Skip to main content
Download PDF

Diagnostic tools for neurosyphilis: a systematic review

BMC Infectious Diseases volume 21, Article number: 568 (2021) Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

Increasing incidences of syphilis highlight the preoccupation with the occurrence of neurosyphilis. This study aimed to understand the current diagnostic tools and their performance to detect neurosyphilis, including new technologies and the variety of existing methods.

Methods

We searched databases to select articles that reported neurosyphilis diagnostic methods and assessed their accuracy, presenting sensitivity and specificity values. Information was synthesized in tables. The risk of bias was examined using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy recommendations.

Results

Fourteen studies were included. The main finding was a remarkable diversity of tests, which had varied purposes, techniques, and evaluation methodologies. There was no uniform criterion or gold standard to define neurosyphilis. The current basis for its diagnosis is clinical suspicion and cerebrospinal fluid analysis. There are new promising tests such as PCR tests and chemokine measurement assays.

Conclusions

The diagnosis of neurosyphilis is still a challenge, despite the variety of existing and developing tests. We believe that the multiplicity of reference standards adopted as criteria for diagnosis reveals the imprecision of the current definitions of neurosyphilis. An important next step for the scientific community is to create a universally accepted diagnostic definition for this disease.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Neurosyphilis is a condition that has challenged physicians for centuries. The invasion of the Central Nervous System by Treponema pallidum subspecies pallidum can result in protean symptoms ranging from vasculitis, stroke, dementia, and meningitis to completely asymptomatic presentations [1]. Diagnostic tools have a far from ideal performance and thus a high degree of suspicion of the diagnosis is needed to properly identify the condition [2, 3]. None of the existing tests can be considered a good and applicable gold standard, and until now there is no consensus regarding diagnostic criteria for this disease [4].

The incidence of acquired syphilis has been rising in several countries [5,6,7,8]. Thus, knowledge of the performance capabilities and limitations of diagnostic tests is crucial for clinicians to properly diagnose and treat those afflicted by this morbid complication of untreated syphilis. In this respect, there are diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews that assessed certain tools. A review evaluated polymerase chain reaction (PCR) techniques and found out that their sensitivity is low compared to cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) serological assays, despite the limitation of not having a good gold standard [9]. Another study showed that CSF treponemal-specific antibody tests have a variable performance and a dependent relation to the prevalence (pre-test probability) of neurosyphilis [10]. Here we conducted a systematic review aiming to investigate the performance and limitations of all the current diagnostic tests assessed in the most recent literature.

Materials and methods

This systematic review was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA statement [11]. It was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php? ID=CRD42020181755) [12].

Search strategy

Systematic literature review based on online search in PubMed from National Center for Biotechnology (NCBI), Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) and Embase databases was done on 18th April 2020. The following terms were used in the search engine for any match in articles: ((Syphilis) OR (Treponema pallidum)) AND ((Neurosyphilis) OR (Tabes Dorsalis) OR (Central Nervous System)) AND (Diagnosis). We limited the search to studies published from 2015 to 2020. Duplicates were deleted, using the Endnote (Clarivate Analytics) reference engine.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

We selected papers that reported neurosyphilis diagnostic methods and strategies for patients with Treponema pallidum infection, regardless of the clinical presentation, that assessed their performance in comparison with a gold standard. We included only observational and diagnostic test studies. Clinical trials, reviews, case reports, research protocols, and presentations at conferences were not considered.

We excluded papers that were unpublished, inaccessible, or incomplete. If the article did not present a diagnostic method and its performance, it was also excluded from this review.

Assessment of risk of Bias

The analysis of the methodological quality of the studies was made using the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy [13], which is based on the QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) instrument [14]. This methodological quality assessment was presented as a summary figure and a graph figure. The instrument can be found in the web-only supplementary figure (Online Resource 1).

Study selection

After the deletion of duplicates, we screened the papers by title. Next, each abstract was assessed by two independent authors. The full text was evaluated for any potentially relevant study and reviewed by two authors to determine if they met the eligibility criteria. A third author was asked to analyze in case of discordance.

