Comparison of an automated rapid plasma reagin (RPR) test with the conventional RPR card test in syphilis testing

Jong Han Lee, Chae Seung Lim, Min Geol Lee, Hyon Suk Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: We compared the automated nontreponemal reagin (rapid plasma reagin (RPR)) test with the conventional RPR card test for usefulness in clinical applications. Setting: A comparative study of laboratory methods using clinical specimens in a single institute. Participants: A total of 112 serum samples including 59 Treponema pallidum particle agglutination (TPPA)-positive and 53 TPPA-negative specimens were evaluated. Outcome measures: HiSens Auto RPR LTIA (HBI, Anyang, Korea) was compared with Macro-Vue RPR Card Tests (Becton Dickinson BD Microbiology Systems, Sparks, Maryland, USA). Treponemal-specific tests were performed by Serodia TPPA assay (Fujirebio, Tokyo, Japan). The percentage agreement, κ value and overall sensitivity and specificity of the two RPR tests were compared. Seroconversion rates after treatment were also compared for each RPR test. Results: The percentage agreement between the two RPR tests was 78.6% (κ 0.565; 95% CI 0.422 to 0.709). Sensitivity and specificity of the automated RPR test relative to the TPPA test was 52.5% (95% CI 39.1% to 65.7%) and 94.3% (95% CI 84.3% to 98.8%), respectively, while the same values for the conventional RPR card test were 86.4% (95% CI 75% to 93.9%) and 94.3% (95% CI 84.3% to 98.8%), respectively. The conventional RPR card test showed overall higher positivity than the automated RPR test, whereas the automated RPR test showed higher seroconversion (43.5%, 10/23) than the conventional RPR card test (4.3%, 1/23) in treated patients. Conclusions: The automated RPR test showed overall lower sensitivity than the conventional RPR test based on the treponemal test, but higher seroconversion after treatment. The automated RPR test could be used to monitor treatment response, especially in the reverse screening algorithm in syphilis testing.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere005664
JournalBMJ Open
Volume4
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Reagins
Syphilis
Treponema pallidum
Agglutination
Sensitivity and Specificity
Agglutination Tests

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Comparison of an automated rapid plasma reagin (RPR) test with the conventional RPR card test in syphilis testing. / Lee, Jong Han; Lim, Chae Seung; Lee, Min Geol; Kim, Hyon Suk.

In: BMJ Open, Vol. 4, No. 12, e005664, 01.01.2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{bec5cf6612074f2a930e41c7a046465b,
title = "Comparison of an automated rapid plasma reagin (RPR) test with the conventional RPR card test in syphilis testing",
abstract = "Objective: We compared the automated nontreponemal reagin (rapid plasma reagin (RPR)) test with the conventional RPR card test for usefulness in clinical applications. Setting: A comparative study of laboratory methods using clinical specimens in a single institute. Participants: A total of 112 serum samples including 59 Treponema pallidum particle agglutination (TPPA)-positive and 53 TPPA-negative specimens were evaluated. Outcome measures: HiSens Auto RPR LTIA (HBI, Anyang, Korea) was compared with Macro-Vue RPR Card Tests (Becton Dickinson BD Microbiology Systems, Sparks, Maryland, USA). Treponemal-specific tests were performed by Serodia TPPA assay (Fujirebio, Tokyo, Japan). The percentage agreement, κ value and overall sensitivity and specificity of the two RPR tests were compared. Seroconversion rates after treatment were also compared for each RPR test. Results: The percentage agreement between the two RPR tests was 78.6{\%} (κ 0.565; 95{\%} CI 0.422 to 0.709). Sensitivity and specificity of the automated RPR test relative to the TPPA test was 52.5{\%} (95{\%} CI 39.1{\%} to 65.7{\%}) and 94.3{\%} (95{\%} CI 84.3{\%} to 98.8{\%}), respectively, while the same values for the conventional RPR card test were 86.4{\%} (95{\%} CI 75{\%} to 93.9{\%}) and 94.3{\%} (95{\%} CI 84.3{\%} to 98.8{\%}), respectively. The conventional RPR card test showed overall higher positivity than the automated RPR test, whereas the automated RPR test showed higher seroconversion (43.5{\%}, 10/23) than the conventional RPR card test (4.3{\%}, 1/23) in treated patients. Conclusions: The automated RPR test showed overall lower sensitivity than the conventional RPR test based on the treponemal test, but higher seroconversion after treatment. The automated RPR test could be used to monitor treatment response, especially in the reverse screening algorithm in syphilis testing.",
author = "Lee, {Jong Han} and Lim, {Chae Seung} and Lee, {Min Geol} and Kim, {Hyon Suk}",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005664",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
journal = "BMJ Open",
issn = "2044-6055",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of an automated rapid plasma reagin (RPR) test with the conventional RPR card test in syphilis testing

