Poor Positive Predictive Value of Lyme Disease Serologic Testing in an Area of Low Disease Incidence
Background. Lyme disease is diagnosed by 2-tiered serologic testing in patients with a compatible clinical illness, but the significance of positive test results in low-prevalence regions has not been investigated. Methods. We reviewed the medical records of patients who tested positive for Lyme dis...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical infectious diseases 2015-11, Vol.61 (9), p.1374-1380 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1380 |
---|---|
container_issue | 9 |
container_start_page | 1374 |
container_title | Clinical infectious diseases |
container_volume | 61 |
creator | Lantos, Paul M. Branda, John A. Boggan, Joel C. Chudgar, Saumil M. Wilson, Elizabeth A. Ruffin, Felicia Fowler, Vance Auwaerter, Paul G. Nigrovic, Lise E. |
description | Background. Lyme disease is diagnosed by 2-tiered serologic testing in patients with a compatible clinical illness, but the significance of positive test results in low-prevalence regions has not been investigated. Methods. We reviewed the medical records of patients who tested positive for Lyme disease with standardized 2-tiered serologic testing between 2005 and 2010 at a single hospital system in a region with little endemic Lyme disease. Based on clinical findings, we calculated the positive predictive value of Lyme disease serology. Next, we reviewed the outcome of serologic testing in patients with select clinical syndromes compatible with disseminated Lyme disease (arthritis, cranial neuropathy, or meningitis). Results. During the 6-year study period 4723 patients were tested for Lyme disease, but only 76 (1.6%) had positive results by established laboratory criteria. Among 70 seropositive patients whose medical records were available for review, 12 (17%; 95% confidence interval, 9%–28%) were found to have Lyme disease (6 with documented travel to endemic regions). During the same time period, 297 patients with a clinical illness compatible with disseminated Lyme disease underwent 2-tiered serologic testing. Six of them (2%; 95% confidence interval, 0.7%–4.3%) were seropositive, 3 with documented travel and 1 who had an alternative diagnosis that explained the clinical findings. Conclusions. In this low-prevalence cohort, fewer than 20% of positive Lyme disease tests are obtained from patients with clinically likely Lyme disease. Positive Lyme disease test results may have little diagnostic value in this setting. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/cid/civ584 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4599394</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>26368990</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>26368990</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c428t-c7e9cb4cace9687d755f0f4f93e537adaa7b8ddfeeae81f2365c0e791c0c0e7f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkd1LHDEUxUOp1K--9N0S6IsURpPJZJK8CKL9EBZc0PY1ZDM3a5bZRJOZLf73Zl27qA_hXrg_DufkIPSFkhNKFDu1vitvxWXzAe1RzkTVckU_lp1wWTWSyV20n_OCEEol4Z_Qbt1SxQkVe6ibxpjwNGY_-BXgaYLO2-f1r-lHwNHhyeMS8KXPYDLgG0ixj3Nv8S3kwYc59gGbgM8TmGc4_tuyV6E4g2DhEO0402f4_DIP0J-fP24vfleT619XF-eTyja1HCorQNlZY40F1UrRCc4dcY1TDEoo0xkjZrLrHIABSV3NWm4JCEUtWU_HDtDZRvd-nC2hsxCGZHp9n_zSpEcdjddvL8Hf6Xlc6YYrxVRTBI5fBFJ8GEtAvfTZQt-bAHHMmoqaska0ghT02zt0EccUSrw1xWRbCyoL9X1D2RRzTuC2ZijR6_J0-SK9Ka_AX1_b36L_2yrA0QZY5CGmV3fWSqUIewLxbqFl</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1723862718</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Poor Positive Predictive Value of Lyme Disease Serologic Testing in an Area of Low Disease Incidence</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Lantos, Paul M. ; Branda, John A. ; Boggan, Joel C. ; Chudgar, Saumil M. ; Wilson, Elizabeth A. ; Ruffin, Felicia ; Fowler, Vance ; Auwaerter, Paul G. ; Nigrovic, Lise E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Lantos, Paul M. ; Branda, John A. ; Boggan, Joel C. ; Chudgar, Saumil M. ; Wilson, Elizabeth A. ; Ruffin, Felicia ; Fowler, Vance ; Auwaerter, Paul G. ; Nigrovic, Lise E.</creatorcontrib><description>Background. Lyme disease is diagnosed by 2-tiered serologic testing in patients with a compatible clinical illness, but the significance of positive test results in low-prevalence regions has not been investigated. Methods. We reviewed the medical records of patients who tested positive for Lyme disease with standardized 2-tiered serologic testing between 2005 and 2010 at a single hospital system in a region with little endemic Lyme disease. Based on clinical findings, we calculated the positive predictive value of Lyme disease serology. Next, we reviewed the outcome of serologic testing in patients with select clinical syndromes compatible with disseminated Lyme disease (arthritis, cranial neuropathy, or meningitis). Results. During the 6-year study period 4723 patients were tested for Lyme disease, but only 76 (1.6%) had positive results by established laboratory criteria. Among 70 seropositive patients whose medical records were available for review, 12 (17%; 95% confidence interval, 9%–28%) were found to have Lyme disease (6 with documented travel to endemic regions). During the same time period, 297 patients with a clinical illness compatible with disseminated Lyme disease underwent 2-tiered serologic testing. Six of them (2%; 95% confidence interval, 0.7%–4.3%) were seropositive, 3 with documented travel and 1 who had an alternative diagnosis that explained the clinical findings. Conclusions. In this low-prevalence cohort, fewer than 20% of positive Lyme disease tests are obtained from patients with clinically likely Lyme disease. Positive Lyme disease test results may have little diagnostic value in this setting.