I am mapping codes to syphilis test information and the available codes are titled “<span id=”lcn” style=”box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 10px 0px 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; width: 614.797px;” aria-label=”Long Common Name”>Treponema pallidum.” However, treponema pallidum can also cause two, non-venereal, diseases: bejel and yaws. Is there a reason why the subspecies of treponema pallidum aren’t specified in these codes? Treponema pallidum pallidum causes syphilis. T.p. endemicum causes bejel and T.p. pertenue causes yaws. </span>
<span style=”background-color: transparent;”>Or can I assume that a treponema pallidum should be mapped to syphilis tests if bejel and yaws are generally not seen in the United States?</span>
Thank you for the question. The LOINC codes would be for reagent/kit identification of an assay. If a manufacturer hasn’t produced an assay that detects down to the subspecies level, there won’t be a LOINC created.
What are your source documents? ie, your starting point and your use case?
It’s easy to get mired down in the microbiology and disease state knowledge. That doesn’t all have to be applied when mapping to LOINC.
For the diseases bejel and yaws, I’d be curious with what is typical diagnosis evidence? Is it the look of the lesions and the geographic locality of the patient? Or is a swab/aspirate taken to a laboratory for medical evaluation?
If you needed coded for T.p. endemicum or T.p. pertenue as findings, I’d probably go over the SNOMED CT and grab the SCT ID.