AU - Lee, Jong Han

AU - Lim, Chae Seung

AU - Lee, Min Geol

AU - Kim, Hyon Suk

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - Objective: We compared the automated nontreponemal reagin (rapid plasma reagin (RPR)) test with the conventional RPR card test for usefulness in clinical applications. Setting: A comparative study of laboratory methods using clinical specimens in a single institute. Participants: A total of 112 serum samples including 59 Treponema pallidum particle agglutination (TPPA)-positive and 53 TPPA-negative specimens were evaluated. Outcome measures: HiSens Auto RPR LTIA (HBI, Anyang, Korea) was compared with Macro-Vue RPR Card Tests (Becton Dickinson BD Microbiology Systems, Sparks, Maryland, USA). Treponemal-specific tests were performed by Serodia TPPA assay (Fujirebio, Tokyo, Japan). The percentage agreement, κ value and overall sensitivity and specificity of the two RPR tests were compared. Seroconversion rates after treatment were also compared for each RPR test. Results: The percentage agreement between the two RPR tests was 78.6% (κ 0.565; 95% CI 0.422 to 0.709). Sensitivity and specificity of the automated RPR test relative to the TPPA test was 52.5% (95% CI 39.1% to 65.7%) and 94.3% (95% CI 84.3% to 98.8%), respectively, while the same values for the conventional RPR card test were 86.4% (95% CI 75% to 93.9%) and 94.3% (95% CI 84.3% to 98.8%), respectively. The conventional RPR card test showed overall higher positivity than the automated RPR test, whereas the automated RPR test showed higher seroconversion (43.5%, 10/23) than the conventional RPR card test (4.3%, 1/23) in treated patients. Conclusions: The automated RPR test showed overall lower sensitivity than the conventional RPR test based on the treponemal test, but higher seroconversion after treatment. The automated RPR test could be used to monitor treatment response, especially in the reverse screening algorithm in syphilis testing.

AB - Objective: We compared the automated nontreponemal reagin (rapid plasma reagin (RPR)) test with the conventional RPR card test for usefulness in clinical applications. Setting: A comparative study of laboratory methods using clinical specimens in a single institute. Participants: A total of 112 serum samples including 59 Treponema pallidum particle agglutination (TPPA)-positive and 53 TPPA-negative specimens were evaluated. Outcome measures: HiSens Auto RPR LTIA (HBI, Anyang, Korea) was compared with Macro-Vue RPR Card Tests (Becton Dickinson BD Microbiology Systems, Sparks, Maryland, USA). Treponemal-specific tests were performed by Serodia TPPA assay (Fujirebio, Tokyo, Japan). The percentage agreement, κ value and overall sensitivity and specificity of the two RPR tests were compared. Seroconversion rates after treatment were also compared for each RPR test. Results: The percentage agreement between the two RPR tests was 78.6% (κ 0.565; 95% CI 0.422 to 0.709). Sensitivity and specificity of the automated RPR test relative to the TPPA test was 52.5% (95% CI 39.1% to 65.7%) and 94.3% (95% CI 84.3% to 98.8%), respectively, while the same values for the conventional RPR card test were 86.4% (95% CI 75% to 93.9%) and 94.3% (95% CI 84.3% to 98.8%), respectively. The conventional RPR card test showed overall higher positivity than the automated RPR test, whereas the automated RPR test showed higher seroconversion (43.5%, 10/23) than the conventional RPR card test (4.3%, 1/23) in treated patients. Conclusions: The automated RPR test showed overall lower sensitivity than the conventional RPR test based on the treponemal test, but higher seroconversion after treatment. The automated RPR test could be used to monitor treatment response, especially in the reverse screening algorithm in syphilis testing.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84920507213&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84920507213&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005664

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005664

M3 - Article

VL - 4

JO - BMJ Open

JF - BMJ Open

SN - 2044-6055

IS - 12

M1 - e005664

ER -