1887

Abstract

We evaluated the Sekure rapid plasma reagin (RPR-S) (Sekisui Diagnostics) automated quantitative latex immunoturbidimetric assay performed on the SK500 clinical chemistry system for clinical appropriateness.

Syphilis-infected individuals and controls were recruited into a prospective cohort study conducted at a sexually transmitted infection clinic in Antwerp, Belgium. Sera collected at diagnosis (baseline) and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months post-treatment were tested with RPR-S and Macro-Vue RPR card (RPR-C) (Becton Dickinson) assays; RPR-C was considered the reference test. IgG/IgM enzyme immunoassay and serum PCR results were consulted by discordancy at baseline. Categorical analyses were performed and correlations were assessed with (non)-linear regression. Post-treatment longitudinal serological evolution was evaluated.

A total of 463 samples from 120 new syphilis cases from a variety of clinical stages and 30 syphilis-negative controls were tested. Initially, there was a weak correlation between quantitative RPR-C/S (=0.15). In 70 samples there was a strong suspicion of hook effect. Of these, 57/70 sera were retested with an extra dilution step, resulting in an average 12-fold increase in quantitative RPR-S results. After the extra dilution, the overall qualitative RPR-C/S agreement was 78.89 %, (κ–coefficient: 0.484). Of the 92 discordant samples, 9 were from the baseline visit (RPR-C titre: 1–8), which could have led to possible missed diagnoses using the RPR-S.

