Literature reviews  >  Articles for review > Castro et al. Evaluation of an enzyme... 

 

About SDI
Mission
Diagnostic
Priorities
Workplan
Activities
Newsletters
Grants
Publications
Journal articles
Guidelines
Manuals
Reports
Literature reviews
Contact us

An enzyme immunoassay for the serological detection of syphilis performed well on samples collected from patients during all stages of disease.

Evaluation of an enzyme immunoassay technique for detection of antibodies against Treponema pallidum.
Castro R, Prieto ES, Santo I, Azevedo J, da L. Exposto F.
Journal of Clinical Microbiology 2003;41:250-253.

 

Summary:

Question
How well does an ELISA assay perform compared to a microhemagglutination assay and the fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption test for the detection of IgM and IgG antibodies to T. pallidum?

Design
This study describes a direct comparison of anti-T. pallidum IgG and IgM ELISA assays with a microhemagglutination assay (MHA-TP) and a fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption assay (FTA-Abs) for the laboratory diagnosis of syphilis.

Participants
Four hundred forty-one patients attending an STD clinic in Lisbon, Portugal, were tested, including 25, 25, 179, 105, and 107 patients with primary, secondary, latent, treated, and no history of syphilis, respectively.

Description of Tests and Diagnostic Standard
All samples were analyzed for T. pallidum antibodies by the RPR (Marco-Vue, Becton Dickinson), MHA-TP (Phasyl 210), FTA-Abs IgG and IgM (Euroimmune), and enzyme immunoassay (Eti-syphilis-G and Eti-syphilis-M, DiaSorin) tests according to the instructions of the manufacturers. For the ELISA assay, IgG and IgM antihuman monoclonal antibodies were used to differentiate between T. pallidum IgG and IgM antibodies. The cutoff point between a positive and negative result was set at the absorbance of the low-titer positive control. Samples with an absorbance within 10% of the low-titer positive control were retested. Samples with different results by the 4 techniques were retested.

Main Outcome Measures
The sensitivity and specificity of the RPR, MHA-TP, and IgG ELISA assays in comparison to the FTA-Abs test were calculated by patient group.

Main Results
Among the 441 samples tested, 289 (65.5%), 313 (71%), 324 (73.5%), and 322 (73%) samples were reactive by the RPR, MHA-TP, FTA-Abs, and ELISA tests, respectively. The results of the ELISA IgG assay compared to the MHA-TP and FTA-Abs tests are shown in Table 1. The sensitivity and specificity of the RPR, MHA-TP, and IgG ELISA assays compared to the FTA-Abs test for detection of T. pallidum antibodies in each patient group are shown in Table 2. There were no significant differences between results of the ELISA IgM and the FTA-Abs test for IgM performed on samples from patients with primary, secondary, and latent syphilis. None of the samples from patients with past treated syphilis were reactive by either test.

Table 1. Results of IgG ELISA, MHA-TP, and FTA-Abs serological tests for syphilis on 441 samples
IgG ELISA MHA-TP FTA-Abs Total
Reactive Nonreactive Reactive Nonreactive
Reactive 313 9 322 0 322
Nonreactive 0 119 2 117 119
Total 313 128 324 117 441
Table 2. Performance of RPR, MHA-TP, and IgG ELISA compared to FTA-Abs by patient group
Syphilis group RPR MHA-TP IgG ELISA
Sensitivity Specificity Sensitivity Specificity Sensitivity Specificity
Primary 92%   88%   100%  
Secondary 100%   100%   100%  
Latent  97.2%   99.4%   100%  
Treated 57.9%   92.6%   97.9%  
None  88.8%   100%   100%  

Authors' Conclusions
The high sensitivity and specificity of this ELISA technique during all stages of syphilis, together with the fact that it is a simple, objective, and easily automated method, make it a useful screening test for syphilis.

Source of funding: None given

For correspondence: Rita Castro, Unidade de Doencas Sexualmente Transmitidas, Centro de Malaria e outras Doencas Tropicais, Instituto de Higiene e Medicina Tropical, Rua da Junqueira 96, 1349-008, Lisbon, Protugal. E-mail address: ritacastro@ihmt.uni.pt.

   

about SDI | newsletters | grants | publications | literature reviews

WHO Home - WHO Search - TDR Home - SDI Home - SDI Contact us
(c) WHO/OMS 2001