Data extraction

From the included articles, we used the Google Sheets application (Google INC.) to organize extracted data regarding the study design and limitations (diagnostic test study, case-control, cross-sectional, cohort); the sample characteristics (age distribution, sex, HIV-positivity), the diagnostic method used, the gold standard used, and the evaluation of performance (sensitivity and specificity values) of the test. Categorical information also was collected by two separated authors. The data organized in Google Sheets was subsequently summarized in tables.

Results

Records

Fourteen studies were included from the 1226 papers found in our initial search. The steps of our selection process are presented in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow chart, representing the selection of studies

Full size image

Regarding the study design, ten were studies of diagnostic tests, three were cross-sectional studies, and one was case-control. Information about the articles and their sample characteristics can be seen in the web-only supplementary table (Online Resource 2).

Bias assessment

The results of the methodological assessment are described in Fig. 2, which shows the overall quality of the 14 studies included. The individual analysis for each study can be seen in Fig. 3.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Methodological quality graph: proportions of low, unclear, and high risk of bias of the studies included in this review, according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy recommendations [13]

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Methodological quality summary for risk of bias for all studies. Based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy recommendations [13]

Full size image

Diagnostic tests and their performance

The main findings of our review with 14 studies are presented in Table 1. Gold standards used to evaluate the diagnostic methods studied varied widely. Some papers used more than one definition of neurosyphilis.

Table 1 Main Results. Diagnostic methods for neurosyphilis and their performance
Full size table

The tests assessed in the included studies were methodologically very different. We grouped them in clinical (if they contained neurological symptoms or signs), laboratory (CSF or blood), molecular (PCR techniques), and immunological (chemokines levels).

The sample characteristics were not homogeneous. Some studies included only negative or HIV-positive patients or both; only symptomatic or asymptomatic or both. Most samples were predominantly composed of men, and the median/mean age varied from 33 to 53 years. Information regarding characteristics of each specific study (design, year, and country of publication) and sample (sex and age distribution) is summarised in the web-only supplementary table (Online Resource 2).

Discussion

Considering the variety of tests and the incorporation of new technologies in clinical practice, we conducted this literature review aiming to understand what are the current and potential diagnostic methods for neurosyphilis and how they perform. The primary finding of our study was a remarkable diversity of tests, which had different purposes (diagnostic confirmation, screening), varied techniques (clinical signs/symptoms, serological analysis, CSF assessment), and a heterogeneous evaluation methodology (including or not HIV-positive individuals, including or not asymptomatic patients, comparing or not with controls, etc.). Most of the articles studied CSF alterations, measuring cells, proteins, treponemal and nontreponemal antibodies [16,17,18,19,20], or applied new immunological/biomolecular techniques [21,22,23,24,25]. Three papers assessed the significance of blood parameters to distinguish between NS+ and NS- [26,27,28], and only one considered clinical signs or symptoms in the investigation [29].

Among all the diagnostic tests for neurosyphilis, CSF-VDRL and CSF-RPR stand out. Both exams were considered as gold standards to confirm the diagnosis in most studies. However, there are important limitations to this choice: they are operator-dependent and have low sensitivity. Particularly, there are reports of groups of patients that have compatible clinical symptoms, positive treponemal test in blood and CSF, respond to penicillin treatment but still show negative CSF-VDRL/CSF-RPR [30]. This contributes to the great heterogeneity of classifications and patient selection for the studies, making it difficult to determine their biological and clinical implications.

The laboratory diagnosis is of utmost importance for NS. Currently, clinical suspicion of NS should prompt serum VDRL and FTA-ABS examination. Lumbar puncture is recommended for patients with neurological, otologic, or ocular symptoms, regardless of syphilis stage, including cases of treatment failure (patients with previous syphilis diagnosis and persistent high titer of serum VDRL despite adequate treatment) [31]. The current laboratory recommendation for NS diagnosis includes CSF analysis with non-treponemal tests such as VDRL or RPR (in the absence of CSF-VDRL), and with treponemal tests such as FTA-ABS, alongside CSF cellularity and protein levels. However, there are important limitations, as CSF non-treponemal tests are not sensitive enough and do not eliminate the possibility of NS in case of negative results [32]. On the other hand, CSF treponemal tests are more specific but less sensitive, so they do not confirm the diagnosis but can exclude it. Finally, the hypercellularity and elevated protein levels can support the diagnosis in the presence of a negative non-treponemal CSF test and warrant empiric treatment. That being said, the low sensitivity of CSF-VDRL is the most significant limitation, presenting a low negative predictive value.

