Hooper N E, Malloy D C, Passen S
Maryland Medical Laboratory, Inc., Baltimore 21227, USA.
Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 1994 Jul;1(4):477-81. doi: 10.1128/cdli.1.4.477-481.1994.
The CAPTIA Syphilis-G enzyme immunoassay for the detection of antibodies to Treponema pallidum was evaluated as a screening test for syphilis in comparison with the standard rapid plasma reagin (RPR) test. One thousand samples were tested, and the standard fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption test and the standard microhemmaglutination test were used to confirm the presence of treponemal antibodies. Diagnosis of syphilis was based on traditional standard serology results. Clinical data used in the diagnosis of patients whose samples yielded conflicting results were provided by physicians. Initially, 7 patients whose samples were reactive in the RPR test and 14 patients whose samples yielded positive or equivocal results in the CAPTIA Syphilis-G test were diagnosed as not being infected. After discrepancies due to technical problems were reconciled, samples from six patients remained reactive in the RPR test and that from one patient remained positive in the CAPTIA Syphilis-G test. In addition, seven patients whose samples were nonreactive in the RPR test and two patients whose samples were negative in the CAPTIA Syphilis-G test were diagnosed as having untreated syphilis. After discrepancies were reconciled, samples from five patients remained nonreactive in the RPR test and none remained negative in the CAPTIA Syphilis-G test. Final results indicate that the specificities are 99.4 and 99.9%, respectively. In addition to the improved sensitivity and specificity of the CAPTIA Syphilis-G screen, other potential benefits of this assay lead us to believe that this method could serve as a better screening tool than the RPR test.
评估了用于检测梅毒螺旋体抗体的CAPTIA梅毒-G酶免疫测定法作为梅毒筛查试验,并与标准快速血浆反应素(RPR)试验进行比较。对1000份样本进行了检测,并使用标准荧光密螺旋体抗体吸收试验和标准微量血凝试验来确认密螺旋体抗体的存在。梅毒的诊断基于传统标准血清学结果。样本结果相互矛盾的患者诊断中使用的临床数据由医生提供。最初,7例RPR试验样本呈反应性的患者和14例CAPTIA梅毒-G试验样本呈阳性或疑似阳性结果的患者被诊断为未感染。在因技术问题导致的差异得到协调后,6例患者的样本在RPR试验中仍呈反应性,1例患者的样本在CAPTIA梅毒-G试验中仍呈阳性。此外,7例RPR试验样本无反应性的患者和2例CAPTIA梅毒-G试验样本呈阴性的患者被诊断为患有未经治疗的梅毒。差异得到协调后,5例患者的样本在RPR试验中仍无反应性,在CAPTIA梅毒-G试验中无样本呈阴性。最终结果表明,特异性分别为99.4%和99.9%。除了CAPTIA梅毒-G筛查具有更高的敏感性和特异性外,该检测方法的其他潜在优势使我们相信,与RPR试验相比,这种方法可以作为一种更好的筛查工具。