Huh Hee Jin, Chung Jae Woo, Park Seong Yeon, Chae Seok Lae
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea.
Department of Internal Medicine, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea.
Ann Lab Med. 2016 Jan;36(1):23-7. doi: 10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23.
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.
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).
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.
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.
许多实验室使用自动梅毒螺旋体明胶颗粒凝集试验(TPLA)和梅毒快速血浆反应素环状卡片试验(RPR)进行梅毒诊断。本研究比较了传统梅毒筛查算法与反向算法的结果,反向算法采用自动梅毒RPR或梅毒TPLA作为健康体检受试者的一线筛查试验。
本研究纳入了24681人的样本。我们常规同时进行梅毒RPR和梅毒TPLA检测。根据传统算法和反向算法对结果进行分析。对反向算法结果不一致的样本(如梅毒TPLA阳性,梅毒RPR阴性)进行梅毒螺旋体颗粒凝集试验(TPPA)检测。
在24681份样本中,传统筛查发现30份(0.1%)阳性,反向筛查发现190份(0.8%)阳性。根据传统算法确定的梅毒检出率和总体假阳性率低于反向算法(分别为0.07%和0.05%,而反向算法为0.64%和0.13%)。使用反向算法对173份结果不一致的样本进行了TPPA检测,其中140份(80.9%)TPPA阳性。
尽管在梅毒低流行人群中假阳性结果有所增加,但反向算法检测出了140份传统算法未检测到的梅毒螺旋体抗体阳性样本。以梅毒TPLA作为筛查试验的反向算法对梅毒检测更敏感。