Screening for Syphilis Incidence in a Tertiary Care Facility: A Reverse Algorithm Cross-Sectional Investigation

Pratheesh, Anna; Gopinathan, Anusha; Datchanamoorthy, Maheswary; SS, Jayalakshmi; Sivankutty Nair, Aparna; Kakithakara Vajravelu, Leela

year 20, Issue 1 (January - February 2026) Iran J Med Microbiol 2026, 20(1): 56-62 | Back to browse issues page

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Pratheesh A, Gopinathan A, Datchanamoorthy M, SS J, Sivankutty Nair A, Kakithakara Vajravelu L. Screening for Syphilis Incidence in a Tertiary Care Facility: A Reverse Algorithm Cross-Sectional Investigation. Iran J Med Microbiol 2026; 20 (1) :56-62
URL: http://ijmm.ir/article-1-2888-en.html

Screening for Syphilis Incidence in a Tertiary Care Facility: A Reverse Algorithm Cross-Sectional Investigation

Anna Pratheesh¹

, Anusha Gopinathan²

, Maheswary Datchanamoorthy¹

, Jayalakshmi SS¹

, Aparna Sivankutty Nair¹

, Leela Kakithakara Vajravelu¹

1- Department of Microbiology, SRM Medical College Hospital & Research Center, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur, India
2- Department of Microbiology, SRM Medical College Hospital & Research Center, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur, India , anusha.gopinathan@gmail.com

Abstract: (133 Views)

Background and Aim: Syphilis continues to present a major public health challenge globally, with serologic testing central to detection and control efforts. Comparative evaluation of screening algorithms, particularly the performance of automated Chemiluminescent Microparticle Immunoassay (CMIA) versus Rapid plasma reagin (RPR) using Treponema (T.) pallidum hemagglutination assay (TPHA) as the reference standard, is critical for optimizing diagnostic accuracy. This study aimed to investigate syphilis prevalence and assesse the efficacy of reverse screening strategies in a high-volume academic tertiary care center.
Materials and Methods: The study was conducted from July 2024 to March 2025 at SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Centre. Individuals presenting to the outpatient department were screened using Abbott ARCHITECT Syphilis TP (CMIA). Positive samples underwent RPR testing, followed by TPHA confirmation.
Results & Conclusion: Out of 4312 samples, 52 (1.2%) were CMIA positive. Among these, 75% were male and 25% were female, with one case of congenital syphilis. Of the CMIA-positive cases, 35 (67.3%) were RPR positive and 34 (32.7%) were TPHA confirmed. Among the 17 RPR-negative samples, 4 (23.52%) were TPHA positive and 13 (76.48%) were negative. The study found low syphilis prevalence (1.2%) among the screened population. A significant proportion of RPR-negative but TPHA-positive cases underscore the need for combined testing strategies. These findings highlight the importance of comprehensive serologic screening, continued surveillance, and targeted public health interventions.

Keywords: Chemiluminescent Microparticle Immunoassay, Hemagglutination assay, Rapid Plasma Reagin, Syphilis, Treponema pallidum

Full-Text [PDF 442 kb] (15 Downloads)

Type of Study: Brief Original Article | Subject: Medical Bacteriology
Received: 2025/11/17 | Accepted: 2026/02/20 | ePublished: 2026/02/28

References

1. Harfouche M, Gherbi WS, Alareeki A, Alaama AS, Hermez JG, Smolak A, et al. Epidemiology of Trichomonas vaginalis infection in the Middle East and North Africa: systematic review, meta-analyses, and meta-regressions. EBioMedicine. 2024;106. [DOI:10.1016/j.ebiom.2024.105250] [PMID] [PMCID]

2. Maloney B, Healy CM. Oral syphilis-the great imitator: a series of six cases. Br Dent J. 2024;237(7):543-9. [DOI:10.1038/s41415-024-7891-9] [PMID] [PMCID]

3. Elmouden H, Louhab N, Kissani N. Medullary involvement in neurosyphilis: a report of 12 cases and a review of the literature. Spinal Cord Ser Case. 2019;5(1):38. [DOI:10.1038/s41394-019-0185-9] [PMID] [PMCID]

4. Kojima N, Klausner JD. An update on the global epidemiology of syphilis. Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2018;5(1):24-38. [DOI:10.1007/s40471-018-0138-z] [PMID] [PMCID]

5. Tuddenham S, Katz SS, Ghanem KG. Syphilis laboratory guidelines: performance characteristics of nontreponemal antibody tests. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(Supplement_1):S21-42. [DOI:10.1093/cid/ciaa306] [PMID] [PMCID]

6. Morshed M, Lee MK, Laley J, Cook D, Mak A, Chahil N, et al. British Columbia's experience after implementation of the Treponema pallidum reverse algorithm and PCR detection, 2015 to 2020. Microbiol Spectr. 2022;10(3):e00686-22. [DOI:10.1128/spectrum.00686-22] [PMID] [PMCID]

