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

Abstract 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 o...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease 2013-01, Vol.75 (1), p.9-15
Hauptverfasser: Wormser, Gary P, Schriefer, Martin, Aguero-Rosenfeld, Maria E, Levin, Andrew, Steere, Allen C, Nadelman, Robert B, Nowakowski, John, Marques, Adriana, Johnson, Barbara J.B, Dumler, J. Stephen
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 15
container_issue 1
container_start_page 9
container_title Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease
container_volume 75
creator Wormser, Gary P
Schriefer, Martin
Aguero-Rosenfeld, Maria E
Levin, Andrew
Steere, Allen C
Nadelman, Robert B
Nowakowski, John
Marques, Adriana
Johnson, Barbara J.B
Dumler, J. Stephen
description Abstract 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2012.09.003
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4052829</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0732889312003604</els_id><sourcerecordid>1237502401</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c542t-ecbae6adb692a557addcf1a034cdc6efb900cd89f61864d2ace0b45d94e411763</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkkFv1DAQhSMEokvhL6CIE5eEseM4MYdK1VKg0kocFs6WY092vU3iYHtb7b_Hq12qlhMny_J7b8bzTZZ9IFASIPzTrjRWbUarveusKykQWoIoAaoX2YK0jSgAGniZLaCpaNG2orrI3oSwgyQUDF5nF7QCThlvFpla22kzYBEt-jxiiOmaP9i4zeMW8yXPZ5yjNZjfrG7X1_mdjbl246w8mrPswT03987nq8OIubEBVcC32ateDQHfnc_L7NfXm5_L78Xqx7fb5fWq0DWjsUDdKeTKdFxQVdeNMkb3REHFtNEc-04AaNOKnpOWM0OVRuhYbQRDRkjDq8vs6pQ777sRjcYpejXI2dtR-YN0ysrnL5Pdyo27lwxq2lKRAj6eA7z7vU-_kaMNGodBTej2QRJaNTVQBiRJP5-kCUEIHvvHMgTkkZHcyaeM5JGRBCETo2R-_7TRR-tfKEnw5STANK77NFsZtMVJo7EedZTG2f-rc_VPjB7sZLUa7vCAYef2fkpAJJEheeT6uC3HZSE0uTmw6g-IdsDT</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1237502401</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Single-tier testing with the C6 peptide ELISA kit compared with two-tier testing for Lyme disease</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Wormser, Gary P ; Schriefer, Martin ; Aguero-Rosenfeld, Maria E ; Levin, Andrew ; Steere, Allen C ; Nadelman, Robert B ; Nowakowski, John ; Marques, Adriana ; Johnson, Barbara J.B ; Dumler, J. Stephen</creator><creatorcontrib>Wormser, Gary P ; Schriefer, Martin ; Aguero-Rosenfeld, Maria E ; Levin, Andrew ; Steere, Allen C ; Nadelman, Robert B ; Nowakowski, John ; Marques, Adriana ; Johnson, Barbara J.B ; Dumler, J. Stephen</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract 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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0732-8893</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-0070</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2012.09.003</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23062467</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Borrelia burgdorferi ; C6 ELISA ; Clinical Laboratory Techniques - methods ; Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay - methods ; Humans ; Infectious Disease ; Internal Medicine ; Lyme disease ; Lyme Disease - diagnosis ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Serology</subject><ispartof>Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2013-01, Vol.75 (1), p.9-15</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2013 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c542t-ecbae6adb692a557addcf1a034cdc6efb900cd89f61864d2ace0b45d94e411763</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c542t-ecbae6adb692a557addcf1a034cdc6efb900cd89f61864d2ace0b45d94e411763</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2012.09.003$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,777,781,882,3537,27905,27906,45976</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23062467$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wormser, Gary P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schriefer, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aguero-Rosenfeld, Maria E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Levin, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steere, Allen C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nadelman, Robert B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nowakowski, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marques, Adriana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Barbara J.B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dumler, J. Stephen</creatorcontrib><title>Single-tier testing with the C6 peptide ELISA kit compared with two-tier testing for Lyme disease</title><title>Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease</title><addtitle>Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis</addtitle><description>Abstract 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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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.