratice, Short Paper
Programme
Programme, Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Programme: Commentary
Programme: Correspondence
Programme: Editorial
Programme: Original Article
Programme: Originial Article
Programme: Perspective
Programme: Rapid Review
Programme: Review Article
Programme: Short Paper
Programme: Special Report
Programme: Status Paper
Programme: Systematic Review
Programme: Viewpoint
Protocol
Research Correspondence
Retraction
Review Article
Short Paper
Special Opinion Paper
Special Report
Special Section Nutrition & Food Security
Status Paper
Status Report
Strategy
Student IJMR
Systematic Article
Systematic Review
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
Viewpoint
White Paper
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author’ response
Author’s reply
Authors' response
Authors#x2019; response
Book Received
Book Review
Book Reviews
Centenary Review Article
Clinical Image
Clinical Images
Commentary
Communicable Diseases - Original Articles
Correspondence
Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Correspondences
Correspondences & Authors’ Responses
Corrigendum
Critique
Current Issue
Editorial
Errata
Erratum
Health Technology Innovation
IAA CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
Innovations
Letter to Editor
Malnutrition & Other Health Issues - Original Articles
Media & News
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Perspective
Perspectives
Policy
Policy Document
Policy Guidelines
Policy, Review Article
Policy: Correspondence
Policy: Editorial
Policy: Mapping Review
Policy: Original Article
Policy: Perspective
Policy: Process Paper
Policy: Scoping Review
Policy: Special Report
Policy: Systematic Review
Policy: Viewpoint
Practice
Practice: Authors’ response
Practice: Book Review
Practice: Clinical Image
Practice: Commentary
Practice: Correspondence
Practice: Letter to Editor
Practice: Obituary
Practice: Original Article
Practice: Pages From History of Medicine
Practice: Perspective
Practice: Review Article
Practice: Short Note
Practice: Short Paper
Practice: Special Report
Practice: Student IJMR
Practice: Systematic Review
Pratice, Original Article
Pratice, Review Article
Pratice, Short Paper
Programme
Programme, Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Programme: Commentary
Programme: Correspondence
Programme: Editorial
Programme: Original Article
Programme: Originial Article
Programme: Perspective
Programme: Rapid Review
Programme: Review Article
Programme: Short Paper
Programme: Special Report
Programme: Status Paper
Programme: Systematic Review
Programme: Viewpoint
Protocol
Research Correspondence
Retraction
Review Article
Short Paper
Special Opinion Paper
Special Report
Special Section Nutrition & Food Security
Status Paper
Status Report
Strategy
Student IJMR
Systematic Article
Systematic Review
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
Viewpoint
White Paper
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Original Article
136 (
6
); 1004-1010

Ocular Chlamydia trachomatis infections in patients attending a tertiary eye care hospital in north India: A twelve year study

Department of Ocular Microbiology, Dr R.P. Centre for Ophthalmic Science, New Delhi, India
Department of Biostatistics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

Reprint requests: Dr Gita Satpathy, Professor, Department of Ocular Microbiology, Dr R.P. Center for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 110 029, India e-mail: gita.satpathy@gmail.com

Licence

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.

Abstract

Background & objectives:

Ocular infection with Chlamydia trachomatis is a major public health problem in densely populated countries like India. The true prevalence of such infections is uncertain due to insufficient data available from India. The aim of this study was to do a retrospective analysis of C. trachomatis eye infections in patients attending the outpatient department of Dr Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, over a period of 12 years.

Methods:

From 1997 to 2008, the Chlamydia laboratory received conjunctival swabs from 1281 consecutive patients for C. trachomatis detection after thorough clinical examination. Specimens were subjected to direct fluorescent antigen detection assay using monoclonal antibody based commercial kit to detect the presence of C. trachomatis antigen.

