Comparative evaluation of rapid plasma reagin and ELISA with Treponema pallidum hemagglutination assay for the detection of syphilis in blood donors: a single center experience.

Brinda Kakkar, Joseph Philip, Rajeevinder Singh Mallhi
{"title":"Comparative evaluation of rapid plasma reagin and ELISA with Treponema pallidum hemagglutination assay for the detection of syphilis in blood donors: a single center experience.","authors":"Brinda Kakkar, Joseph Philip, Rajeevinder Singh Mallhi","doi":"10.1016/j.htct.2024.01.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The prime responsibility of blood transfusion services in India is to provide safe blood. The donated blood is tested for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), malaria and syphilis. In India, the screening of donated blood for syphilis is performed by rapid plasma reagin (RPR) or venereal disease research laboratory (VDRL), whereas the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends screening of syphilis in blood donors by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of RPR and ELISA with the Treponema pallidum hemagglutination assay (TPHA - the gold standard) for the detection of syphilis in blood donors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this cross-sectional study, 1524 consecutive whole blood donors were screened from April to October 2022. All blood samples collected during the study period were tested by RPR, ELISA and the TPHA and the results obtained were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The seroprevalence of syphilis in blood donors in this study was 0.06% by RPR and 0.72% by ELISA and TPHA. On considering ELISA and the TPHA as the gold standard, ELISA had comparable sensitivity (100%), a higher specificity (100% vs. 99.34%), a higher positive predictive value (PPV - 100% vs. 9.1%) and no biological false positive/false negative results (0 vs. 10 false negatives) when compared to RPR.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ELISA performed better as a screening assay than RPR in the detection of syphilis in blood donors, which is in agreement with the WHO recommendations for syphilis testing in blood donors with low prevalence.</p>","PeriodicalId":94026,"journal":{"name":"Hematology, transfusion and cell therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hematology, transfusion and cell therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.htct.2024.01.003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The prime responsibility of blood transfusion services in India is to provide safe blood. The donated blood is tested for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), malaria and syphilis. In India, the screening of donated blood for syphilis is performed by rapid plasma reagin (RPR) or venereal disease research laboratory (VDRL), whereas the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends screening of syphilis in blood donors by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of RPR and ELISA with the Treponema pallidum hemagglutination assay (TPHA - the gold standard) for the detection of syphilis in blood donors.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 1524 consecutive whole blood donors were screened from April to October 2022. All blood samples collected during the study period were tested by RPR, ELISA and the TPHA and the results obtained were compared.

Results: The seroprevalence of syphilis in blood donors in this study was 0.06% by RPR and 0.72% by ELISA and TPHA. On considering ELISA and the TPHA as the gold standard, ELISA had comparable sensitivity (100%), a higher specificity (100% vs. 99.34%), a higher positive predictive value (PPV - 100% vs. 9.1%) and no biological false positive/false negative results (0 vs. 10 false negatives) when compared to RPR.

Conclusion: ELISA performed better as a screening assay than RPR in the detection of syphilis in blood donors, which is in agreement with the WHO recommendations for syphilis testing in blood donors with low prevalence.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在检测献血者梅毒方面,快速血浆试剂和酶联免疫吸附试验与苍白螺旋体血凝试验的比较评估:一个单一中心的经验。
导言:在印度,输血服务的首要责任是提供安全的血液。对捐献的血液进行人体免疫缺陷病毒(HIV)、乙型肝炎病毒(HBV)、丙型肝炎病毒(HCV)、疟疾和梅毒检测。在印度,通过快速血浆试剂(RPR)或性病研究实验室(VDRL)对献血者进行梅毒筛查,而世界卫生组织(WHO)建议通过酶联免疫吸附试验(ELISA)对献血者进行梅毒筛查。因此,本研究旨在评估 RPR 和 ELISA 与苍白螺旋体血凝试验(TPHA--金标准)在检测献血者梅毒方面的性能:在这项横断面研究中,从2022年4月至10月对1524名连续的全血献血者进行了筛查。对研究期间采集的所有血样进行了 RPR、ELISA 和 TPHA 检测,并对检测结果进行了比较:本研究中献血者的梅毒血清阳性率(RPR)为 0.06%,ELISA 和 TPHA 为 0.72%。将 ELISA 和 TPHA 作为金标准时,与 RPR 相比,ELISA 的灵敏度(100%)、特异性(100% vs. 99.34%)、阳性预测值(PPV - 100% vs. 9.1%)更高,而且没有生物假阳性/假阴性结果(0 vs. 10 个假阴性):结论:ELISA作为一种筛查方法,在检测献血者梅毒方面的效果优于RPR,这与世界卫生组织(WHO)关于对低流行率献血者进行梅毒检测的建议一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Familial acute myeloid leukemia due to a novel germline CEBPA pathogenic variant - a case report. Hemolytic anemia due to pyruvate kinase deficiency coexistent with the alpha thalassemia trait and chronic myeloid leukemia. Analysis of cerebrospinal fluid chimerism after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: Case report. Minor surgical procedures during immune tolerance induction in people with hemophilia A and inhibitors: results from the Brazilian Immune Tolerance (BrazIT) study cohort. Psychological aspects in young people with venous thromboembolic disease, preliminary report.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1