4.3 Article

Single-tier testing with the C6 peptide ELISA kit compared with two-tier testing for Lyme disease

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2012.09.003

关键词

Lyme disease; Borrelia burgdorferi; Serology; C6 ELISA

资金

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) [R43 AI051926]
  2. Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Health (NIH)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For the diagnosis of Lyme disease, the 2-tier serologic testing protocol for Lyme disease has a number of shortcomings including low sensitivity in early disease; increased cost, time, and labor; and subjectivity in the interpretation of immunoblots. In this study, the diagnostic accuracy of a single-tier commercial C6 ELISA kit was compared with 2-tier testing. The results showed that the C6 ELISA was significantly more sensitive than 2-tier testing with sensitivities of 66.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 61.7-71.1) and 35.2% (95% CI 30.6-40.1), respectively (P < 0.001) in 403 sera from patients with erythema migrans. The C6 ELISA had sensitivity statistically comparable to 2-tier testing in sera from Lyme disease patients with early neurologic manifestations (88.6% versus 77.3%, P = 0.13) or arthritis (98.3% versus 95.6%, P = 0.38). The specificities of C6 ELISA and 2-tier testing in over 2200 blood donors, patients with other conditions, and Lyme disease vaccine recipients were found to be 98.9% and 99.5%, respectively (P < 0.05, 95% CI surrounding the 0.6 percentage point difference of 0.04 to 1.15). In conclusion, using a reference standard of 2-tier testing, the C6 ELISA as a single-step serodiagnostic test provided increased sensitivity in early Lyme disease with comparable sensitivity in later manifestations of Lyme disease. The C6 ELISA had slightly decreased specificity. Future studies should evaluate the performance of the C6 ELISA compared with 2-tier testing in routine clinical practice. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据