A Comparison of Lyme Serological Testing Platforms with a Panel of Clinically Characterized Samples from Various Stages of Lyme Disease

1Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: In 2019, the CDC updated serology testing guidelines for Lyme disease diagnosis to include alternative modified two-tiered testing that replaces the western blots of standard testing with an additional ELISA. Antibody-capture serological assays have also been used as an aid for Lyme diagnosis. A panel of clinically characterized samples from the CDC was tested to compare modified two-tiered testing to the standard two-tiered algorithm and an antibody capture immunoassay. Methods: A CDC panel of 92 samples comprised a range of samples including early Lyme, Lyme neuroborreliosis, Lyme arthritis, infections by other pathogens, and healthy controls. The panel was tested on a standard two-tiered platform by the CDC, the ZEUS Borrelia Test System for modified two-tiered testing, and a lab-developed antibody-capture serological assay. Sensitivity and specificity results from each assay were compared to determine significance. Results: The antibody-capture assay demonstrated increased sensitivity but decreased specificity compared to the modified and standard two-tiered platforms. There was no statistical difference found between the modified and standard two-tiered platforms. Conclusions: Improved sensitivity of antibody-capture when testing early Lyme disease samples is offset by decreased specificity, especially with syphilis-positive samples. Modified two-tiered testing is similar to standard two-tiered methods while also being more scalable and simpler to interpret.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Pratt, G. W., Platt, M., Velez, A., & Rao, L. V. (2022). A Comparison of Lyme Serological Testing Platforms with a Panel of Clinically Characterized Samples from Various Stages of Lyme Disease. Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine, 7(6), 1445–1449. https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfac047

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free