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.

Challenges in diagnosing Zika-experiences from a reference laboratory in a non-endemic setting.

Diagnosing a patient with Zika infection is not always straightforward. Here, we aim to describe our data collected from December 2015 to December 2017 and discuss the implemented algorithm and diagnostic challenges we encountered. At the National Reference Center for Arboviruses at the Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium (ITM), a commercial Zika virus (ZIKV) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) detecting immunoglobulin (Ig) M and IgG, a commercial ZIKV immunofluorescence assay (IFA) detecting IgM, and an in-house Zika virus neutralization test (VNT) were implemented. For molecular detection of ZIKV, an in-house and a commercial real-time RT-PCR were applied. An algorithm, adapted from the European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (ECDC), was implemented. Between December 2015 and December 2017, we tested 6417 patients for ZIKV. Of those, according to ECDC criteria, 127 (2.0%) were classified as a confirmed Zika infection of which 39 by RT-PCR (0.6%), 15 (0.2%) as a probable Zika infection, 73 (1.1%) as undefined, and 65 (1.0%) as false positive reactions. Main challenges were the brief window for detection of IgM, cross-reactivity of antibodies with other flaviviruses and malaria, and low VNT titers in the acute phase. In RT-PCR negative samples, classification of ZIKV infection as recent or past proved difficult, when IgM was negative. The majority of patients could be classified according to ECDC criteria, though 1.1% of patients remained "undefined" and 1.0% were ELISA false positive reactions. Complementary IFA IgM was of added value to increase IgM detection rates. Improved serological assays and more longitudinal data on antibody kinetics are needed.