Another challenge is regarding diagnosis in asymptomatic patients, investigated with usual tests for the hypothesis and diagnosis of neurosyphilis: FTA-ABS and RPR. Laboratory parameters (such as increased protein and leukocyte levels or even positive RPR) do not offer a significant statistical gain to confirm the disease, but, if not altered, they moderately reduce the individual’s chance of having neurosyphilis.

In addition to this classic analysis of the CSF, new technologies have emerged: biomolecular tests and chemokine measurement. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is relevant given its increased specificity - with the lowest value of 86.8% - associated with a sensitivity of intermediate values compared to the other tests - between 42 and 75.8%. When applied to a clinical setting these tests show a moderate likelihood ratio increase both in positive and negative diagnosis. Diagnostic evaluation with the use of genetic material from infectious agents is a common practice in the microbiological clinic [33,34,35]. However, given the heterogeneity of studies, the population involved, and diagnostic criteria, the routine use of the PCR technique for diagnosing neurosyphilis is not yet fully implemented. Additionally, there are other limitations such as availability and cost that may hinder its use.

The measurement of chemokines shows higher sensitivity values - ranging from 50 to 88% - but also maintains high specificity values - which ranged between 69 and 99%. The relevance of this technique consists in the possibility of identifying specific changes in the CNS, distinguishing infectious and non-infectious stress patterns. Additionally, considering more precise immune responses depending on the agent, the immune profile present in the CSF may allow, in the future, a diagnosis based on the chemokine profile and not agent identification or specific antibodies for it. However, being a recent and not fully explored technique, it has challenges, such as its accessibility, demanding specific ELISA kits, and, still, the need for having a well-described chemokine and cytokine CSF profile in health and different diseases.

Because current tests lack sensitivity, new research has been exploring novel CSF biomarkers and their potential to aid in the diagnosis or exclusion of NS. For instance, myeloid and microglial activation markers such as MIF (Macrophage migration inhibitory factor) and sTREM2 (soluble Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2) have been reported to be differentially expressed in the CSF of patients with NS and have emerged as promising tools for establishing a diagnosis, particularly in the setting where non-treponemal tests are negative but there is high clinical suspicion [36, 37]. Furthermore, Zhang et al. reported that several CSF proteins such as neurogranin, BACE1, and Tau are increased in patients with Alzheimer’s Disease in comparison to those with NS, which may be useful in the setting of patients with cognitive decline and a past history of syphilis [38]. IL-10 has also been reported to be useful in increasing the likelihood of NS [39]. These findings are exciting and may provide clinicians with new biomarkers to assist in the confirmation or exclusion of NS in the future, however, more studies in larger populations should be conducted.

Figure 4 shows a chart that summarizes the main clinical roles of different diagnostic tests for neurosyphilis.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Summary of the main clinical uses of diagnostic methods for neurosyphilis. CSF (cerebrospinal fluid); NS (neurosyphilis); VDRL (venereal disease research laboratory); RPR (rapid plasma reagin); FTA-ABS (fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption); CXCL (chemokine CXC ligand); MIF (macrophage migration inhibitory factor); sTREM2 (soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2); BACE1 (beta-site app-cleaving enzyme 1); IL-10 (interleukin 10)

Full size image

We believe that the main finding of this review was the great diversity of diagnostic criteria to define neurosyphilis. Seven of the 14 articles admitted explicitly the non-existence of a good gold standard. It affected the secondary objective of our study, which was the accuracy assessment. With different gold standards, the sensibility and specificity values vary in such a way that comparisons between tests in different studies are impaired.

Part of this issue stems from a lack of a precise understanding of the pathogenesis of neurosyphilis. Because the maintenance of long-term cultures of Treponema pallidum is a difficult technique, very few studies have investigated its interactions with CNS resident cells. There is limited knowledge about how the presence of the bacteria in the CNS is associated with a higher risk of developing active illness - as a transient invasion of the CNS has been reported in asymptomatic patients with positive nontreponemal tests in CSF [30]. Moreover, Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms in genes that transcribe proteins associated with the innate immune response, namely Toll-Like Receptors, are associated with a higher risk of developing neurosyphilis after acquiring syphilis [40]. It demonstrates that the development of NS consists of a complex interaction between the bacterial capacity of invasion of the CNS, evasion of the immune response, and host ability to clear the pathogen effectively.