</description><subject>Borrelia burgdorferi</subject><subject>C6 ELISA</subject><subject>Clinical Laboratory Techniques - methods</subject><subject>Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infectious Disease</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Lyme disease</subject><subject>Lyme Disease - diagnosis</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Serology</subject><issn>0732-8893</issn><issn>1879-0070</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkkFv1DAQhSMEokvhL6CIE5eEseM4MYdK1VKg0kocFs6WY092vU3iYHtb7b_Hq12qlhMny_J7b8bzTZZ9IFASIPzTrjRWbUarveusKykQWoIoAaoX2YK0jSgAGniZLaCpaNG2orrI3oSwgyQUDF5nF7QCThlvFpla22kzYBEt-jxiiOmaP9i4zeMW8yXPZ5yjNZjfrG7X1_mdjbl246w8mrPswT03987nq8OIubEBVcC32ateDQHfnc_L7NfXm5_L78Xqx7fb5fWq0DWjsUDdKeTKdFxQVdeNMkb3REHFtNEc-04AaNOKnpOWM0OVRuhYbQRDRkjDq8vs6pQ777sRjcYpejXI2dtR-YN0ysrnL5Pdyo27lwxq2lKRAj6eA7z7vU-_kaMNGodBTej2QRJaNTVQBiRJP5-kCUEIHvvHMgTkkZHcyaeM5JGRBCETo2R-_7TRR-tfKEnw5STANK77NFsZtMVJo7EedZTG2f-rc_VPjB7sZLUa7vCAYef2fkpAJJEheeT6uC3HZSE0uTmw6g-IdsDT</recordid><startdate>20130101</startdate><enddate>20130101</enddate><creator>Wormser, Gary P</creator><creator>Schriefer, Martin</creator><creator>Aguero-Rosenfeld, Maria E</creator><creator>Levin, Andrew</creator><creator>Steere, Allen C</creator><creator>Nadelman, Robert B</creator><creator>Nowakowski, John</creator><creator>Marques, Adriana</creator><creator>Johnson, Barbara J.B</creator><creator>Dumler, J. Stephen</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130101</creationdate><title>Single-tier testing with the C6 peptide ELISA kit compared with two-tier testing for Lyme disease</title><author>Wormser, Gary P ; Schriefer, Martin ; Aguero-Rosenfeld, Maria E ; Levin, Andrew ; Steere, Allen C ; Nadelman, Robert B ; Nowakowski, John ; Marques, Adriana ; Johnson, Barbara J.B ; Dumler, J. Stephen</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c542t-ecbae6adb692a557addcf1a034cdc6efb900cd89f61864d2ace0b45d94e411763</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Borrelia burgdorferi</topic><topic>C6 ELISA</topic><topic>Clinical Laboratory Techniques - methods</topic><topic>Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infectious Disease</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Lyme disease</topic><topic>Lyme Disease - diagnosis</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Serology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wormser, Gary P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schriefer, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aguero-Rosenfeld, Maria E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Levin, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steere, Allen C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nadelman, Robert B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nowakowski, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marques, Adriana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Barbara J.B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dumler, J. Stephen</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wormser, Gary P</au><au>Schriefer, Martin</au><au>Aguero-Rosenfeld, Maria E</au><au>Levin, Andrew</au><au>Steere, Allen C</au><au>Nadelman, Robert B</au><au>Nowakowski, John</au><au>Marques, Adriana</au><au>Johnson, Barbara J.B</au><au>Dumler, J. Stephen</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Single-tier testing with the C6 peptide ELISA kit compared with two-tier testing for Lyme disease</atitle><jtitle>Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease</jtitle><addtitle>Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis</addtitle><date>2013-01-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>75</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>9</spage><epage>15</epage><pages>9-15</pages><issn>0732-8893</issn><eissn>1879-0070</eissn><abstract>Abstract 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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>23062467</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2012.09.003</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0732-8893
ispartof Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2013-01, Vol.75 (1), p.9-15
issn 0732-8893
1879-0070
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4052829
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Borrelia burgdorferi
C6 ELISA
Clinical Laboratory Techniques - methods
Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay - methods
Humans
Infectious Disease
Internal Medicine
Lyme disease
Lyme Disease - diagnosis
Sensitivity and Specificity
Serology
title Single-tier testing with the C6 peptide ELISA kit compared with two-tier testing for Lyme disease
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T04%3A18%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Single-tier%20testing%20with%20the%20C6%20peptide%20ELISA%20kit%20compared%20with%20two-tier%20testing%20for%20Lyme%20disease&rft.jtitle=Diagnostic%20microbiology%20and%20infectious%20disease&rft.au=Wormser,%20Gary%20P&rft.date=2013-01-01&rft.volume=75&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=9&rft.epage=15&rft.pages=9-15&rft.issn=0732-8893&rft.eissn=1879-0070&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2012.09.003&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1237502401%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1237502401&rft_id=info:pmid/23062467&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0732889312003604&rfr_iscdi=true