A comparison of lyme disease serologic test results from 4 laboratories in patients with persistent symptoms after antibiotic treatment

Clinical Infectious Diseases

Volumn 59, Issue 12, 2014, Pages 1705-1710

  Fallon, Brian A ^a   Pavlicova, Martina ^b   Coffino, Samantha W ^c   Brenner, Carl ^d  

^a NEW YORK STATE PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b Mailman School of Public Health ^*  (United States)

^c Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

^d Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences   (United States)

Author keywords

Borrelia burgdorferi; diagnosis; Lyme; serology

Indexed keywords

ANTIBIOTIC AGENT; IMMUNOGLOBULIN G; IMMUNOGLOBULIN M; ANTIINFECTIVE AGENT; BACTERIUM ANTIBODY;

ADULT; ANTIBIOTIC THERAPY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL LABORATORY; CONTROLLED STUDY; ENZYME LINKED IMMUNOSORBENT ASSAY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMMUNOGLOBULIN G WESTERN BLOT; IMMUNOGLOBULIN M WESTERN BLOT; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LYME DISEASE; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SEROLOGY; WESTERN BLOTTING; WHOLE CELL SONICATE ENZYME LINKED IMMUNOSORBENT ASSAY; BLOOD; BORRELIA BURGDORFERI; IMMUNOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOGENICITY;

ADULT; ANTI-BACTERIAL AGENTS; ANTIBODIES, BACTERIAL; BORRELIA BURGDORFERI; ENZYME-LINKED IMMUNOSORBENT ASSAY; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMMUNOGLOBULIN G; IMMUNOGLOBULIN M; LYME DISEASE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED;

EID: 84919900030     PISSN: 10584838     EISSN: 15376591     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciu703     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Stanek G, Reiter M. The expanding Lyme Borrelia complex-clinical significance of genomic species? Clin Microbiol Infect 2011; 17:487-93.
2. Clark KL, Leydet BF, Threlkeld C. Geographical and genospecies distribution of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato DNA detected in humans in the USA. J Med Microbiol 2014; 63:674-84.
3. Wormser GP, Dattwyler RJ, Shapiro ED, et al. The clinical assessment, treatment, and prevention of Lyme disease, human granulocytic anaplasmosis, and babesiosis: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 43:1089-134.
4. Recommendations for test performance and interpretation from the Second National Conference on Serologic Diagnosis of Lyme Disease. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1995; 44:590-1.
5. Bakken LL, Case KL, Callister SM, Bourdeau NJ, Schell RF. Performance of 45 laboratories participating in a proficiency testing program for Lyme disease serology. JAMA 1992; 268:891-5.
6. Bakken LL, Callister SM, Wand PJ, Schell RF. Interlaboratory comparison of test results for detection of Lyme disease by 516 participants in the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene/College of American Pathologists proficiency testing program. J Clin Microbiol 1997; 35:537-43.
7. Ang CW, Notermans DW, Hommes M, Simoons-Smit AM, Herremans T. Large differences between test strategies for the detection of anti-Borrelia antibodies are revealed by comparing eight ELISAs and five immunoblots. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2011; 30:1027-32.
8. Binnicker MJ, Jespersen DJ, Harring JA, Rollins LO, Bryant SC, Beito EM. Evaluation of two commercial systems for automated processing, reading, and interpretation of Lyme borreliosis Western blots. J Clin Microbiol 2008; 46:2216-21.
9. Lawrenz MB, Hardham JM, Owens RT, et al. Human antibody responses to VlsE antigenic variation protein of Borrelia burgdorferi. J Clin Microbiol 1999; 37:3997-4004.
10. Liang FT, Steere AC, Marques AR, Johnson BJ, Miller JN, Philipp MT. Sensitive and specific serodiagnosis of Lyme disease by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay with a peptide based on an immunodominant conserved region of Borrelia burgdorferi VlsE. J Clin Microbiol 1999; 37:3990-6.
11. Bacon RM, Biggerstaff BJ, Schriefer ME, et al. Serodiagnosis of Lyme disease by kinetic enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay using recombinant VlsE1 or peptide antigens of Borrelia burgdorferi compared with 2-tiered testing using whole-cell lysates. J Infect Dis 2003; 187:1187-99.
12. Fallon BA, Keilp JG, Corbera KM, et al. A randomized, placebocontrolled trial of repeated IV antibiotic therapy for Lyme encephalopathy. Neurology 2008; 70:992-1003.
13. Branda JA, Strle F, Strle K, Sikand N, Ferraro MJ, Steere AC. Performance of United States serologic assays in the diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis acquired in Europe. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 57:333-40.
14. Schoen RT. Better laboratory testing for Lyme disease: no moreWestern blot. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 57:341-3.
15. Aguero-Rosenfeld ME,Wang G, Schwartz I,Wormser GP. Diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis. Clin Microbiol Rev 2005; 18:484-509.
16. Porwancher RB, Hagerty CG, Fan J, et al. Multiplex immunoassay for Lyme disease using VlsE1-IgG and pepC10-IgM antibodies: improving test performance through bioinformatics. Clin Vaccine Immunol 2011; 18:851-9.
17. Aguero-Rosenfeld ME, Nowakowski J, Bittker S, Cooper D, Nadelman RB, Wormser GP. Evolution of the serologic response to Borrelia burgdorferi in treated patients with culture-confirmed erythema migrans. J Clin Microbiol 1996; 34:1-9.
18. Weinstein A. Laboratory testing for Lyme disease: time for a change? Clin Infect Dis 2008; 15:196-7.
19. Wormser GP, Horowitz HW, Dumler JS, Schwartz I, Aguero-Rosenfeld ME. False-positive Lyme disease serology in human granulocytic ehrlichiosis. Lancet 1996; 347:981-2.
20. Sivak SL, Aguero-Rosenfeld ME, Nowakowski J, Nadelman RB, Wormser GP. Accuracy of IgM immunoblotting to confirm the clinical diagnosis of early Lyme disease. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156:2105-9.
21. Magnarelli LA. Current status of laboratory diagnosis for Lyme disease. Am J Med 1995; 98(suppl 4A):10-4.
22. Lakos A, Reiczigel J, Solymosi N. The positive predictive value of Borrelia burgdorferi serology in the light of symptoms of patients sent to an outpatient service for tick-borne disease. Inflamm Res 2010; 59:959-64.
23. Wormser GP, Carbonaro C, Miller S, et al. A limitation of 2-stage serological testing for Lyme disease: enzyme immunoassay and immunoblot assay are not independent tests. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 30:545-8.