Ann Lab Med.  2016 Jan;36(1):23-27. 10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23.

Comparison of Automated Treponemal and Nontreponemal Test Algorithms as First-Line Syphilis Screening Assays

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Laboratory Medicine, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea. hjhuh@duih.org
  • 2Department of Internal Medicine, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea.

Abstract

BACKGROUND
Automated Mediace Treponema pallidum latex agglutination (TPLA) and Mediace rapid plasma reagin (RPR) assays are used by many laboratories for syphilis diagnosis. This study compared the results of the traditional syphilis screening algorithm and a reverse algorithm using automated Mediace RPR or Mediace TPLA as first-line screening assays in subjects undergoing a health checkup.
METHODS
Samples from 24,681 persons were included in this study. We routinely performed Mediace RPR and Mediace TPLA simultaneously. Results were analyzed according to both the traditional algorithm and reverse algorithm. Samples with discordant results on the reverse algorithm (e.g., positive Mediace TPLA, negative Mediace RPR) were tested with Treponema pallidum particle agglutination (TPPA).
RESULTS
Among the 24,681 samples, 30 (0.1%) were found positive by traditional screening, and 190 (0.8%) by reverse screening. The identified syphilis rate and overall false-positive rate according to the traditional algorithm were lower than those according to the reverse algorithm (0.07% and 0.05% vs. 0.64% and 0.13%, respectively). A total of 173 discordant samples were tested with TPPA by using the reverse algorithm, of which 140 (80.9%) were TPPA positive.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the increased false-positive results in populations with a low prevalence of syphilis, the reverse algorithm detected 140 samples with treponemal antibody that went undetected by the traditional algorithm. The reverse algorithm using Mediace TPLA as a screening test is more sensitive for the detection of syphilis.

Keyword

Syphilis; Syphilis screening algorithm; Reverse algorithm; Automated RPR; Automated TPLA

MeSH Terms

Algorithms
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use
Humans
Latex Fixation Tests
Reagins/blood
Syphilis/*diagnosis/drug therapy/microbiology
Treponema pallidum/isolation & purification
Anti-Bacterial Agents
Reagins

Figure

  • Fig. 1 Serologic results and clinical management following the traditional syphilis screening algorithm.Abbreviations: RPR, rapid plasma regain; TPLA, Treponema pallidum latex agglutination.

  • Fig. 2 Serologic results and clinical management following the reverse syphilis screening algorithm.Abbreviations: RPR, rapid plasma regain; TPLA, Treponema pallidum latex agglutination; TPPA, Treponema pallidum particle agglutination.


Reference

1. Workowski KA, Berman S. Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2010. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), Recommendations and reports. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;2010. 59:p. 1–110.
2. Binnicker MJ. Which algorithm should be used to screen for syphilis? Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2012; 25:79–85. PMID: 22156894.
Article
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Discordant results from reverse sequence syphilis screening--five laboratories, United States, 2006-2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011; 60:133–137. PMID: 21307823.
4. Egglestone SI, Turner AJ. PHLS Syphilis Serology Working Group. Serological diagnosis of syphilis. Commun Dis Public Health. 2000; 3:158–162. PMID: 11014025.
5. French P, Gomberg M, Janier M, Schmidt B, van Voorst Vader P, Young H. IUST. IUSTI: 2008 European Guidelines on the Management of Syphilis. Int J STD AIDS. 2009; 20:300–309. PMID: 19386965.
Article
6. External quality assurance immunoserology data. Updated on 2013. http://www.lab-qa.org/sub/catalog.php?CatNo=43&Mode=view&no=283.
7. Song EY, Yang JS, Chae SL, Kim S, Choi YS, Cha YJ. Current status of external quality assessment of syphilis test in Korea. Korean J Lab Med. 2008; 28:207–213. PMID: 18594173.
Article
8. Huh HJ, Chae SL, Oh DJ, Park Q, Lim CS, Um TH, et al. Establishment and multicenter evaluation of a national reference panel for syphilis antibodies in Korea. Lab Med Online. 2014; 4:36–42.
Article
9. Watanabe N, Nagatomo R, Okubo S, Yokota H, Ikeda H, Yatomi Y. Evaluation of latex agglutination test for anti-treponemal antibody in comparison with chemical luminescence tests. Rinsho Byori. 2011; 59:115–120. PMID: 21476292.
10. Huh HJ, Chae SL. Analysis of false positive rates and concordance rates in architect syphilis TP assay and Mediace TPLA, automated syphilis serologic tests. Dongguk J Med. 2009; 16:236–242.
11. Noh J, Ko HH, Yun Y, Choi YS, Lee SG, Shin S, et al. Evaluation of performance and false positivity of Mediace RPR test that uses a chemistry autoanalyzer. Korean J Lab Med. 2008; 28:312–318. PMID: 18728382.
Article
12. Kim YS, Lee J, Lee HK, Kim H, Kwon HJ, Min KO, et al. Comparison of quantitative results among two automated Rapid Plasma Reagin (RPR) assays and a manual RPR test. Korean J Lab Med. 2009; 29:331–337. PMID: 19726896.
Article
13. Binnicker MJ, Jespersen DJ, Rollins LO. Direct comparison of the traditional and reverse syphilis screening algorithms in a population with a low prevalence of syphilis. J Clin Microbiol. 2012; 50:148–150. PMID: 22090407.
Article
14. Lipinsky D, Schreiber L, Kopel V, Shainberg B. Validation of reverse sequence screening for syphilis. J Clin Microbiol. 2012; 50:1501. PMID: 22259212.
Article
15. Cho YH, Kim HO, Lee JB, Lee MG. Syphilis prevalence has rapidly decreased in South Korea. Sex Transm Infect. 2003; 79:323–324. PMID: 12902586.
Article
16. Marangoni A, Moroni A, Accardo S, Cevenini R. Laboratory diagnosis of syphilis with automated immunoassays. J Clin Lab Anal. 2009; 23:1–6. PMID: 19140205.
Article
17. Park IU, Chow JM, Bolan G, Stanley M, Shieh J, Schapiro JM. Screening for syphilis with the treponemal immunoassay: analysis of discordant serology results and implications for clinical management. J Infect Dis. 2011; 204:1297–1304. PMID: 21930610.
Article
18. Loeffelholz MJ, Binnicker MJ. It is time to use treponema-specific antibody screening tests for diagnosis of syphilis. J Clin Microbiol. 2012; 50:2–6. PMID: 22090405.
19. Jost H, Castro A, Cox D, Fakile Y, Kikkert S, Tun Y, et al. A comparison of the analytical level of agreement of nine treponemal assays for syphilis and possible implications for screening algorithms. BMJ Open. 2013; 3:e003347.
Article
20. Tong ML, Lin LR, Liu LL, Zhang HL, Huang SJ, Chen YY, et al. Analysis of 3 algorithms for syphilis serodiagnosis and implications for clinical management. Clin Infect Dis. 2014; 58:1116–1124. PMID: 24550376.
Article
21. González V, Fernández G, Dopico E, Margall N, Esperalba J, Muñoz C, et al. Evaluation of the Vitros Syphilis TPA chemiluminescence immunoassay as a first-line method for reverse syphilis screening. J Clin Microbiol. 2015; 53:1361–1364. PMID: 25609729.
Article
Full Text Links
  • ALM
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr