Improvement of reverse sequence algorithm for syphilis diagnosis using optimal treponemal screening assay signal-to-cutoff ratio

Bouchra Serhir, Annie-Claude Labbé, Florence Doualla-Bell, Marc Simard, Gilles Lambert, Annick Trudelle, Jean Longtin, Cécile Tremblay and Claude Fortin

PLOS ONE, 2018, vol. 13, issue 9, 1-11

Abstract: Background: Although reverse sequence algorithms (RSA) for syphilis screening are performing well, they still have to rely on treponemal confirmatory tests at least for sera reactive by enzyme immunoassay/chemiluminescence immunoassay (EIA/CIA) and unreactive by rapid plasma reagin (RPR). Quebec’s laboratory network previously showed that 3.3% of EIA/CIA reactive and weakly-reactive RPR samples (RPR titer of 1 to 4) would have been misclassified as syphilis cases if a treponemal confirmatory test had not been performed. Objectives: To correlate the magnitude of signal-to-cutoff (S/CO) ratios of the 4 most used commercial first-line EIA/CIA kits in Quebec with syphilis confirmation results and establish a S/CO value above which treponemal confirmation would not be required. Methods: Serum samples from previously undiagnosed individuals (n = 7 404) obtained between January 2014 and February 2017 that were reactive by EIA/CIA and either negative by RPR or reactive with a low titer (1 to 4) were included in the study. All samples were tested with Treponema pallidum particle agglutination (TP-PA) and, if negative or inconclusive, with a line immunoassay (LIA). Syphilis infection confirmation was defined by a reactive TP-PA or LIA. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine S/CO values (95% CI lower bound = 0.98) above which confirmation would not be required. The four kits studied were Architect TP, BioPlex IgG, Syphilis EIA II, and Trep-Sure. Results: Of 2609 reactive EIA/CIA specimens tested for the determination of S/CO values, 1730 (66%) were confirmed as true syphilis cases. Confirmation rate was significantly higher in samples with low-titer positive RPR (92%) than with negative RPR samples (54%); p

Date: 2018
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204001 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 04001&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0204001

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204001

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().