Results:

Antigen positivity varied between 22-28 per cent. Children below 11 yr and people above the age of 60 yr showed comparatively higher antigen positivity (25.7 and 27.8%, respectively). As compared to males significantly (P<0.05) higher number of females in the age group of 31-60 yr were positive for C. trachomatis antigen. Patients with the clinical diagnosis of follicular/allergic conjunctivitis and trachoma showed higher rate of antigen positivity.

Interpretation & conclusions:

Northern India having dry and arid climatic conditions in most parts of the year was considered in the past as one of the trachoma hyper-endemic foci. The study indicated that laboratory proven C. trachomatis eye infection still persisted in this part of the country throughout the study period of 12 years.

Keywords

Antigen detection
Chlamydia trachomatis
direct immunofluorescence assay
eye infections
trachoma

Ocular infection with Chlamydia trachomatis, especially trachoma, continues to be a major public health problem in many parts of the world. Recurrences often cause follicular/intense trachoma that may lead to trichiasis, corneal opacity and eventually blindness1. Despite the intense efforts by the World Health Organization (WHO) in the form of VISION 2020 and GET-2020, advocating multifaceted approach to interrupt transmission of C. trachomatis, the programme could truly be implemented only in 10 out of 55 trachoma endemic countries23. Reasons were attributed to lack of insufficient information from the densely populated countries like India and China24. Although the disease has been eliminated from many developed countries, a large population in Africa, Middle-East, South America, Asia, The Pacific, and Australia still suffer from this blinding disease that accounts for nearly 15 per cent of the global blindness5.

India is a vast country with diverse socio-economic and varied hygienic conditions, and hence it is not feasible for a single laboratory or a single centre to undertake countrywide surveillance. In 1986-1989, a nationwide survey showed a decrease in prevalence of trachoma, prevalence rates of active trachoma during this period being 11.9, 7.84 and 6.56 per cent as opposed to 18.2, 44.1 and 45.1 per cent in 1962 in Punjab, Rajasthan and UP, respectively6. However, prevalence of blindness attributed to trachoma was 0.39 per cent in 19896. Sporadic studies conducted in primary schools of Delhi in 1999 and 2004 reported that trachoma was the most common cause of ocular morbidity amongst the school going children78. Community studies were conducted in 1998 in reportedly hyperendemic areas of UP in 837 children and clinical trachoma prevalence was found to be 8.5 per cent9. In 2007-2008 community studies were carried out in hyperendemic areas of Haryana on 1000 children and active trachoma was detected in 4 per cent of them10. A part of the same study conducted in 1000 adult women, found evidence of cicatricial trachoma in 35 per cent of women above 30 yr of age11. Hospital based studies from south India reported C. trachomatis eye infection prevalence to be 17 per cent in 199013, 34.6 per cent in 1991-199213, 20.9 per cent in 199912 and 4.9 per cent in 200313. Sporadic reports available on limited number of samples did not seem to be enough to measure the exact magnitude of the problem.

In special situations like high vs. low endemicity or active vs resolved trachoma cases, there are often wrong interpretations while correlating clinical assessment with laboratory findings, ultimately landing up either with incorrect laboratory diagnosis or incorrect clinical diagnosis. In an Egyptian study using ligase chain reaction (LCR) assay, 31 per cent of clinically active children did not have laboratory evidence of infection and 31 per cent infected children did not have clinical trachoma14. An Ethiopian study showed that the positive predictive value of clinical examination identifying infection was 66 per cent while inter-examiner variance was 30 per cent15.

In the present study, we retrospectively analysed the information on all patients tested for the presence of C. trachomatis infection for the past 12 years (1997-2008). All consecutive patients likely to have C. trachomatis eye infections coming to a tertiary care eye hospital in north India during this period were tested using direct immunofluorescence assay (DFA), which is being routinely carried out in the Chlamydia laboratory.

Material & Methods

A total of 1281 patients (763 females, 518 males) in the age-group of 1-90 yr were referred to the Chlamydia laboratory from the outpatient department (OPD) of Dr Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, for the laboratory confirmation of C. trachomatis eye infections from 1997 to 2008. Study protocol was approved by the AIIMS ethics committee. All consecutive patients coming to hospital during this period with acute or chronic follicular conjunctivitis and keratoconjunctivitis were included. Patients with frank purulent conjunctivitis and acute haemmorrhagic conjunctivitis coming during viral conjunctivitis outbreaks were not included.

Prior to referring the patients to our laboratory, experienced ophthalmologists performed clinical examination using slit lamp biomicroscopy of the anterior segment of the eye and ocular adenexa. WHO simplified diagnosis and grading system for trachoma was used in patients for diagnosis of clinical trachoma wherever it was possible4.

Specimens from the superior/inferior palpebral conjunctiva of both eyes were taken with sterile wet cotton swabs and smeared onto a clean Teflon-coated glass slide (one specimen from each eye). The slides were air-dried, fixed in cold acetone for 10 min and subjected to direct immunofluorescence assay for Chlamydia antigen detection.

Direct immuno-fluorescence assay (DFA): The monoclonal antibody based C. trachomatis direct specimen kit (MicroTrak, USA) was used for the detection of antigen using the standard protocol16. Briefly, conjunctival smears were covered with 30 μl of fluoresceine-isothiocynate (FITC)-conjugated murine monoclonal antibodies to C. trachomatis for 30 min at 37°C in a humidified chamber. The slides were washed with double distilled water, air-dried, mounted and observed under the fluorescent microscope (Nikon, Japan). The positive-control was fixed mammalian cells containing Chlamydia elementary/reticulate bodies, (EB/RB) (provided with the kit) while the negative control contained normal uninfected mammalian cells. Chlamydia elementary bodies appeared as round, bright, apple green, fluorescent particles, regular in outline (Fig. 1).

C. trachomatis particles observed under direct immunofluorescence assay (1a: ×400, 1b: ×1000).
Fig. 1
C. trachomatis particles observed under direct immunofluorescence assay (1a: ×400, 1b: ×1000).

Statistical analysis: Antigen positivity was summarized by frequency (percentage). Test of proportions (Z-test) was used to compare differences in percentage antigen positivity amongst males and females for each age group separately. Also test of proportions (Z-test) with Bonferroni correction was used to compare C. trachomatis antigen positivity amongst the groups with various clinical diagnosis. STATA 11.0 statistical software was used for data analysis.

Results

Of the total 1281 patients (763 males, 518 females age 1-90 yr) studied, 485 were clinically diagnosed as trachoma, 296 as cases of follicular, acute or allergic conjunctivitis, 94 kerato-conjunctivitis and the remaining 406 were labelled as probable cases of other eye infections/manifestations. Of the 1281 patients studied, 321 (25.05%) were found positive for Chlamydia antigen. Children below 11 yr of age and older people above the age of 50 yr showed comparatively higher positivity for chlamydia antigen (25.7, 25.0 and 27.9%, respectively) (Table I). Significantly larger number of females 222 (29.1%) were positive for C. trachomatis antigen than males 99 (19.1%). Females in the age group of 31-60 yr showed significantly higher rate of antigen positivity (P<0.05) as compared to males.

Table I Age and sex distribution of Chlamydia antigen positivity

Although, the range of Chlamydia antigen positivity remained between 22-28 per cent during the study period, overall antigen positivity was above 21 per cent in our study population over a 12 year period, with higher rates in the years 1998, 2002 and 2004 (Table II and Fig. 2).

Table II Year-wise break up with age groups for patients with Chlamydia antigen positivity
Number of specimens in different age group and Chlamydiaantigen positivity during the years 1997-2008.
Fig. 2
Number of specimens in different age group and Chlamydiaantigen positivity during the years 1997-2008.

Patients diagnosed with allergic, acute or follicular conjunctivitis showed significantly (P<0.01) higher positivity (33.4%) than patients labelled as trachoma (27.8%), kerato-conjunctivitis (10.6%) and other eye infections mimicking trachoma (18.9%) (Table III).

