Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Evaluating congenital syphilis in a reverse sequence testing environment

Journal of Perinatology volume 39, pages 956–963 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Objectives

To examine the effect of maternal reverse-sequence (RS) syphilis screening on management of infants at risk for congenital syphilis (CS) using a standardized approach.

Study design

 A retrospective study from 2011 to 2014 at an academic medical center using RS testing, involving chemiluminescent immunoassay (CIA), rapid plasma  reagin (RPR), and fluorescent treponemal antibody-absorption (FTA-ABS) assays for syphilis. Clinical management and outcomes of infants born to mothers with discordant (CIA+/RPR−/FTA+) serology were compared with national or internal guidelines.

Results

Sixty-three infants were classified as discordant (n = 21), presumed false positive (CIA+/RPR−/FTA−; n = 16), or true positive (CIA+/RPR+; n = 26) based on maternal serology. Only 24% of cases in the discordant group underwent recommended full evaluation. None of the evaluated infants in the discordant group (n = 8) were diagnosed with CS.

Conclusions

Management of infants with discordant maternal RS serology remained reliant on clinical judgment. In our high-risk population, RS testing did not identify additional cases of CS.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Newman L, Kamb M, Hawkes S, Gomez G, Say L, Seuc A, et al. Global estimates of syphilis in pregnancy and associated adverse outcomes: analysis of multinational antenatal surveillance data. PLoS Med. 2013;10:e1001396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sexually transmitted disease surveillance 2017. Atlanta; 2018.

  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Epidemic of congenital syphilis—Baltimore, 1996–1997. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1998;47:904–7.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NCHHSTP AtlasPlus.Updated 2017. https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/atlas/index.htm. Accessed 11 Feb 2019.

  5. Genç M, Ledger WJ. Syphilis in pregnancy. Sex Trasm Inf. 2000;76:73–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Park IU, Chow JM, Bolan G, Stanley M, Shieh J, Schapiro JM. Screening for syphilis with the treponemal immunoassay: analysis of discordant serology results and implications for clinical management. J Infect Dis. 2011;204:1297–304.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Mmeje O, Chow JM, Davidson L, Shieh J, Schapiro JM, Park IU. Discordant syphilis immunoassays in pregnancy: perinatal outcomes and implications for clinical management. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61:1049–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Workowski KA, Bolan GA, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2015. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2015;64(RR-03):1–137.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Communicable Diseases and Related Conditions of Public Health Importance—Congenital Syphilis. Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 10.06.01.17 D. 2017. http://Mdrules.Elaws.Us/Comar/10.06.01.17. Accessed 10 Jan 2019.

  10. American Academy of Pediatrics. Syphilis. In: Kimberlin DW, Brady MT, Jackson MA, Long SS, editors. Red Book: 2018 Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases. 31st edn. Illinois: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2018. p. 773–87.

  11. Huh HJ, Chung JW, Park SY, Chae SL. Comparison of automated treponemal and nontreponemal test algorithms as first-line syphilis screening assays. Ann Lab Med. 2016;36:23–27.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Seña AC, White BL, Sparling PF. Novel treponema pallidum serologic tests: a paradigm shift in syphilis screening for the 21st century. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51:700–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Discordant results from reverse sequence syphilis screening—five laboratories, United States, 2006–2010. MMWR. 2011;60:133–7.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hunter MG, Robertson PW, Post JJ. Significance of isolated reactive treponemal chemiluminescence immunoassay results. J Infect Dis. 2013;207:1416–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sheffield JS, Wendel GD. Syphilis in pregnancy. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1999;42:97–106.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Fiumara NJ, Fleming WL, Downing JG, Good FL. The incidence of prenatal syphilis at the Boston City Hospital. N Engl J Med. 1952;247:48–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. American Academy of Pediatrics. Syphilis. In: Kimberlin DW, Brady MT, Jackson MA, Long SS, editors. Red Book: 2015 Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases. 30th edn. Illinois: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2015. p. 755–68.

  18. Rossi KQ, Nickel JR, Wissel ME, O’Shaughnessy RW. Passively acquired treponemal antibody from intravenous immunoglobulin therapy in a pregnant patient. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002;126:1237–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Constable SA, Parry CM, Enevoldson TP, Bradley M. Positive serological tests for syphilis and administration of intravenous immunoglobulin. Sex Transm Infect. 2007;83:57–58.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Peterman TA, Fakile YF. What is the use of rapid syphilis tests in the United States? Sex Transm Dis. 2016;43:201–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Pablo J. Sanchez, MD (Division of Neonatology, Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio) for his advice during initial generation of the internal algorithm. They also thank Pranita D. Tamma, MD, MHS and Alice J. Hsu, Pharm. D. (Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine) for updating our algorithm and for providing additional recommendations for evaluation and management. Finally, they thank Jeanne S. Sheffield, MD (Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine) for advice in revising this paper.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Ibukunoluwa C. Akinboyo

    Present address: Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA

  2. Paul K. Sue

    Present address: Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA

  3. Ravit Arav-Boger

    Present address: Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    May W. Chen, Pamela K. Donohue & W. Christopher Golden

  2. Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Ibukunoluwa C. Akinboyo, Paul K. Sue & Ravit Arav-Boger

  3. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Khalil G. Ghanem & Kathleen R. Page

  4. Division of Immunopathology, Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Barbara Detrick

  5. Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Frank R. Witter

Authors
  1. May W. Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ibukunoluwa C. Akinboyo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul K. Sue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pamela K. Donohue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Khalil G. Ghanem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Barbara Detrick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Frank R. Witter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Kathleen R. Page
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ravit Arav-Boger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. W. Christopher Golden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W. Christopher Golden.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, M.W., Akinboyo, I.C., Sue, P.K. et al. Evaluating congenital syphilis in a reverse sequence testing environment. J Perinatol 39, 956–963 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-019-0387-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-019-0387-9

Search

Advanced search

Quick links