Is Serological Testing a Reliable Tool in Laboratory Diagnosis of Syphilis? Meta-Analysis of Eight External Quality Control Surveys Performed by the German Infection Serology Proficiency Testing Program
Iris Müller,Volker Brade,Hans-Jochen Hagedorn,Erich Straube,Christoph Schörner,Matthias Frosch,Harald Hlobil,Gerold Stanek,Klaus-Peter Hunfeld
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.44.4.1335-1341.2006
2006-04-01
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Abstract:ABSTRACT The accuracy of diagnostic tests is critical for successful control of epidemic outbreaks of syphilis. The reliability of syphilis serology in the nonspecialist laboratory has always been questioned, but actual data dealing with this issue are sparse. Here, the results of eight proficiency testing sentinel surveys for diagnostic laboratories in Germany between 2000 and 2003 were analyzed. Screening tests such as Treponema pallidum hemagglutination assay (mean accuracy, 91.4% [qualitative], 75.4% [quantitative]), Treponema pallidum particle agglutination assay (mean accuracy, 98.1% [qualitative], 82.9% [quantitative]), and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) (mean qualitative accuracy, 95%) were more reliable than Venereal Disease Research Laboratory (VDRL) testing (mean accuracy, 89.6% [qualitative], 71.1% [quantitative]), the fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption test (FTA-ABS) (mean accuracy, 88% [qualitative], 65.8% [quantitative]), and immunoblot assays (mean qualitative accuracy, 87.3%). Clearly, immunoglobulin M (IgM) tests were more difficult to manage than IgG tests. False-negative results for samples that have been unambiguously determined to be IgM and anti-lipoid antibody positive accounted for 4.7% of results in the IgM ELISA, 6.9% in the VDRL test, 18.5% in the IgM FTA-ABS, and 23.0% in the IgM immunoblot assay. For negative samples, the mean percentage of false-positive results was 4.1% in the VDRL test, 5.4% in the IgM ELISA, 0.7% in the IgM FTA-ABS, and 1.4% in the IgM immunoblot assay. On average, 18.3% of participants misclassified samples from patients with active syphilis as past infection without indicating the need for further treatment. Moreover, 10.2% of laboratories wrongly reported serological evidence for active infection in samples from patients with past syphilis or in sera from seronegative blood donors. Consequently, the continuous participation of laboratories in proficiency testing and further standardization of tests is strongly recommended to achieve better quality of syphilis serology.
microbiology