» Articles » PMID: 28840989

Comparison of Traditional and Reverse Syphilis Screening Algorithms in Medical Health Checkups

Overview
Journal Ann Lab Med
Specialty Pathology
Date 2017 Aug 26
PMID 28840989
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The syphilis diagnostic algorithms applied in different countries vary significantly depending on the local syphilis epidemiology and other considerations, including the expected workload, the need for automation in the laboratory and budget factors. This study was performed to investigate the efficacy of traditional and reverse syphilis diagnostic algorithms during general health checkups.

Methods: In total, 1,000 blood specimens were obtained from 908 men and 92 women during their regular health checkups. Traditional screening and reverse screening were applied to the same specimens using automatic rapid plasma regain (RPR) and Treponema pallidum latex agglutination (TPLA) tests, respectively. Specimens that were reverse algorithm (TPLA) reactive, were subjected to a second treponemal test performed by using the chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA).

Results: Of the 1,000 specimens tested, 68 (6.8%) were reactive by reverse screening (TPLA) compared with 11 (1.1%) by traditional screening (RPR). The traditional algorithm failed to detect 48 specimens [TPLA(+)/RPR(-)/CMIA(+)]. The median TPLA cutoff index (COI) was higher in CMIA-reactive cases than in CMIA-nonreactive cases (90.5 vs 12.5 U).

Conclusions: The reverse screening algorithm could detect the subjects with possible latent syphilis who were not detected by the traditional algorithm. Those individuals could be provided with opportunities for evaluating syphilis during their health checkups. The COI values of the initial TPLA test may be helpful in excluding false-positive TPLA test results in the reverse algorithm.

Citing Articles

British Columbia's Experience after Implementation of the Treponema pallidum Reverse Algorithm and PCR Detection, 2015 to 2020.

Morshed M, Lee M, Laley J, Cook D, Mak A, Chahil N Microbiol Spectr. 2022; 10(3):e0068622.

PMID: 35658597 PMC: 9241594. DOI: 10.1128/spectrum.00686-22.


STI prevalence among men living with HIV engaged in safer conception care in rural, southwestern Uganda.

Chitneni P, Bwana M, Muyindike W, Owembabazi M, Kalyebara P, Byamukama A PLoS One. 2021; 16(3):e0246629.

PMID: 33657120 PMC: 7928454. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246629.


A Model for Syphilis Screening in the Emergency Department.

Yax J, Niforatos J, Summers D, Bigach M, Schmotzer C, Gripshover B Public Health Rep. 2020; 136(2):136-142.

PMID: 33166486 PMC: 8093848. DOI: 10.1177/0033354920967302.


 Comparison and evaluation of Abbott chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay and ChIVD light-initiated chemiluminescent assay in the detection of Treponema pallidum antibody.

Chen X, Yang R, Liang Y, Yuan T, Zhou J, Wang T J Clin Lab Anal. 2020; 34(7):e23275.

PMID: 32133697 PMC: 7370704. DOI: 10.1002/jcla.23275.


The Multi-Institutional Health Screening Records Database of South Korea: Description and Evaluation of Its Characteristics.

Noh Y, Jeong H, Kim H, Ko H, Nah E, Shin J Yonsei Med J. 2019; 60(12):1216-1222.

PMID: 31769254 PMC: 6881703. DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2019.60.12.1216.


References
1.
Mehta S, Ghanem K, Rompalo A, Erbelding E . HIV seroconversion among public sexually transmitted disease clinic patients: analysis of risks to facilitate early identification. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2006; 42(1):116-22. DOI: 10.1097/01.qai.0000200662.40215.34. View

2.
Loeffelholz M, Binnicker M . It is time to use treponema-specific antibody screening tests for diagnosis of syphilis. J Clin Microbiol. 2011; 50(1):2-6. PMC: 3256710. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.06347-11. View

3.
Park I, Chow J, Bolan G, Stanley M, Shieh J, Schapiro J . Screening for syphilis with the treponemal immunoassay: analysis of discordant serology results and implications for clinical management. J Infect Dis. 2011; 204(9):1297-304. DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jir524. View

4.
Morshed M, Singh A . Recent trends in the serologic diagnosis of syphilis. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2014; 22(2):137-47. PMC: 4308867. DOI: 10.1128/CVI.00681-14. View

5.
Park B, Yoon J, Rim J, Lee A, Kim H . Comparison of Six Automated Treponema-Specific Antibody Assays. J Clin Microbiol. 2015; 54(1):163-7. PMC: 4702755. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02593-15. View