Urinary Tract Infection With Gram-Positive Bacteria Does Not Cause False-Positive Results with the Urine-Based Human Chorionic Gonadotropic Point-of-Care Assay

Abstract

Background False-positive results for human chorionic gonadotropic (hCG) on point-of-care (POC) devices can occur for a variety of technical and biological reasons. It has been postulated that urinary tract infection can result in false-positive POC hCG assays, but the cause of this phenomenon remains elusive. Gram-positive bacteria have previously been reported to express an hCG-like molecule. We investigated whether urinary tract infection with Gram-positive bacteria can result in false-positive POC hCG. Methods We utilized remnant clinical urine specimens that had been submitted for culture as part of evaluation for urinary tract infection. Urine specimens with >100,000 colony-forming units per milliliter of Gram-positive bacteria (n = 95) were tested on ICON 20 POC hCG tests (Beckman Coulter). Specimens from adult patients that had been collected for clinical testing in the prior 48 hours were included in the study, and only 1 specimen per patient was included. Results Of 95 patients with Gram-positive urine specimens, 42 (44%) were female, and the median age was 62 years. The most common bacteria identified during clinical urine culture of these patients’ specimens were coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species (36/95, 38%), Enterococcus species (34/95, 36%), and Streptococcus agalactiae (9/95, 9%). Five of 95 (5.3%) urine specimens were positive for POC hCG. Chart review revealed that 3 specimens were from pregnant women and 2 were from patients with cancer diagnoses. Conclusions Urine specimens from patients suspected to have urinary tract infection with Gram-positive organisms did not cause positive results on POC hCG test devices.

Diagnostic value of different urine tests for urinary tract infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…A total of 300 relevant documents were collected through the database search, and 195 documents were excluded by reading the title, abstract, full text, and quality evaluation independently. A total of 14 studies (11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24) were finally included (Table 1). In addition, there was no significant publication bias in the literature included in this study.…”