a From the Clinical Laboratory, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University , Beijing.
b Clinical Laboratory, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Peking University , Beijing , China.
Infect Dis (Lond). 2016;48(1):26-31. doi: 10.3109/23744235.2015.1044465. Epub 2015 Aug 27.
With the rapid expansion of infectious syphilis all over the world, optimal procedures for screening syphilis are urgently required. Conventional methods for the diagnosis of syphilis are time- and labor-consuming. We compared automated chemiluminescent micro-particle immunoassay (CLIA) with conventional methods to verify whether CLIA is feasible for syphilis screening.
A cross-sectional assay was conducted on 3962 serum samples tested by CLIA, rapid plasma reagin test (RPR), and Treponema pallidum particle agglutination (TPPA). Meanwhile, another 36 000 sera were screened for syphilis using CLIA and the positive samples were confirmed using TPPA, RPR or Western blotting.
The sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 99.8% for CLIA, and 65% and 99.6% for RPR. With the elevation of the optical density value of samples to cut-off ratio (S/CO) value, the true-positive rate of CLIA increased significantly, and when the S/CO value exceeded 10, the true-positive rate of CLIA reached 100%. The false-positive rate of CLIA was 0.22%; pregnant women had the most false-positive results, followed by elderly people and cancer patients.
CLIA is suggested as a screening test for the diagnosis of syphilis, while TPPA and RPR are required for confirming the positive samples and monitoring their activity.
随着世界各地传染性梅毒的迅速扩张,迫切需要优化梅毒筛查程序。传统的梅毒诊断方法既费时又费力。我们比较了自动化化学发光微粒子免疫分析(CLIA)与传统方法,以验证 CLIA 是否可用于梅毒筛查。
对 3962 份经 CLIA、快速血浆反应素试验(RPR)和梅毒螺旋体颗粒凝集试验(TPPA)检测的血清样本进行了横断面检测。同时,对另外 36000 份血清进行了 CLIA 筛查,对阳性样本采用 TPPA、RPR 或 Western blot 进行确认。
CLIA 的灵敏度和特异性分别为 100%和 99.8%,RPR 分别为 65%和 99.6%。随着样本的光密度值与临界比值(S/CO)值的升高,CLIA 的真阳性率显著增加,当 S/CO 值超过 10 时,CLIA 的真阳性率达到 100%。CLIA 的假阳性率为 0.22%;孕妇的假阳性结果最多,其次是老年人和癌症患者。
CLIA 被建议作为梅毒诊断的筛查试验,而 TPPA 和 RPR 则用于确认阳性样本并监测其活性。