Rapid plasma reagent
You don't need to be Editor-In-Chief to add or edit content to WikiDoc. You can begin to add to or edit text on this WikiDoc page by clicking on the edit button at the top of this page. Next enter or edit the information that you would like to appear here. Once you are done editing, scroll down and click the Save page button at the bottom of the page.
Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1] Phone:617-632-7753
Please Take Over This Page and Apply to be Editor-In-Chief for this topic: There can be one or more than one Editor-In-Chief. You may also apply to be an Associate Editor-In-Chief of one of the subtopics below. Please mail us [2] to indicate your interest in serving either as an Editor-In-Chief of the entire topic or as an Associate Editor-In-Chief for a subtopic. Please be sure to attach your CV and or biographical sketch.
Rapid Plasma Reagent (RPR) refers to a type of test that looks for non-specific antibodies in the blood of the patient that may indicate that the organism (Treponema pallidum) that causes syphilis is present. The term "reagin" means that this test does not look for antibodies against the actual bacterium, but rather for antibodies against substances released by cells when they are damaged by T. pallidum. Another test often used to screen for syphilis is the Venereal Disease Research Laboratory VDRL slide test, however, the RPR test is generally preferred due to its ease of use.
In addition to screening for syphilis, an RPR level (also called a "titer") can be used to track the progress of the disease over time and its response to therapy.
The RPR test is an effective screening test, meaning it is very good at detecting people who are affected by syphilis, however, this comes with the drawback that this test is also known to show that people have syphilis who in reality do not (in other words, it will produce false positives). False positives can be seen in viral infections (Epstein-Barr, hepatitis, varicella, measles), lymphoma, tuberculosis, malaria, endocarditis, connective tissue disease, pregnancy, intravenous drug abuse, or contamination.[1] As a result, these two screening tests should always be followed up by a more specific treponemal test. Tests based on monoclonal antibodies and immunofluorescence, including Treponema pallidum hemagglutination assay (TPHA) and Fluorescent Treponemal Antibody Absorption (FTA-ABS) are more specific and more expensive. Unfortunately, false positives can still occur in related treponomal infections such as yaws and pinta. Tests based on enzyme-linked immunoassays are also used to confirm the results of simpler screening tests for syphilis.
Other types of tests are currently being evaluated as possible alternatives to, or as replacements for, the rapid plasma reagin test. One of these alternatives is an immunochromographic strip test. A study published in February 2006 found that this test outperformed the RPR test in values of sensitivity and specificity, and it does not require a laboratory to process the results.
References
- ↑ Pickering LK, ed. (2006), "Syphilis", Red Book, Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics, pp. 631-644
- Kasper DL, Braunwald E, Fauci AS, Hauser SL, Longo DL, Jameson JL, and Isselbacher KJ. Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, 16th ed. 2005.
- Montoya, PJ, Lukehart SA, Brentlinger PE, Blanco AJ, Floriano F, Sairosse J, and Gloyd S. "Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of a rapid immunochromagraphic test and the rapid plasma reagin test for antenatal syphilis screening in Mozambique." Bulletin of the World Health Oranization. 2006 Feb; 84(2):97-104.
- Deeb, Benjamin. "Rapid Plasma Reagin and Syphilis, Effective Rates." "Journal of American Sexual Health." 2007 Jan; 37(1):48-72.
- Sacher RA, McPherson RA, and Campos JM. Wildman's Clinical Interpretation of Laboratory Tests, 2nd ed. 2000.
Acknowledgement and Attribution Regarding Sources of Content
Some of the initial content on this page may be incorporated in part from copyleft sources in the public domain including wikis such as Wikipedia and AskDrWiki. Drug information for patients came from the The National Library of Medicine. Infectious disease information may have come from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Differential Diagnoses are drawn from clinicians as well as an amalgamation of 3 sources: 1.The Disease Database; 2. Kahan, Scott, Smith, Ellen G. In A Page: Signs and Symptoms. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2004:3; 3. Sailer, Christian, Wasner, Susanne. Differential Diagnosis Pocket. Hermosa Beach, CA: Borm Bruckmeir Publishing LLC, 2002:7 .
