Sensitivity and specificity of a syphilis rapid diagnostic test in blood donors' samples.

Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDT) are useful to identify syphilis cases, particularly for hard-to-reach populations and if laboratory services are scarce. However, RDT performance may be suboptimal. We aimed to assess the sensitivity and specificity of a syphilis RDT using well-characterized blood donors' samples. We categorized samples from 811 blood donors into five groups: 1 - Samples with reactive Chemiluminescence (QML), FTA-Abs, and VDRL; 2 - Samples with reactive QML and FTA-Abs, and nonreactive VDRL; 3 - Samples with reactive QML, and nonreactive for other markers (false-positives); 4 - Controls with nonreactive QML; and 5 - Samples reactive for HIV, with nonreactive QML. Sensitivity was tested in groups 1 (overall and according to VDRL titers) and 2; specificity was tested in groups 3‒5. The RDT had high specificity, even in samples reactive for HIV. The sensitivity was high (91.9%) in samples with reactive VDRL but varied between 75.0%‒100% according to VDRL titers. The overall sensitivity was lower (81.3%) in samples with reactive FTA-Abs and nonreactive VDRL. The RDT is a useful tool to detect active syphilis but may be more limited for cases with very early or remote infection, or those with prior treatment. When higher sensitivity is needed, additional strategies including recurrent testing or laboratory-based tests may be required.

Sensitivity and specificity of a syphilis rapid diagnostic test in blood donors' samples

Abstract Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDT) are useful to identify syphilis cases, particularly for hard-to-reach populations and if laboratory services are scarce. However, RDT performance may be suboptimal. We aimed to assess the sensitivity and specificity of a syphilis RDT using well-characterized blood donors' samples. We categorized samples from 811 blood donors into five groups: 1 - Samples with reactive Chemiluminescence (QML), FTA-Abs, and VDRL; 2 - Samples with reactive QML and FTA-Abs, and nonreactive VDRL; 3 - Samples with reactive QML, and nonreactive for other markers (false-positives); 4 - Controls with nonreactive QML; and 5 - Samples reactive for HIV, with nonreactive QML. Sensitivity was tested in groups 1 (overall and according to VDRL titers) and 2; specificity was tested in groups 3‒5. The RDT had high specificity, even in samples reactive for HIV. The sensitivity was high (91.9%) in samples with reactive VDRL but varied between 75.0%‒100% according to VDRL titers. The overall sensitivity was lower (81.3%) in samples with reactive FTA-Abs and nonreactive VDRL. The RDT is a useful tool to detect active syphilis but may be more limited for cases with very early or remote infection, or those with prior treatment. When higher sensitivity is needed, additional strategies including recurrent testing or laboratory-based tests may be required.