Evaluation of the AIX1000 automated rapid plasma reagin test in a tertiary academic medical center.

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q2 Medicine
Taeyang Chin, Elizaveta Padalko
{"title":"Evaluation of the AIX1000 automated rapid plasma reagin test in a tertiary academic medical center.","authors":"Taeyang Chin, Elizaveta Padalko","doi":"10.1080/17843286.2025.2543336","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the analytical performance of the automated AIX1000 RPR assay compared to the manual Macro-Vue RPR Card Test for syphilis monitoring in a high-prevalence, reverse screening setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Serum samples were tested using both AIX1000 and manual RPR in retrospective (<i>n</i> = 75) and prospective (<i>n</i> = 279) cohorts. Qualitative and quantitative concordance were assessed, along with AIX1000's accuracy, precision, specificity, carry-over, and freeze-thaw stability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the retrospective cohort, overall qualitative agreement was 90.7% (κ = 0.80), with 77.3% of samples showing titers within one dilution. In the prospective cohort, qualitative agreement was 86.0% (κ = 0.72), with 90.7% of samples within one dilution. AIX1000 results were often 1-2 dilutions lower than manual RPR, especially in high-titer samples (≥1:16), where titer concordance (±1 dilution step) dropped to 38.7% (prospective) and 35.3% (retrospective). Accuracy analysis using external quality controls revealed a consistent one dilution-step bias for both assays: manual RPR read higher and AIX1000 lower, explaining the observed discrepancies. Analytical performance met predefined criteria: within and between runs were consistent, specificity showed no cross-reactivity, and no carry-over contamination was observed. Freeze-thaw testing had minimal effect on results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The AIX1000 showed good concordance with manual RPR, particularly at lower titers, with reliable analytical performance and operational advantages. However, systematic titer underestimation compared to manual RPR, particularly in high-titer samples, may affect clinical interpretation if tests are transitioned. Clinicians should be informed of this discrepancy when transitioning platforms.</p>","PeriodicalId":7086,"journal":{"name":"Acta Clinica Belgica","volume":" ","pages":"83-90"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Clinica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17843286.2025.2543336","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the analytical performance of the automated AIX1000 RPR assay compared to the manual Macro-Vue RPR Card Test for syphilis monitoring in a high-prevalence, reverse screening setting.

Methods: Serum samples were tested using both AIX1000 and manual RPR in retrospective (n = 75) and prospective (n = 279) cohorts. Qualitative and quantitative concordance were assessed, along with AIX1000's accuracy, precision, specificity, carry-over, and freeze-thaw stability.

Results: In the retrospective cohort, overall qualitative agreement was 90.7% (κ = 0.80), with 77.3% of samples showing titers within one dilution. In the prospective cohort, qualitative agreement was 86.0% (κ = 0.72), with 90.7% of samples within one dilution. AIX1000 results were often 1-2 dilutions lower than manual RPR, especially in high-titer samples (≥1:16), where titer concordance (±1 dilution step) dropped to 38.7% (prospective) and 35.3% (retrospective). Accuracy analysis using external quality controls revealed a consistent one dilution-step bias for both assays: manual RPR read higher and AIX1000 lower, explaining the observed discrepancies. Analytical performance met predefined criteria: within and between runs were consistent, specificity showed no cross-reactivity, and no carry-over contamination was observed. Freeze-thaw testing had minimal effect on results.

Conclusion: The AIX1000 showed good concordance with manual RPR, particularly at lower titers, with reliable analytical performance and operational advantages. However, systematic titer underestimation compared to manual RPR, particularly in high-titer samples, may affect clinical interpretation if tests are transitioned. Clinicians should be informed of this discrepancy when transitioning platforms.

AIX1000自动快速血浆再生素试验在三级学术医疗中心的评价
目的:评价自动化AIX1000 RPR检测与人工Macro-Vue RPR卡试验在高流行、反向筛查环境下梅毒监测中的分析性能。方法:采用AIX1000和手工RPR对血清样本进行回顾性(n = 75)和前瞻性(n = 279)检测。评估定性和定量一致性,以及AIX1000的准确性、精密度、特异性、携带性和冻融稳定性。结果:在回顾性队列中,总体定性一致性为90.7% (κ = 0.80), 77.3%的样品滴度在一个稀释度内。在前瞻性队列中,定性一致性为86.0% (κ = 0.72), 90.7%的样本在一次稀释内。AIX1000结果通常比手动RPR低1-2个稀释倍数,特别是在高滴度样品(≥1:16)中,其滴度一致性(±1个稀释步)降至38.7%(前瞻性)和35.3%(回顾性)。使用外部质量控制的准确性分析显示,两种分析方法都存在一致的一个稀释步骤偏差:手动RPR读数较高,AIX1000较低,这解释了观察到的差异。分析性能符合预定义的标准:运行内和运行之间是一致的,特异性显示没有交叉反应性,没有观察到携带污染。冻融试验对结果影响最小。结论:AIX1000与人工RPR具有较好的一致性,特别是在低滴度时,具有可靠的分析性能和操作优势。然而,与手工RPR相比,系统滴度低估,特别是在高滴度样品中,如果检测转换,可能会影响临床解释。临床医生在转换平台时应了解这一差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Acta Clinica Belgica
Acta Clinica Belgica 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Clinica Belgica: International Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Medicine primarily publishes papers on clinical medicine, clinical chemistry, pathology and molecular biology, provided they describe results which contribute to our understanding of clinical problems or describe new methods applicable to clinical investigation. Readership includes physicians, pathologists, pharmacists and physicians working in non-academic and academic hospitals, practicing internal medicine and its subspecialties.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信