Table III C. trachomatis antigen positivity in patients with different clinical diagnosis during 1997-2008

Discussion

Success of the global alliance for elimination of trachoma by 2020, (GET2020) initiated by WHO lies in the stringency and outcome of local efforts to contain the disease23. Any such initiative will have the desired impact only if reliable data pertaining to the prevalence of the disease in an ‘erstwhile endemic area’ is generated periodically; in which clinical, laboratory and epidemiological accuracy play important roles145.

Trachoma prevalence in India has been reported to be varying between 0.5 to 80 per cent, according to studies6913 conducted across various centers. Community studies were conducted to find out the true prevalence of C. trachomatis infection using laboratory support in the known hyperendemic belt of northern India by the Trachoma Study Group in 1998 (Uttar Pradesh)9 and later in 2007-2008 (Haryana)1011. Hence, the data generated during the present hospital based study for 12 years could be useful and indicative of the trend of C. trachomatis eye infection in the region during these twelve years. Clinical diagnosis alone has often been misleading for various reason, like concurrent infections, non detection of C. trachomatis in clinically active patients and clinical positivity even after the complete antibiotic therapy because of continuing inflammation141517.

In the present study, Chlamydia antigen was detected in 27.8 per cent of patients diagnosed as trachoma, in 33.4 per cent of patients clinically diagnosed as follicular/acute or allergic conjunctivitis and in 18.9 and 10.6 per cent in patients with other eye infections and kerato-conjunctivis, respectively. The laboratory testing provided definitive information about chlamydial infection in more patients than clinical examination alone. In our previous hospital based study in the last decade, in a separate small group of patients of chronic conjunctivitis, Chlamydia antigen could be detected in 38 per cent patients18. However, much lower rates of C. trachoamtis antigen detection was reported from hospital based studies from south India1213.

Rapid antigen detection by immunoflourescence assay was used in this study which is relatively quicker and easier to perform, and more affordable than PCR assay, and is time tested in other laboratories1921. Although there has been reports on a decline in number of cases with C. trachomatis eye infections13, we found antigen positivity above 21 per cent in all age groups studied. This positivity rate was higher as compared to the findings from community studies910, as this was a hospital based study where patients actively sought medical assistance and thus might not be true reflection of increased prevalence in community. There is a possibility that the patients might have clinical trachoma without having true infection, as was suggested by well established studies from other parts of the world1415. An Australian study found that only in 17 per cent of clinically active cases could C. trachomatis DNA be detected22. In a community study in Nepal14 with 6 per cent clinical activity, C. trachomatis DNA could be detected in none of the subjects. Our study suggests that C. trachomatis eye infection is still continuing in the community, compelling patients for hospital visit. Previous reports indicated increased infectious load with decreasing endemicity and disease severity for trachoma2123. At the same time clinical overdiagnosis resulting in projection of unusually higher prevalence rates has always remained a point of criticism24. Therefore, it has become necessary to confirm the clinical diagnosis using one or more duly validated and affordable laboratory tests1525. Several researchers have suggested the use of nucleic-acid based assays including quantitative real-time PCR26 including pooling of samples27 to augment clinical assessment. Keeping in view the cost and technical expertise involved, the current generation gene detection assays may be used only for the diagnosis of referred cases or for the purpose of molecular subtyping of circulating strains whereas methods like rapid antigen detection using immuno-fluorescence may be preferred for epidemiological surveillance in developing countries.

In conclusion, the present study indicates that C. trachomatis eye infection is persisting in northern India, albeit at a lower level. However, a large population-based nationwide study is needed to identify the exact epidemiology of this infection.

Acknowledgment

This study was supported by Departmental Funding from Dr R.P. Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, New Delhi. Authors thank all the clinical faculty members and resident doctors of Dr R.P. Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences for sending the clinical specimens for investigations.