The sensitivity and accuracy of the RPR-S test requires improvement before it can be used to diagnose syphilis and evaluate treatment efficacy in clinical practice.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.000559
2017-08-01
2020-01-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/66/8/1130.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.000559&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Newman L, Rowley J, vander Hoorn S, Wijesooriya NS, Unemo M et al. Global estimates of the prevalence and incidence of four curable sexually transmitted infections in 2012 based on systematic review and global reporting. PLoS One 2015;10:e0143304 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Apers L, Crucitti T, Verbrugge R, Vandenbruaene M. Sexually transmitted infections: what's new?. Acta Clin Belg 2012;67:154–159 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Kenyon C, Lynen L, Florence E, Caluwaerts S, Vandenbruaene M et al. Syphilis reinfections pose problems for syphilis diagnosis in Antwerp, Belgium - 1992 to 2012. Euro Surveill 2014;19:20958 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Seña AC, White BL, Sparling PF. Novel Treponema pallidum serologic tests: a paradigm shift in syphilis screening for the 21st century. Clin Infect Dis 2010;51:700–708 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Matthews HM, Yang TK, Jenkin HM. Unique lipid composition of Treponema pallidum (Nichols virulent strain). Infect Immun 1979;24:713–719[PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Belisle JT, Brandt ME, Radolf JD, Norgard MV. Fatty acids of Treponema pallidum and Borrelia burgdorferi lipoproteins. J Bacteriol 1994;176:2151–2157 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Discordant results from reverse sequence syphilis screening–five laboratories, United States, 2006–2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011;60:133–137[PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Lafond RE, Lukehart SA. Biological basis for syphilis. Clin Microbiol Rev 2006;19:29–49 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Seña AC, Zhang XH, Li T, Zheng HP, Yang B et al. A systematic review of syphilis serological treatment outcomes in HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected persons: rethinking the significance of serological non-responsiveness and the serofast state after therapy. BMC Infect Dis 2015;15:479 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Nandwani R, Evans DT. Are you sure it's syphilis? A review of false positive serology. Int J STD AIDS 1995;6:241–248 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hernández-Aguado I, Bolumar F, Moreno R, Pardo FJ, Torres N et al. False-positive tests for syphilis associated with human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis B virus infection among intravenous drug abusers. Valencian study group on HIV epidemiology. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1998;17:784–787 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Liu F, Liu LL, Guo XJ, Xi Y, Lin LR et al. Characterization of the classical biological false-positive reaction in the serological test for syphilis in the modern era. Int Immunopharmacol 2014;20:331–336 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Liu LL, Lin LR, Tong ML, Zhang HL, Huang SJ et al. Incidence and risk factors for the prozone phenomenon in serologic testing for syphilis in a large cohort. Clin Infect Dis 2014;59:384–389 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Haslett P, Laverty M. The prozone phenomenon in syphilis associated with HIV infection. Arch Intern Med 1994;154:1643–1644 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Jurado RL, Campbell J, Martin PD. Prozone phenomenon in secondary syphilis. Arch Intern Med 1993;153:2496 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gupta SM, Bala M, Muralidhar S, Ray K. Evaluation of test results of microbiology laboratories of North India for standard tests for syphilis under an external quality assurance scheme. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2009;28:461–468 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Müller I, Brade V, Hagedorn HJ, Straube E, Schörner C et al. Is serological testing a reliable tool in laboratory diagnosis of syphilis? Meta-analysis of eight external quality control surveys performed by the german infection serology proficiency testing program. J Clin Microbiol 2006;44:1335–1341 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Huh HJ, Chung JW, Park SY, Chae SL. Comparison of automated treponemal and nontreponemal test algorithms as first-line syphilis screening assays. Ann Lab Med 2016;36:23–27 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Noh J, Ko HH, Yun Y, Choi YS, Lee SG 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 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kim YS, Lee J, Lee HK, Kim H, Kwon HJ 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 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Workowski KA, Berman S.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2010. MMWR Recomm Reports 2010;59:1–110
    [Google Scholar]
  22. French P, Gomberg M, Janier M, Schmidt B, van Voorst Vader P et al. IUSTI: 2008 European guidelines on the management of syphilis. Int J STD AIDS 2009;20:300–309 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Liu H, Rodes B, Chen CY, Steiner B. New tests for syphilis: rational design of a PCR method for detection of Treponema pallidum in clinical specimens using unique regions of the DNA polymerase I gene. J Clin Microbiol 2001;39:1941–1946 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960;20:37–46 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 1965;52:591–611 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Passing H, Bablok W. A new biometrical procedure for testing the equality of measurements from two different analytical methods. Application of linear regression procedures for method comparison studies in clinical chemistry, part I. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1983;21:709–720 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Wilcoxon F. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin 1945;1:80–83 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Yates F. Contingency tables involving small numbers and the χ2 test. J R Stat Soc 1934;1:217–235 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Rolfs RT, Joesoef MR, Hendershot EF, Rompalo AM, Augenbraun MH et al. A randomized trial of enhanced therapy for early syphilis in patients with and without human immunodeficiency virus infection. The syphilis and HIV study group. N Engl J Med 1997;337:307–314 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Mchugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med 2012;22:276–282 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Kim YS, Lee J, Lee HK, Kim H, Kwon HJ 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 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Osato K, Nagao T, Inuzumi K, Araki H, Kawai K. Clinical evaluation of latex agglutination test kits for detecting anti-syphilitic lipoidal antibodies and anti-treponemal antibodies. Japanese J Sex Transm Dis 2002;13:124–130
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Onoe T, Honda M, Matsuo K, Sasaki H, Sawamura M et al. Examination of the correlation between the manual and automated serological testing methods for syphilis. J Dermatol 2012;39:355–361 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kinjyo T, Nago T, Sakiyama K, Oshiro M, Nagamine T et al. Laboratory -based evaluation of latex agglutination turbidimetric assay by Mediace RPR on P module of Hitachi Auto analyzer 7600 to quantitatively determine serum RPR antibody. Japanese J Clin Lab Autom 2005;30:257–262
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Stamm LV. Syphilis: antibiotic treatment and resistance. Epidemiol Infect 2015;143:1567–1574 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Ghinsberg RC, Nitzan Y. Is syphilis an incurable disease?. Med Hypotheses 1992;39:35–40 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307–310[PubMed][CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.000559
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.000559
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary File 1

PDF
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error