PLoS ONE (Jan 2023)

Diagnostic performance of two rapid tests for syphilis screening in people living with HIV in Cali, Colombia

  • Jonny Alejandro García Luna,
  • Nelson Romero-Rosas,
  • Sebastian Alejandro Silva Peña,
  • Oscar Javier Oviedo Sarmiento,
  • Ximena Galindo Orrego,
  • William Lenis Quintero,
  • Luisa Consuelo Perea,
  • Ernesto Martínez Buitrago,
  • Lyda Osorio,
  • Juan Carlos Salazar,
  • Adrian D. Smith,
  • Neal Alexander

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 18, no. 3

Abstract

Read online

Introduction There is insufficient evidence supporting the use of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for syphilis in people living with HIV (PLWH). We evaluated the diagnostic performance of two commercially available RDTs (Bioline and Determine) in PLWH in Cali, Colombia. Methods A cross-sectional field validation study on consecutive adults with confirmed HIV diagnosis attending three outpatient clinics. Both RDTs were performed on capillary blood (CB), obtained by finger prick, and sera, by venipuncture. A combination of treponemal enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and Treponema pallidum haemagglutination assay (TPHA) on serum samples was the reference standard. Rapid plasma reagin (RPR) and clinical criteria were added to define active syphilis. Sensitivity and specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios (LR) of RDTs were estimated with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Stratified analyses by sample type, patient characteristics, non-treponemal titers, operator and re-training were performed. Results 244 PLWH were enrolled, of whom 112 (46%) had positive treponemal reference tests and 26/234 (11.1%) had active syphilis. The sensitivities of Bioline on CB and sera were similar (96.4% vs 94.6%, p = 0.6). In contrast, Determine had a lower sensitivity on CB than sera (87.5% vs 99.1%, p 95% in most analyses. Predictive values were 90% or higher. For active syphilis, the RDTs showed a similar performance pattern but with decreased specificities. Conclusion The studied RDTs have an excellent performance in PLWH to screen for syphilis and potentially for active syphilis, yet Determine performs better on sera than CB. Patient characteristics and potential difficulties operators may face in acquiring enough blood volume from finger pricks should be considered for the implementation and the interpretation of RDTs.