References

  1. , , , , , , . Mapping the global distribution of trachoma. Bull World Health Organ. 2005;83:913-9.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. WHO Report on the 2nd Global Scientific Meeting on Trachoma. WHO/PBD/GET03.1. Geneva: World Health Organization; .
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Making progress toward the global elimination of blinding trachoma. . Report of the tenth meeting of the WHO Alliance for the Global Elimination of Blinding Trachoma. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; Available from: http://www.who.int/blindness/publications/get2020/en/index.html
    [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , . Trachoma: looking forward to global elimination of trachoma by 2020 (GET 2020) Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2003;69:33-5.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. , , . Trachoma surveys 2000-2005: Results, recent advances in methodology, and factors affecting the determination of prevalence. Surv Ophthalmol. 2007;52:535-46.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. , . Survey of blindness-India (1986-1989): Results at glance. In: Present status of the National Programme for Control of Blindness. New Delhi: Directorate General of Health Sciences, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India; . p. :81-100.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. , , . Pattern and distribution of ocular morbidity in primary school children of rural Delhi. Asia Pac J Public Health. 1999;11:30-3.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. , , , , , . A study of ocular infections amongst primary school children in Delhi. J Commun Dis. 2004;36:121-6.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. . Current trends in trachoma in a previously hyperendemic area. Indian J Ophthalmol. 1998;46:217-20.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. , , , , , , . Rapid assessment of trachoma among children living in rural Northern India. Ophthalm Epidemiol. 2009;16:206-11.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. , , , , , , . Trachoma prevalence in women living in rural Northern India: Rapid assessment findings. Ophthalm Epidemiol. 2012;19:216-20.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. , . Laboratory investigations on viral and Chlamydia trachomatis infections of the eye: Sankara Netralaya experiences. Indian J Ophthalmol. 1999;47:241-6.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. , , , , . A hospital based study on the prevalence of conjunctivitis due to Chlamydia trachomatis. Indian J Med Res. 2003;117:71-5.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. , , , , , , . Does the diagnosis of trachoma adequately identify ocular clamydial infection in trachoma-endemic areas? J Infect Dis. 2003;187:1669-73.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. , , , , , , . How reliable is the clinical exam in detecting ocular chlamydial infection? Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2004;11:255-62.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. , , , , , . Microbiological study of neonatal conjunctivitis with special reference to Chlamydia trachomatis. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2002;50:295-9.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. , , , , , . Trachoma and ocular Chlamydia trachomatis were not eliminated three years after two rounds of mass treatment in a trachoma hyperendmic village. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48:1492-7.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. , , , , , . Role of Chlamydia trachomatis in the aetiological profile of chronic conjunctivitis in a tertiary care hospital. J CDR. 2007;1:500-4.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. , , , , , , . Identification of Chlamydia in cervical smears by immunofluorescence: technic sensitivity and specificity. Am J Clin Pathol. 1986;85:180-5.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. , , , , . The value of Microtrack Chlamydia trachomatis diret specimen test in the diagnosis of trachoma. Baharain Med Bull. 1995;17:11-4.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. , , , , , . Chlamydia trachomatis conjunctivitis in the newborn. Archives de pediatrie. 1999;6:317-20.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. , , , , , , . Gobal data on visual impairment in the year 2002. Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82:844-51.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. , , , , . Diagnosis and assessment of trachoma. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2004;17:982-1011.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. , , , , , , . Does clinical diagnosis indicate ocular chlamydial infection in areas with a low prevalence of trachoma? Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2002;9:263-9.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. , , , , . Follicular conjunctivitis caused by Chlamydia trachomatis in an infant Saharan population: molecular and clinical diagnosis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87:142-6.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. , , . New precision in measuring trachoma infection. Lancet. 2003;362:181-2.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. , , , , , , . Pooling of Chlamydia laboratory tests to determine prevalence of ocular Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Ohthalmic Epidemiol. 2001;8:109-17.
    [Google Scholar]
Show Sections
Scroll to Top