Müller Iris, Brade Volker, Hagedorn Hans-Jochen, Straube Erich, Schörner Christoph, Frosch Matthias, Hlobil Harald, Stanek Gerold, Hunfeld Klaus-Peter
Institute of Medical Microbiology, University Hospital of Frankfurt, Paul-Ehrlich Str. 40, D-60596 Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
J Clin Microbiol. 2006 Apr;44(4):1335-41. doi: 10.1128/JCM.44.4.1335-1341.2006.
The accuracy of diagnostic tests is critical for successful control of epidemic outbreaks of syphilis. The reliability of syphilis serology in the nonspecialist laboratory has always been questioned, but actual data dealing with this issue are sparse. Here, the results of eight proficiency testing sentinel surveys for diagnostic laboratories in Germany between 2000 and 2003 were analyzed. Screening tests such as Treponema pallidum hemagglutination assay (mean accuracy, 91.4% [qualitative], 75.4% [quantitative]), Treponema pallidum particle agglutination assay (mean accuracy, 98.1% [qualitative], 82.9% [quantitative]), and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) (mean qualitative accuracy, 95%) were more reliable than Venereal Disease Research Laboratory (VDRL) testing (mean accuracy, 89.6% [qualitative], 71.1% [quantitative]), the fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption test (FTA-ABS) (mean accuracy, 88% [qualitative], 65.8% [quantitative]), and immunoblot assays (mean qualitative accuracy, 87.3%). Clearly, immunoglobulin M (IgM) tests were more difficult to manage than IgG tests. False-negative results for samples that have been unambiguously determined to be IgM and anti-lipoid antibody positive accounted for 4.7% of results in the IgM ELISA, 6.9% in the VDRL test, 18.5% in the IgM FTA-ABS, and 23.0% in the IgM immunoblot assay. For negative samples, the mean percentage of false-positive results was 4.1% in the VDRL test, 5.4% in the IgM ELISA, 0.7% in the IgM FTA-ABS, and 1.4% in the IgM immunoblot assay. On average, 18.3% of participants misclassified samples from patients with active syphilis as past infection without indicating the need for further treatment. Moreover, 10.2% of laboratories wrongly reported serological evidence for active infection in samples from patients with past syphilis or in sera from seronegative blood donors. Consequently, the continuous participation of laboratories in proficiency testing and further standardization of tests is strongly recommended to achieve better quality of syphilis serology.
诊断检测的准确性对于梅毒疫情的成功防控至关重要。非专业实验室中梅毒血清学检测的可靠性一直受到质疑,但针对这一问题的实际数据却很稀少。在此,对2000年至2003年间德国诊断实验室的八项能力验证定点调查结果进行了分析。梅毒螺旋体血凝试验(平均准确率,定性为91.4%,定量为75.4%)、梅毒螺旋体颗粒凝集试验(平均准确率,定性为98.1%,定量为82.9%)以及酶联免疫吸附测定(ELISA)(平均定性准确率为95%)等筛查试验比性病研究实验室(VDRL)检测(平均准确率,定性为89.6%,定量为71.1%)、荧光密螺旋体抗体吸收试验(FTA-ABS)(平均准确率,定性为88%,定量为65.8%)和免疫印迹试验(平均定性准确率为87.3%)更可靠。显然,免疫球蛋白M(IgM)检测比IgG检测更难操作。在已明确判定为IgM和抗类脂质抗体阳性的样本中,IgM ELISA检测的假阴性结果占4.7%,VDRL检测占6.9%,IgM FTA-ABS检测占18.5%,IgM免疫印迹试验占23.0%。对于阴性样本,VDRL检测的假阳性结果平均百分比为4.1%,IgM ELISA检测为5.4%,IgM FTA-ABS检测为0.7%,IgM免疫印迹试验为1.4%。平均而言,18.3%的参与者将活动性梅毒患者的样本误分类为既往感染,且未表明需要进一步治疗。此外,10.2%的实验室错误地报告了既往梅毒患者样本或血清阴性献血者血清中存在活动性感染的血清学证据。因此,强烈建议实验室持续参与能力验证并进一步规范检测,以提高梅毒血清学检测的质量。