Our review has limitations that should not be ignored. The most important are the restricted period of search (5 years), the lack of some sample information in the included papers (e. g. HIV status, age, and sex data), and the impossibility of performing statistical analysis or even simple comparisons with the sensibility and specificity values (due to the heterogeneity and discrepancies of the gold standards). Furthermore, it should be considered that methodological failures in the included articles rebound indirectly in our study. There were papers in which the diagnostic test being evaluated was included in the gold standard for NS diagnosis, increasing accuracy. Some studies utilized limited or clinically unapplicable gold standards. Thus, our results of sensibility and specificity exposed in Table 1 should be carefully interpreted, considering the gold standard used and the methodology of the original articles.

Conclusion

The diagnosis of neurosyphilis is still a challenge for physicians, and, despite the variety of the existing and developing techniques, clinical suspicion plays the main role. The multiplicity of gold standards adopted in the studies reveals the imprecision and the heterogeneity of the current definitions of neurosyphilis and shows that an important next step for the scientific community is to create a universal diagnostic definition for this disease. This would be a first step to be used by clinicians for a better-standardized diagnosis, and by researchers for future assessment of new diagnostic tools.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

CNS:

Central nervous system

NS:

Neurosyphilis

ANS:

Asymptomatic neurosyphilis

NS (+):

Positive neurosyphilis diagnosis

NS (−):

Negative neurosyphilis diagnosis

HIV:

Human immunodeficiency virus

CSF:

Cerebrospinal fluid

WBC:

White blood cells

VDRL:

Venereal disease research laboratory

RPR:

Rapid plasma reagin

USR:

Unheated serum reagin

TPPA:

T. pallidum particle agglutination

TPHA:

T. pallidum hemagglutination

FTA-ABS:

Fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption

PCR:

Polymerase chain reaction

RT-PCR:

Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction

CMV:

Cytomegalovirus

CXCL:

Chemokine CXC ligand

MIF:

Macrophage migration inhibitory factor

sTREM2:

Soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2

BACE1:

Beta-site app-cleaving enzyme 1

IL10:

Interleukin 10

References

  1. Marra CM. Neurosyphilis. Continuum (Minneap Minn). 2015;21(6 Neuroinfectious Disease):1714–28.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Davis AP, Stern J, Tantalo L, Sahi S, Holte S, Dunaway S, et al. How well do neurologic symptoms identify individuals with neurosyphilis. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66(3):363–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ghanem KG, Ram S, Rice PA. The modern epidemic of syphilis. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(9):845–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Berger JR. Neurosyphilis. In: Aminoff MJ, Daroff RB, editors. Encyclopedia of the neurological sciences. San Diego: Elsevier; 2003. p. 592–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-226870-9/00404-4.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance 2018. Atlanta: Department of Health and Human Services; 2019. https://doi.org/10.15620/cdc.79370.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Spiteri G, Unemo M, Mårdh O, Amato-Gauci AJ. The resurgence of syphilis in high-income countries in the 2000s: a focus on Europe. Epidemiol Infect. 2019;147:e143.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Marques Dos Santos M, AKB L, Roncalli AG, Lima KC. Trends of syphilis in Brazil: a growth portrait of the treponemic epidemic. PLoS One. 2020;15(4):e0231029.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Tao Y, Chen MY, Tucker JD, Ong JJ, Tang W, Wong NS, et al. A nationwide spatiotemporal analysis of syphilis over 21 years and implications for prevention and control in China. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;70(1):136–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Marks M, Lawrence D, Kositz C, Mabey D. Diagnostic performance of PCR assays for the diagnosis of neurosyphilis: a systematic review. Sex Transm Infect. 2018;94(8):585–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2018-053666.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Harding AS, Ghanem KG. The performance of cerebrospinal fluid treponemal-specific antibody tests in neurosyphilis: a systematic review: a systematic review. Sex Transm Dis. 2012;39(4):291–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31824c0e62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, McGrath TA, Bossuyt PM, Clifford T, et al. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement. JAMA. 2018;319(4):388–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. PROSPERO. International prospective register of systematic reviews [Internet]. York, UK: University of York. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/

