Evaluation of a Multiplex Fully Automated Treponemal and Nontreponemal (Rapid Plasma Reagin) Assay

Evaluation of the AIX1000 Automated Rapid Plasma Reagin Assay in a High-Prevalence Setting

BACKGROUND

Manually performed nontreponemal assays, such as rapid plasma reagin (RPR), are labor intensive and time consuming. Recently, commercial automated RPR assays gained attention. The aim of this study was to compare the qualitative and quantitative performance of the AIX1000 (RPR-A; Gold Standard Diagnostics) to a manual RPR test (RPR-M; Becton Dickinson Macrovue) within a high-prevalence setting.

METHODS

A retrospective panel of 223 samples was selected for comparison between RPR-A and RPR-M, including 24 samples from patients with known syphilis stages and 57 samples from 11 patients in follow-up. In addition, 127 samples obtained during routine syphilis diagnosis with RPR-M were analyzed prospectively with AIX1000.

RESULTS

Overall qualitative concordance (percent agreement) between both assays was 92.0% in the retrospective and 89.0% in the prospective panel. Of 32 discordances, 28 were explained by a treated syphilis infection still positive in one assay and already negative in the other. One sample was false positive with RPR-A, 1 infection remained undetected by RPR-M, and 2 remained undetected by RPR-A. A hook effect was apparent on the AIX1000 at RPR-A titers from 1:32 onward; however, no infections were missed. Accepting a ±1 titer difference, quantitative concordance between both assays reached 73.1% and 98.4% for the retrospective and prospective panels, respectively, with an upper limit of reactivity for RPR-A at 1:256.

CONCLUSIONS

The AIX1000 showed a similar performance to Macrovue RPR with the exception of a negative deviation for high-titer samples. Within the reverse algorithm used in our high-prevalence setting, AIX1000's main advantage is automation.

High Number of Positive Rapid Plasma Reagin With Low Titers Using the Automated AIX 1000 RPR System

ABSTRACT

This study evaluated the performance of manual rapid plasma reagin (RPR) and automated AIX1000 RPR tests for the diagnosis of syphilis. Manual RPR showed a 3% reactive result compared with 5.8% for the automated test mainly because of RPR reactive results with low titers not confirmed by Treponema pallidum particle agglutination.

Evaluation of BioPlex 2200 Syphilis Total With Automated Rapid Plasma Reagin: Experience From a Tertiary Medical Center

BACKGROUND

Treponema-specific assays are widely adopted in the first step of the reverse algorithm of serologic syphilis screening. The new BioPlex 2200 Syphilis Total and rapid plasma reagin (RPR) test is designed to perform the first 2 steps of the algorithm simultaneously. However, limited data regarding the BioPlex Syphilis Total and RPR in clinical practice exist.

METHODS

A total of 293 random samples at a tertiary medical center were tested by BioPlex Syphilis Total and RPR, BioPlex Syphilis IgG, Architect Syphilis TP, and BD Macro-Vue RPR card. Treponema pallidum particle agglutination (TP-PA) assay and clinical chart review were used to resolve discrepancies. Comparisons were performed among treponemal-specific assays and between 2 RPR tests.

RESULTS

Good overall agreements (>91%) were achieved between BioPlex Syphilis Total, BioPlex Syphilis IgG, and Architect Syphilis TP. Overall agreement between BioPlex RPR and BD RPR was 86.8% with positive percent agreement of 66.7% and negative percent agreement of 96.3%. There were 37 discordant samples including 30 with BD RPR+/BioPlex RPR- and 7 with BD RPR-/BioPlex RPR+. Negative BioPlex RPR results were observed in samples with reactive BD RPR: 10 (91%) of 11 for BD RPR 1:1, 13 (65%) of 20 for BD RPR 1:2, 6 (35%) of 17 for BD RPR 1:4, and 1 (7%) of 14 for BD RPR 1:8. The discordant samples were predominantly from patients with high-risk of syphilis reinfection and included 9 patients with an early reinfection.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrated that BioPlex Syphilis Total and Architect Syphilis TP performed similarly. The BioPlex RPR missed a small number of early syphilis reinfections, and its implementation should depend on the patient population that the laboratory serves.

Evaluation of the fully automated AIX1000 rapid plasma reagin system compared to a manual plasma reagin testing method for the diagnosis of syphilis

The analytical performance of the FDA-cleared AIX1000 automated RPR testing platform was evaluated in comparison to manual RPR card testing. Eight hundred thirty-three patient serum samples were analyzed, 87 samples were positive by the AIX1000, 108 were positive by the manual test method; overall agreement between methods was 96.5% (κ = 0.83). Cases were further classified by clinical and laboratory-based confirmation of disease, to which reactivity rates were compared, yielding sensitivities of 96.4% and 100%, and specificities of 99.2% and 96.8% for the automated and manual RPR methods, respectively. The difference in specificity between methods was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Twenty-five of 29 samples with discordant results were reactive by manual testing (titers of 1:1 or 1:2); 21 of 25 patients with negative AIX100 results were identified to have histories of remote, treated syphilis. Overall, the AIX1000 platform demonstrated excellent agreement with the manual RPR method; discrepancies occurred with specimens at the threshold of reactivity.