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1058-4838</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1537-6591</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/cid/civ584</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26195017</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; and Commentaries ; ARTICLES AND COMMENTARIES ; Body fluids ; Child ; Diagnostic tests ; Female ; Humans ; Incidence ; Lyme disease ; Lyme Disease - diagnosis ; Male ; Medical diagnosis ; Medical records ; Middle Aged ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Retrospective Studies ; Serologic Tests - methods ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Clinical infectious diseases, 2015-11, Vol.61 (9), p.1374-1380</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2015 Oxford University Press on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America</rights><rights>The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.</rights><rights>Copyright Oxford University Press, UK Nov 1, 2015</rights><rights>The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: . 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c428t-c7e9cb4cace9687d755f0f4f93e537adaa7b8ddfeeae81f2365c0e791c0c0e7f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c428t-c7e9cb4cace9687d755f0f4f93e537adaa7b8ddfeeae81f2365c0e791c0c0e7f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26368990$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26368990$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,803,885,27924,27925,58017,58250</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26195017$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lantos, Paul M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Branda, John A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boggan, Joel C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chudgar, Saumil M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Elizabeth A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruffin, Felicia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fowler, Vance</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Auwaerter, Paul G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nigrovic, Lise E.</creatorcontrib><title>Poor Positive Predictive Value of Lyme Disease Serologic Testing in an Area of Low Disease Incidence</title><title>Clinical infectious diseases</title><addtitle>Clin Infect Dis</addtitle><description>Background. Lyme disease is diagnosed by 2-tiered serologic testing in patients with a compatible clinical illness, but the significance of positive test results in low-prevalence regions has not been investigated. Methods. We reviewed the medical records of patients who tested positive for Lyme disease with standardized 2-tiered serologic testing between 2005 and 2010 at a single hospital system in a region with little endemic Lyme disease. Based on clinical findings, we calculated the positive predictive value of Lyme disease serology. Next, we reviewed the outcome of serologic testing in patients with select clinical syndromes compatible with disseminated Lyme disease (arthritis, cranial neuropathy, or meningitis). Results. During the 6-year study period 4723 patients were tested for Lyme disease, but only 76 (1.6%) had positive results by established laboratory criteria. Among 70 seropositive patients whose medical records were available for review, 12 (17%; 95% confidence interval, 9%–28%) were found to have Lyme disease (6 with documented travel to endemic regions). During the same time period, 297 patients with a clinical illness compatible with disseminated Lyme disease underwent 2-tiered serologic testing. Six of them (2%; 95% confidence interval, 0.7%–4.3%) were seropositive, 3 with documented travel and 1 who had an alternative diagnosis that explained the clinical findings. Conclusions. In this low-prevalence cohort, fewer than 20% of positive Lyme disease tests are obtained from patients with clinically likely Lyme disease. Positive Lyme disease test results may have little diagnostic value in this setting.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>and Commentaries</subject><subject>ARTICLES AND COMMENTARIES</subject><subject>Body fluids</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Diagnostic tests</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Incidence</subject><subject>Lyme disease</subject><subject>Lyme Disease - diagnosis</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical diagnosis</subject><subject>Medical records</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Serologic Tests - methods</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1058-4838</issn><issn>1537-6591</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkd1LHDEUxUOp1K--9N0S6IsURpPJZJK8CKL9EBZc0PY1ZDM3a5bZRJOZLf73Zl27qA_hXrg_DufkIPSFkhNKFDu1vitvxWXzAe1RzkTVckU_lp1wWTWSyV20n_OCEEol4Z_Qbt1SxQkVe6ibxpjwNGY_-BXgaYLO2-f1r-lHwNHhyeMS8KXPYDLgG0ixj3Nv8S3kwYc59gGbgM8TmGc4_tuyV6E4g2DhEO0402f4_DIP0J-fP24vfleT619XF-eTyja1HCorQNlZY40F1UrRCc4dcY1TDEoo0xkjZrLrHIABSV3NWm4JCEUtWU_HDtDZRvd-nC2hsxCGZHp9n_zSpEcdjddvL8Hf6Xlc6YYrxVRTBI5fBFJ8GEtAvfTZQt-bAHHMmoqaska0ghT02zt0EccUSrw1xWRbCyoL9X1D2RRzTuC2ZijR6_J0-SK9Ka_AX1_b36L_2yrA0QZY5CGmV3fWSqUIewLxbqFl</recordid><startdate>20151101</startdate><enddate>20151101</enddate><creator>Lantos, Paul M.</creator><creator>Branda, John A.</creator><creator>Boggan, Joel C.</creator><creator>Chudgar, Saumil M.</creator><creator>Wilson, Elizabeth A.</creator><creator>Ruffin, Felicia</creator><creator>Fowler, Vance</creator><creator>Auwaerter, Paul G.</creator><creator>Nigrovic, Lise E.