Literature DB >> 30021825

Laboratory Evaluation of a Commercially Available Rapid Syphilis Test.

Lara E Pereira1, Joshua McCormick2, Tandin Dorji3, Joseph Kang3, Yongcheng Sun3, Mayur Shukla4, Andre Hopkins3, John Deutsch2, Ellen N Kersh3, Kyle Bernstein3, Yetunde F Fakile3.   

Abstract

Serological diagnosis of syphilis depends on assays that detect treponemal and nontreponemal antibodies. Laboratory certification and trained personnel are needed to perform most of these tests, while high costs and long turnaround time can hinder treatment initiation or linkage to care. A rapid treponemal syphilis test (RST) that is simple to perform, accessible, and inexpensive would be ideal. The Syphilis Health Check (SHC) assay is the only Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-cleared and Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-waived RST in the United States. In this study, 1,406 archived human serum samples were tested using SHC and traditional treponemal and nontreponemal assays. Rapid test results were compared with treponemal data alone and with a laboratory test panel consensus defined as being reactive by both treponemal and nontreponemal assays for a given specimen, or nonreactive by both types of assays. The sensitivity and specificity of the SHC assay compared with treponemal tests alone were 88.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.2 to 90.0%) and 93.1% (95% CI, 90.0 to 94.9%), respectively, while comparison with the laboratory test panel consensus showed 95.7% (95% CI, 93.6 to 97.2%) sensitivity and 93.2% (95% CI, 91.0 to 95.1%) specificity. The data were further stratified based on age, sex, pregnancy, and HIV status. The sensitivity and specificity of the SHC assay ranged from 66.7% (95% CI, 46.0 to 83.5%) to 91.7% (95% CI, 87.7 to 94.7%) and 88% (95% CI, 68.8 to 97.5%) to 100% (95% CI, 47.8 to 100%), respectively, across groups compared to traditional treponemal assays, generally increasing for all groups except the HIV-positive (HIV+) population when factoring in the laboratory test panel consensus. These data contribute to current knowledge of the SHC assay performance for distinct populations and may guide use in various settings.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Syphilis Health Check; diagnostics; field tests; immunodiagnostics; laboratory tests; rapid tests; serology; sexually transmitted diseases; syphilis

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30021825      PMCID: PMC6156315          DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00832-18

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Microbiol        ISSN: 0095-1137            Impact factor:   5.948


  41 in total

1.  The laboratory diagnosis of syphilis.

Authors:  Sam Ratnam
Journal:  Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 2.471

2.  Effect of multiple freeze and thaw cycles on the sensitivity of IgG and IgM immunoglobulins in the sera of patients with syphilis.

Authors:  Arnold R Castro; Heather A Jost
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 2.830

Review 3.  Recent trends in the serologic diagnosis of syphilis.

Authors:  Muhammad G Morshed; Ameeta E Singh
Journal:  Clin Vaccine Immunol       Date:  2014-11-26

4.  Diagnostic tests for syphilis: New tests and new algorithms.

Authors:  Andrés F Henao-Martínez; Steven C Johnson
Journal:  Neurol Clin Pract       Date:  2014-04

5.  Point-of-care testing in the pharmacy: how is the field evolving?

Authors:  Donald G Klepser; Michael E Klepser
Journal:  Expert Rev Mol Diagn       Date:  2017-10-19       Impact factor: 5.225

6.  Syphilis serology with lipoidal antigen: the meaning of positive reactions.

Authors:  R L Kahn
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  1972-03       Impact factor: 1.798

Review 7.  Current trend on syphilis diagnosis: issues and challenges.

Authors:  Muhammad G Morshed
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 2.622

8.  Field evaluation of two point-of-care tests for syphilis among men who have sex with men, Verona, Italy.

Authors:  Antonella Zorzi; Maddalena Cordioli; Lorenzo Gios; Paola Del Bravo; Igor Toskin; Rosanna W Peeling; Karel Blondeel; Giuseppe Cornaglia; James Kiarie; Ronald Ballard; Massimo Mirandola
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 3.519

Review 9.  On-site test to detect syphilis in pregnancy: a systematic review of test accuracy studies.

Authors:  E Rogozińska; L Kara-Newton; J R Zamora; K S Khan
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2016-12-28       Impact factor: 6.531

10.  A laboratory-based evaluation of four rapid point-of-care tests for syphilis.

Authors:  Louise M Causer; John M Kaldor; Christopher K Fairley; Basil Donovan; Theo Karapanagiotidis; David E Leslie; Peter W Robertson; Anna M McNulty; David Anderson; Handan Wand; Damian P Conway; Ian Denham; Claire Ryan; Rebecca J Guy
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-11       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  5 in total

1.  Evaluation of Rapid Syphilis Testing Using the Syphilis Health Check in Florida, 2015-2016.

Authors:  Jennifer Richards; James Matthias; Charlotte Baker; Craig Wilson; Thomas A Peterman; C Perry Brown; Matthew Dutton; Yussif Dokurugu
Journal:  Fla Public Health Rev       Date:  2019-11-08

Review 2.  The Laboratory Diagnosis of Syphilis.

Authors:  Ferris Satyaputra; Stephanie Hendry; Maxwell Braddick; Pirathaban Sivabalan; Robert Norton
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  Clinical Test Performance of a Rapid Point-of-Care Syphilis Treponemal Antibody Test: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Claire C Bristow; Jeffrey D Klausner; Anthony Tran
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2020-06-24       Impact factor: 9.079

4.  Development of a syphilis serum bank to support research, development, and evaluation of syphilis diagnostic tests in the United States.

Authors:  Mayur Shukla; Yongcheng Sun; Joshua McCormick; Andre Hopkins; Lara Pereira; Anne Gaynor; Ellen Kersh; Yetunde Fakile
Journal:  Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2019-10-24       Impact factor: 2.803

5.  Identifying youth at high risk for sexually transmitted infections in community-based settings using a risk prediction tool: a validation study.

Authors:  Katharina Kranzer; Victoria Simms; Ethel Dauya; Ioana D Olaru; Chido Dziva Chikwari; Kevin Martin; Nicol Redzo; Tsitsi Bandason; Mandikudza Tembo; Suzanna C Francis; Helen A Weiss; Richard J Hayes; Constancia Mavodza; Tsitsi Apollo; Gertrude Ncube; Anna Machiha; Rashida Abbas Ferrand
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2021-12-08       Impact factor: 3.090

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.