  13. Reitsma JB, Rutjes AWS, Whiting P, Vlassov VV, Leeflang MMG, Deeks JJ. Chapter 9: Assessing methodological quality. In: Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 1.0.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2009. Available from: http://srdta.cochrane.org/.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003 Nov 10;3(1):25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-3-25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Tong ML, Liu LL, Zeng YL, Zhang HL, Liu GL, Zheng WH, et al. Laboratory findings in neurosyphilis patients with epileptic seizures alone as the initial presenting symptom. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2013;75(4):377–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2013.01.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Marra CM, Maxwell CL, Dunaway SB, Sahi SK, Tantalo LC. Cerebrospinal fluid Treponema pallidum particle agglutination assay for neurosyphilis diagnosis. J Clin Microbiol. 2017;55(6):1865–70. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00310-17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Merins V, Hahn K. Syphilis and neurosyphilis: HIV-coinfection and value of diagnostic parameters in cerebrospinal fluid. Eur J Med Res. 2015;20(1):81. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-015-0175-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Versiani I, Cabral-Castro MJ, Puccioni-Sohler M. A comparison of nontreponemal tests in cerebrospinal fluid for neurosyphilis diagnosis: equivalent detection of specific antibodies. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2019;77(2):91–5. https://doi.org/10.1590/0004-282x20180155.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ho EL, Tantalo LC, Jones T, Sahi SK, Marra CM. Point-of-care treponemal tests for neurosyphilis diagnosis. Sex Transm Dis. 2015;42(1):48–52. https://doi.org/10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000222.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Guarner J, Jost H, Pillay A, Sun Y, Cox D, Notenboom R, et al. Evaluation of Treponemal serum tests performed on cerebrospinal fluid for diagnosis of Neurosyphilis. Am J Clin Pathol. 2015;143(4):479–84. https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCPWSL3G8RXMCQR.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Castro R, Águas MJ, Batista T, Araújo C, Mansinho K. Pereira FdLM. Detection ofTreponema pallidumSp.PallidumDNA in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) by two PCR techniques. J Clin Lab Anal. 2016;30(5):628–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcla.21913.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Vanhaecke C, Grange P, Benhaddou N, Blanche P, Salmon D, Parize P, et al. Clinical and Biological Characteristics of 40 Patients With Neurosyphilis and Evaluation of Treponema pallidum Nested Polymerase Chain Reaction in Cerebrospinal Fluid Samples. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63(9):1180–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wang C, Wu K, Yu Q, Zhang S, Gao Z, Liu Y, et al. CXCL13, CXCL10 and CXCL8 as Potential Biomarkers for the Diagnosis of Neurosyphilis Patients. Sci Rep. 2016;6:33569.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Mothapo KM, Verbeek MM, van der Velden LB, Ang CW, Koopmans PP, van der Ven A, et al. Has CXCL13 an added value in diagnosis of Neurosyphilis? J Clin Microbiol. 2015 May;53(5):1693–6. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.02917-14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Zeng YL, Lin YQ, Zhang NN, Zou CN, Zhang HL, Peng F, et al. CXCL13 chemokine as a promising biomarker to diagnose neurosyphilis in HIV-negative patients. Springerplus. 2016;5(1):743. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2462-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Xiao Y, Tong ML, Liu LL, Lin LR, Chen MJ, Zhang HL, et al. Novel predictors of neurosyphilis among HIV-negative syphilis patients with neurological symptoms: an observational study. BMC Infect Dis. 2017;17(1):310.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Cai SN, Long J, Chen C, Wan G, Lun WH. Incidence of asymptomatic neurosyphilis in serofast Chinese syphilis patients. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):15456. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15641-w.