</creator><general>Oxford University Press</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>7QL</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20151101</creationdate><title>Poor Positive Predictive Value of Lyme Disease Serologic Testing in an Area of Low Disease Incidence</title><author>Lantos, Paul M. ; Branda, John A. ; Boggan, Joel C. ; Chudgar, Saumil M. ; Wilson, Elizabeth A. ; Ruffin, Felicia ; Fowler, Vance ; Auwaerter, Paul G. ; Nigrovic, Lise E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c428t-c7e9cb4cace9687d755f0f4f93e537adaa7b8ddfeeae81f2365c0e791c0c0e7f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>and Commentaries</topic><topic>ARTICLES AND COMMENTARIES</topic><topic>Body fluids</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Diagnostic tests</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Incidence</topic><topic>Lyme disease</topic><topic>Lyme Disease - diagnosis</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical diagnosis</topic><topic>Medical records</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Serologic Tests - methods</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lantos, Paul M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Branda, John A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boggan, Joel C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chudgar, Saumil M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Elizabeth A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruffin, Felicia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fowler, Vance</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Auwaerter, Paul G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nigrovic, Lise E.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Clinical infectious diseases</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lantos, Paul M.</au><au>Branda, John A.</au><au>Boggan, Joel C.</au><au>Chudgar, Saumil M.</au><au>Wilson, Elizabeth A.</au><au>Ruffin, Felicia</au><au>Fowler, Vance</au><au>Auwaerter, Paul G.</au><au>Nigrovic, Lise E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Poor Positive Predictive Value of Lyme Disease Serologic Testing in an Area of Low Disease Incidence</atitle><jtitle>Clinical infectious diseases</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Infect Dis</addtitle><date>2015-11-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>61</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1374</spage><epage>1380</epage><pages>1374-1380</pages><issn>1058-4838</issn><eissn>1537-6591</eissn><abstract>Background. Lyme disease is diagnosed by 2-tiered serologic testing in patients with a compatible clinical illness, but the significance of positive test results in low-prevalence regions has not been investigated. Methods. We reviewed the medical records of patients who tested positive for Lyme disease with standardized 2-tiered serologic testing between 2005 and 2010 at a single hospital system in a region with little endemic Lyme disease. Based on clinical findings, we calculated the positive predictive value of Lyme disease serology. Next, we reviewed the outcome of serologic testing in patients with select clinical syndromes compatible with disseminated Lyme disease (arthritis, cranial neuropathy, or meningitis). Results. During the 6-year study period 4723 patients were tested for Lyme disease, but only 76 (1.6%) had positive results by established laboratory criteria. Among 70 seropositive patients whose medical records were available for review, 12 (17%; 95% confidence interval, 9%–28%) were found to have Lyme disease (6 with documented travel to endemic regions). During the same time period, 297 patients with a clinical illness compatible with disseminated Lyme disease underwent 2-tiered serologic testing. Six of them (2%; 95% confidence interval, 0.7%–4.3%) were seropositive, 3 with documented travel and 1 who had an alternative diagnosis that explained the clinical findings. Conclusions. In this low-prevalence cohort, fewer than 20% of positive Lyme disease tests are obtained from patients with clinically likely Lyme disease. Positive Lyme disease test results may have little diagnostic value in this setting.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>26195017</pmid><doi>10.1093/cid/civ584</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1058-4838 |
ispartof | Clinical infectious diseases, 2015-11, Vol.61 (9), p.1374-1380 |
issn | 1058-4838 1537-6591 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4599394 |
source | MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Adolescent Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over and Commentaries ARTICLES AND COMMENTARIES Body fluids Child Diagnostic tests Female Humans Incidence Lyme disease Lyme Disease - diagnosis Male Medical diagnosis Medical records Middle Aged Predictive Value of Tests Retrospective Studies Serologic Tests - methods Young Adult |
title | Poor Positive Predictive Value of Lyme Disease Serologic Testing in an Area of Low Disease Incidence |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T05%3A33%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Poor%20Positive%20Predictive%20Value%20of%20Lyme%20Disease%20Serologic%20Testing%20in%20an%20Area%20of%20Low%20Disease%20Incidence&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20infectious%20diseases&rft.au=Lantos,%20Paul%20M.&rft.date=2015-11-01&rft.volume=61&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1374&rft.epage=1380&rft.pages=1374-1380&rft.issn=1058-4838&rft.eissn=1537-6591&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/cid/civ584&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_pubme%3E26368990%3C/jstor_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1723862718&rft_id=info:pmid/26195017&rft_jstor_id=26368990&rfr_iscdi=true |