几种实验室检测方法在神经梅毒诊断中的比较

中华皮肤科杂志 ›› 2011, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (2): 127-129.

几种实验室检测方法在神经梅毒诊断中的比较

林路洋¹,杨日东¹,张锡宝¹,宋卫忠²,毕超²,梁艳华²,李仰琪¹,李季¹,曹文苓³,王焕丽¹,钟道清²

1. 广州市皮肤病防治所
2.
3. 广州市皮肤病防治研究所

收稿日期:2010-04-23 修回日期:2010-08-11 出版日期:2011-02-15 发布日期:2011-02-10
通讯作者: 张锡宝 E-mail:zxibao@126.com
基金资助:
广州市医药卫生科技项目

Comparisons of several laboratory tests in the diagnosis of neurosyphilis

Received:2010-04-23 Revised:2010-08-11 Online:2011-02-15 Published:2011-02-10

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的探讨性病研究实验室试验（VDRL）与几种检测方法在神经梅毒诊断中的敏感性和特异性差异。方法取未经治疗或经治疗梅毒血清固定的隐性梅毒患者脑脊液（CSF），进行VDRL、RPR、TPPA、荧光梅毒螺旋体抗体吸收试验（FTA-ABS）、CSF常规和生化等检查。比较VDRL与这几种试验的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值的差异。结果在总共61例符合隐性梅毒诊断的病例中，CSF-RPR的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值（PPV）、阴性预测值（NPV）分别为93.44%（57/61）、99.32%（293/295）、96.61%（57/59）、98.65%（293/297），CSF-TPPA分别为91.80%（56/61）、82.71%（244/295）、52.34%（56/107）、97.99（244/249），CSF-FTA-ABS分别为93.44%（57/61）、82.71%（244/295）、52.78%（57/108）、98.39%（244/248），蛋白定量分别为49.18%（30/61）、97.29%（287/295）、78.95%（30/38）、90.25%（287/318）。结论目前CSF-RPR、CSF-TPPA、CSF-FTA-ABS、蛋白定量等均不能替代CSF-VDRL作为NS诊断试验。CSF-RPR有较高的敏感性和特异性，其诊断效用指标ROC（receiver operating characteristic）曲线下面积（area under curve, AUC）与CSF-TPPA、CSF-FTA-ABS以及蛋白定量有统计学差异。

关键词: 诊断效用

Abstract:

Objective To compare the sensitivity and specificity of venereal disease research laboratory （VDRL） test versus several other laboratory tests in the diagnosis of neurosyphilis. Methods Lumber puncture was conducted to obtain cerebrospinal fluid （CSF） from untreated outpatients with latent syphilis （LS） or serofast outpatients with LS. Then, VDRL test, rapid plasma regain （RPR） test, Treponema pallidum particle agglutination （TPPA） assay, fluorescent treponemal antibody-absorption （FTA-ABS） test and protein quantification were performed on these CSF samples. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were compared between VDRL test and four other laboratory tests in the diagnosis of neurosyphilis. Results Totally, 61 cases of latent syphilis were included in this study. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 93.44% （57/61）, 99.32% （293/295）, 96.61% （57/59）, 98.65% （293/297） for CSF-RPR, respectively, 91.80% （56/61）, 82.71% （244/295）, 52.34% （56/107）, 97.99 （244/249） for CSF-TPPA, respectively, 93.44% （57/61）, 82.71% （244/295）, 52.78%（57/108）, 98.39% （244/248） for CSF-FTA-ABS, respectively, and 49.18% （30/61）, 97.29% （287/295）, 78.95%（30/38）, 90.25% （287/318） for CSF protein quantification, respectively. Conclusions CSF-VDRL cannot be replaced by CSF-RPR, -TPPA, -FTA-ABS, or CSF protein quantification in the diagnosis of neurosyphilis. CSF-RPR shows a high sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of neurosyphilis, with an increased diagnostic capability （area under the receiver operating characteristic curve） compared with CSF-TPPA, CSF-FTA-ABS or CSF protein quantification.

Key words: diagnostic efficacy

林路洋杨日东张锡宝宋卫忠毕超梁艳华李仰琪李季曹文苓王焕丽钟道清. 几种实验室检测方法在神经梅毒诊断中的比较[J]. 中华皮肤科杂志, 2011, 44(2): 127-129.

参考文献

[1] Singh AE, Romanowski B. Syphilis: review with emphasis on clinical, epidemiologic, and some biologic features. Clin Microbiol Rev, 1999, 12(2): 187-209. [2] Merritt H, Adams R, Solomon H. Neurosyphilis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1940. [3] 王千秋, 张国成. 性传播疾病临床诊疗指南. 上海：上海科学技术出版社，2007. 5：4-5. [4] 尹跃平. 性传播疾病实验室诊断指南. 上海：上海科学技术出版社，2007.12：4-18 [5] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sexually transmitted disease treatment guidelines - 2006. MMWR, 2006, 55(No. RR-11). [6] Schmidt BL, Van Voorst Vader PC. Laboratory Diagnosis of Neurosyphilis in Europe. 2004. IUSTI/WHO Conference on STI. Europe Syphilis Guideline Expert Workshop, Mykonos, Greece. [7] Poliseli RJ, Vidal JE, et, al. Neurosyphilis in HIV-infected patients: clinical manifestations, serum venereal disease research laboratory titers, and associated factors to symptomatic neurosyphilis. Sex Transm Dis, 2008, 35(5): 425-429. [8] Golden, MR, Marra, CM, et al. Update on syphilis: resurgence of an old problem. JAMA, 2003, 290(11): 1510-1514. [9] 韩国柱，邵长庚. 我国梅毒流行和临床特点. 中华皮肤科杂志, 2005, 38(5): 322-324. [10] 石强, 黄旭升, 于生元, 等. 三例神经梅毒的临床特征与诊断. 中华神经医学杂志, 2006, 5(10): 1053-1055. [11] 黄跃深, 王群, 邓伟平, 等. 晚期神经梅毒—麻痹性痴呆3例临床分析. 临床皮肤科杂志, 2006, 35(10): 648-649. [12] 黎志刚, 曾仁山. 神经梅毒32例临床分析. 岭南皮肤性病科杂志, 2008, 15(5): 268-270. [13] Castro R, Prieto ES, et al. Evaluation of the Treponema pallidum particle agglutination technique (TP.PA) in the diagnosis of neurosyphilis. J Clin Lab Anal, 2006, 20(6): 233-238. [14] Castro R, Prieto ES, et al. Nontreponemal tests in the diagnosis of neurosyphilis: an evaluation of the Venereal Disease Research Laboratory (VDRL) and the Rapid Plasma Reagin (RPR) tests. J Clin Lab Anal, 2008, 22(4): 257-261.