  28. Ceccarelli G, Borrazzo C, Lazzaro A, Innocenti GP, Celani L, Cavallari EN, et al. Diagnostic issues of asymptomatic Neurosyphilis in HIV-positive patients: a retrospective study. Brain Sciences. 2019;9(10):278. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci9100278.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Lu Y, Ke W, Yang L, Wang Z, Lv P, Gu J, et al. Clinical prediction and diagnosis of neurosyphilis in HIV-negative patients: a case-control study. BMC Infect Dis. 2019;19(1):1017. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-019-4582-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Lee JW, Wilck M, Venna N. Dementia due to neurosyphilis with persistently negative CSF VDRL. Neurology. 2005;65(11):1838. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000187082.92497.95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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 Erratum in: MMWR Recomm Rep. 2015 Aug 28;64(33):924. PMID: 26042815; PMCID: PMC5885289.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Larsen SA, Hambie EA, Wobig GH, Kennedy EJ. Cerebrospinal fluid serologic test for syphilis: treponemal and nontreponemal tests. In: Morisset R, Kurstak E, editors. Advances in sexually transmitted diseases. Utrecht: VNU Science Press; 1986. p. 157–62.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Menon PK, Kapila K, Ohri VC. Polymerase chain reaction and advances in infectious disease diagnosis. Med J Armed Forces India. 1999;55(3):229–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-1237(17)30450-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Yang S, Rothman RE. PCR-based diagnostics for infectious diseases: uses, limitations, and future applications in acute-care settings. Lancet Infect Dis. 2004;4(6):337–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(04)01044-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. DeBiasi RL, Tyler KL. Polymerase chain reaction in the diagnosis and management of central nervous system infections. Arch Neurol. 1999;56(10):1215–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.56.10.1215.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lin L-R, Lin D-H, Tong M-L, Liu L-L, Fan J-Y, Zhu X-Z, et al. Macrophage migration inhibitory factor as a novel cerebrospinal fluid marker for neurosyphilis among HIV-negative patients. Clin Chim Acta. 2016;463:103–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2016.10.018.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Li W, Chang H, Wu W, Xu D, Jiang M, Gao J, et al. Increased CSF soluble TREM2 concentration in patients with neurosyphilis. Front Neurol. 2020;11:62. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2020.00062.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Zhang M, Zhong X, Shi H, Vanmechelen E, De Vos A, Liu S, et al. BACE1 and other Alzheimer’s-related biomarkers in cerebrospinal fluid and plasma distinguish Alzheimer’s disease patients from cognitively-impaired neurosyphilis patients. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020;77(1):313–22. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-200362.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Li W, Wu W, Chang H, Jiang M, Gao J, Xu Y, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid cytokines in patients with neurosyphilis: the significance of interleukin-10 for the disease. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020:3812671.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Marra CM, Sahi SK, Tantalo LC, Ho EL, Dunaway SB, Jones T, et al. Toll-like receptor polymorphisms are associated with increased neurosyphilis risk. Sex Transm Dis. 2014;41(7):440–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000149.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) for the student grant for GHPB (n° 2019/18441-0).

Funding

This work was funded by a student grant from São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP, São Paulo, Brazil), grant n° 2019/18441–0. The funding source had no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil

    Gustavo Henrique Pereira Boog, João Vitor Ziroldo Lopes, João Vitor Mahler, Marina Solti, Lucas Tokio Kawahara, Andre Kakinoki Teng & João Victor Taba Munhoz

  2. Infection Control Department, Hospital das Clinicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil

    Anna S. Levin

Authors
  1. Gustavo Henrique Pereira Boog
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. João Vitor Ziroldo Lopes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. João Vitor Mahler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marina Solti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lucas Tokio Kawahara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Andre Kakinoki Teng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. João Victor Taba Munhoz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Anna S. Levin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ASL contributed to the conceptualization and supervision of the study, advising all other authors. GHPB was responsible for the administration, and execution of this research project. The literature search was performed by GHPB and JVTM. All authors contributed to the article selection. GHPB, JVM, JVZL, MS, LTK, and AKT collected and organized the study’s data. JVTM, JVM, JVZL, MS, LTK, and AKT performed the bias risk assessment. GHPB, JVM, JVZL, and MS wrote the original draft. ASL and GHPB reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gustavo Henrique Pereira Boog.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

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

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boog, G.H.P., Lopes, J.V.Z., Mahler, J.V. et al. Diagnostic tools for neurosyphilis: a systematic review. BMC Infect Dis 21, 568 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-06264-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-06264-8

Keywords

BMC Infectious Diseases

ISSN: 1471-2334

Contact us