A multi-country comparative study of two treponemal tests for the serodiagnosis of syphilis amongst men who have sex with men (MSM): Chemo-luminescent assay vs Treponema pallidum particle agglutination assay.
Treponema pallidum particle agglutination
Chemo-luminescent assay
MSM
Syphilis
Journal
BMC infectious diseases
ISSN: 1471-2334
Titre abrégé: BMC Infect Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968551
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Mar 2024
14 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
23
05
2023
accepted:
02
02
2024
medline:
18
3
2024
pubmed:
15
3
2024
entrez:
15
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
International guidelines recommend routine screening for syphilis (aetiological agent: Treponema pallidum subspecies pallidum) amongst key populations and vulnerable populations using tests detecting treponemal and non-treponemal antibodies. Whilst treponemal tests have high sensitivities and specificities, they differ regarding subjective or objective interpretation, throughput and workload. Chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIAs) are cost- and time-effective automated methods for detecting treponemal antibodies. The Treponema pallidum particle agglutination assay (TPPA) has been considered the "gold standard" treponemal assay, however, this includes a highly manual procedure, low throughput and subjective interpretation. The present multi-country study evaluated the ADVIA Centaur® Syphilis CLIA (Siemens Healthcare) assay compared to the reference SERODIA-TP·PA® (Fujirebio Diagnostics) for the serodiagnosis of syphilis amongst men who have sex with men (MSM). 1,485 MSM were enrolled in Brighton (UK), Malta, and Verona (Italy) as part of a larger WHO multi-country and multi-site ProSPeRo study. Ethical approval was obtained. Serum was tested with the ADVIA Centaur® Syphilis CLIA assay and SERODIA-TP·PA®, in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions, for a first round of validation. A second round of validation was carried out for discrepant results that were additionally tested with both Western Blot (Westernblot EUROIMMUN®) and an Immunoblot (INNO-LIA, Fujirebio Diagnostics). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV), likelihood ratios (positive/negative), and the Diagnostic Odds Ratio (DOR)/pre-post-test probability (Fagan's nomogram) were calculated. Out of 1,485 eligible samples analysed in the first phase, the SERODIA-TP·PA® identified 360 positive and 1,125 negative cases. The ADVIA Centaur® Syphilis CLIA assay (Siemens) identified 366 positives, missclassifying one TPPA-positive sample. In the second phase, the ADVIA Centaur® Syphilis CLIA resulted in 1 false negative and 4 false positive results. Considering the syphilis study prevalence of 24% (95% CI: 22-26.7), The sensitivity of the ADVIA Centaur® Syphilis CLIA assay was 99.7% (95% CI: 98.5-100), and the specificity was 99.4% (95% CI: 98.7-99.7). The ROC area values were 0.996 (95% CI: 0.992-0.999), and both the PPV and NPV values were above 98% (PPV 98.1%, 95% CI: 96.1-99.2; NPV 99.9%, 95% CI: 99.5-100). The ADVIA Centaur® Syphilis CLIA assay showed similar performance compared to the SERODIA-TP·PA®. Considering the study is based on QUADAS principles and with a homogeneous population, results are also likely to be generalisable to MSM population but potentially not applicable to lower prevalence populations routinely screened for syphilis. The automated CLIA treponemal assay confirmed to be accurate and appropriate for routine initial syphilis screening, i.e. when the reverse testing algorithm is applied.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38486194
doi: 10.1186/s12879-024-09100-x
pii: 10.1186/s12879-024-09100-x
pmc: PMC10941351
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Bacterial
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
313Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Arch Public Health. 2022 Sep 27;80(1):216
pubmed: 36167558
Transfus Med. 2015 Apr;25(2):101-5
pubmed: 25779614
Transfus Apher Sci. 2022 Apr;61(2):103318
pubmed: 34782243
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36
pubmed: 22007046
Euro Surveill. 2018 Dec;23(49):
pubmed: 30621823
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2021 Mar;35(3):574-588
pubmed: 33094521
Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2011 Nov;18(11):2005-6
pubmed: 21880852
Microbiol Spectr. 2022 Jun 29;10(3):e0068622
pubmed: 35658597
Lancet Glob Health. 2021 Aug;9(8):e1110-e1118
pubmed: 34246332
Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Mar 5;68(6):913-918
pubmed: 29986091
BMJ Open. 2020 Nov 26;10(11):e044479
pubmed: 33243821
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2006 Sep;4(9 Suppl):S21-31
pubmed: 17034069
Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Oct 1;61(7):1049-53
pubmed: 26063719
Stat Med. 2014 Jul 20;33(16):2701-17
pubmed: 24903142
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011 Feb 11;60(5):133-7
pubmed: 21307823
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2017 Oct 12;3:17073
pubmed: 29022569