7. Cao W, Thorpe PG, O'Callaghan K, Kersh EN. Advantages and limitations of current diagnostic laboratory approaches in syphilis and congenital syphilis. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2023;21(12):1339-54. [DOI:10.1080/14787210.2023.2280214] [PMID] [PMCID]

8. Abbott GmbH & Co. KG. ARCHITECT Syphilis TP, 8D06: package insert. Wiesbaden, Germany: Abbott GmbH & Co. KG; 2017. Document No.: G88430R02. 2017. [cited 2026 Feb 20]. Available from: [https://www.redcross.org.lb/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/2.6-Syphilis.pdf]

9. Tulip Diagnostics (P) Ltd. CARBOGEN Rapid Plasma Reagin (RPR) card test/carbon antigen for syphilis testing: instructions for use. Goa, India: Tulip Diagnostics (P) Ltd. 2022. [cited 2026 Feb 20]. Available from: [https://www.tulipgroup.com/PDFs/Serology/IFU/CARBOGEN-IFU.pdf]

10. Monlab SL. TPHA MonlabTest®: qualitative determination of anti-Treponema pallidum antibodies [package insert/instructions for use]. Cornellà de Llobregat, Spain: Monlab SL; 2023. [cited 2026 Feb 20]. Available from: [https://monlab.com/index.php/en/products-monlab/serology/syphilis/tpha.html]

11. Niedźwiedzka-Stadnik M, Rosińska M, Zakrzewska K. Syphilis in Poland in 2019. Epidemiol Rev (Prz Epidemiol). 2021;75(4):613-25. [DOI:10.32394/pe.75.58] [PMID]

12. Solaimalai D, Gupta A, George L, Manesh A, Karthik R, Sathishkumar D, et al. Upward trends of syphilis in the non-pregnant adults: A six-year report on clinical and epidemiological profile of syphilis from a tertiary care center, India. Front Public Health. 2022;10:908591. [DOI:10.3389/fpubh.2022.908591] [PMID] [PMCID]

13. Sardinha JC, de Lima LL, Heibel M, Schettini A, Talhari S, Talhari C. Atypical manifestations of recent syphilis: study of 19 cases. Anais An Bras Dermatol. 2020;95(5):589-93. [DOI:10.1016/j.abd.2020.03.008] [PMID] [PMCID]

14. Yapar G, Köksal MO, Sarsar K, Soğuksu P, Demirci M, Yurtseven E, et al. The Role of Traditional and Reverse Algorithms in the Diagnosis of Syphilis in HIV-Infected Individuals: A Case Study on Istanbul. Diagnostics. 2025;15(3):365. [DOI:10.3390/diagnostics15030365] [PMID] [PMCID]

15. Payaslıoğlu M, Sağlık İ, Kazak E. The Resurgence of Syphilis: A 20-Year Evaluation of Epidemiological Trends and Serological Test Performance Using Rapid Plasma Reagin and Indirect Hemagglutination Assays. Medicina. 2025;61(8):1491. [DOI:10.3390/medicina61081491] [PMID] [PMCID]

16. Zondag HC, van Dam AP, Bosch J, Getman D, Nenninger A, de Vries HJ, et al. Timely diagnosis of incubating syphilis infections using Treponema pallidum transcription-mediated amplification assay. Clin Infect Dis. 2023;77(12):1717-22. [DOI:10.1093/cid/ciad455] [PMID] [PMCID]

17. Verma S, Panda PS, Muralidhar S, Rajan S, Khunger N. Traditional versus reverse algorithm for diagnosis of syphilis-An Indian perspective from a national referral laboratory for sexually transmitted infections. Indian J Sex Transm Dis AIDS. 2025;46(1):25-30. [DOI:10.4103/ijstd.ijstd_132_24] [PMID] [PMCID]

18. Gupta S, Sharma A, Pandey H, Singh N, Chandra AD, Khan I, et al. A retrospective study to assess the accuracy of syphilis rapid test by chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CIA) in volunteer blood donors. Indian J Sex Transm Dis AIDS. 2025;46(1):22-4. [DOI:10.4103/ijstd.ijstd_115_24] [PMID] [PMCID]

19. Terzi HA, Aydemir O, Karakece E, Hatipoglu H, Olmez M, Koroglu M, et al. Investigation of the rapid immunochromatographic test performance in the diagnosis of syphilis; comparison of four serological methods. J Lab Med. 2020;44(4):221-6. [DOI:10.1515/labmed-2019-0012]

20. Park IU, Tran A, Pereira L, Fakile Y. Sensitivity and specificity of treponemal-specific tests for the diagnosis of syphilis. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(Supplement_1):S13-20. [DOI:10.1093/cid/ciaa349] [PMID] [PMCID]

21. Ortiz DA, Shukla MR, Loeffelholz MJ. The traditional or reverse algorithm for diagnosis of syphilis: pros and cons. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(Supplement_1):S43-51. [DOI:10.1093/cid/ciaa307] [PMID] [PMCID]

22. Thomas JF, Catlin S, Stacey JA. Syphilis: understanding traditional and reverse screening algorithms. J Nurse Pract. 2020;16(5):359-62. [DOI:10.1016/j.nurpra.2020.01.010]