Concordance of four commercial enzyme immunoassay and three immunoblot formats for the detection of Lyme borreliosis antibodies in human serum: the two-tier approach remains

Immunoblot Criteria for Diagnosis of Lyme Disease: A Comparison of CDC Criteria to Alternative Interpretive Approaches

The current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) interpretive criteria for serodiagnosis of Lyme disease (LD) involve a two-tiered approach, consisting of a first-tier EIA, IFA, or chemiluminescent assay, followed by confirmation of positive or equivocal results by either immunoblot or a second-tier EIA. To increase overall sensitivity, single-tier alternative immunoblot assays have been proposed, often utilizing antigens from multiple Borrelia burgdorferi strains or genospecies in a single immunoblot; including OspA and OspB in their antigen panel; requiring fewer positive bands than permitted by current CDC criteria; and reporting equivocal results. Published reports concerning alternative immunoblot assays have used relatively small numbers of LD patients and controls to evaluate novel multi-antigen assays and interpretive criteria. We compared the two most commonly used alternative immunoblot interpretive criteria (labeled A and B) to CDC criteria using data from multiple FDA-cleared IgG and IgM immunoblot test kits. These single-tier alternative interpretive criteria, applied to both IgG and IgM immunoblots, demonstrated significantly more false-positive or equivocal results in healthy controls than two-tiered CDC criteria (12.4% and 35.0% for Criteria A and B, respectively, versus 1.0% for CDC criteria). Due to limited standardization and high false-positive rates, the presently evaluated single-tier alternative immunoblot interpretive criteria appear inferior to CDC two-tiered criteria.

Cerebrospinal fluid oligoclonal bands in Neuroborreliosis are specific for Borrelia burgdorferi

Background

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) oligoclonal bands (OCB) occur in chronic or post-acute phase of inflammatory diseases of the central nervous system.

Objective

To determine whether CSF OCB in patients with neuroborreliosis (NB) are specific for borrelia burgdorferi senso lato.

Methods

We performed isoelectric focusing followed by immunoblotting in CSF of 10 NB patients and 11 controls (7 patients with multiple sclerosis, 2 patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disease, 1 patient with dementia and 1 patient with monoclonal gammopathy). Immunoblotting was performed using an uncoated as well as a borrelia antigen pre-coated nitrocellulose membrane (NCM). OCB were counted by visual inspection and photometric analysis. OCB were compared between uncoated und pre-coated NCM both in the NB and control group. For validation purposes inter-assay precision was determined by calculating the coefficient of variation (CV)

Results

Borrelia-specific OCB were found in the CSF of 9 NB patients and in none of the control subjects resulting in a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 100%. Number of NB specific OCB were 11±7 bands by photometric analyses compared to 9±5 bands by visual inspection. Validation experiments revealed an inconsistent inter-assay precision between visual and photometric analyses (NB uncoated: visual 28% versus photometric 14%, control subject uncoated: visual 16% versus photometric 24%).

Conclusions

In CSF samples with positive OCB, Borrelia-specific bands were detected in almost all NB patients and in none of the control subjects. Inconsistent inter-assay precision may be explained by a poor comparability of visual and photometric approach.

Serological diagnostics of Lyme borreliosis: comparison of assays in twelve clinical laboratories in Northern Europe

Lyme borreliosis (LB), caused by spirochetes belonging to the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato complex, is the most common tick-borne infection in Europe. Laboratory diagnosis of LB is mainly based on the patients’ medical history, clinical signs and symptoms in combination with detection of Borrelia-specific antibodies where indirect enzyme-linked-immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is the most widely used technique. The objective of the study was to evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy (sensitivities and specificities) of serological tests that are currently in use for diagnosis of LB in clinical laboratories in Northern Europe, by use of a large serum panel. The panel consisted of 195 serum samples from well-characterized and classified patients under investigation for clinically suspected LB (n = 59) including patients with Lyme neuroborreliosis, Lyme arthritis, acrodermatitis chronica atrophicans, erythema migrans or other diseases (n = 112). A total of 201 serum samples from healthy blood donors were also included. The panel (396 serum samples altogether) was sent to 12 clinical laboratories (using five different ELISA methods) as blinded for group affiliation and the laboratories were asked to perform serological analysis according to their routine procedure. The results from the study demonstrated high diagnostic concordance between the laboratories using the same diagnostic assay and lower diagnostic concordance between laboratories using different diagnostic assays. For IgG, the results were in general rather homogenous and showed an average sensitivity of 88% (range 85–91%) compared to IgM which showed lower average sensitivity of 59% (range 50–67%) and more heterogeneous results between assays and laboratories.

Investigation of the performance of serological assays used for Lyme disease testing in Australia

Spirochaetes of the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato complex, which includes those that cause Lyme disease, have not been identified in Australia. Nevertheless, Australian patients exist, some of whom have not left the country, who have symptoms consistent with so-called “chronic Lyme disease”. Blood specimens from these individuals may be tested in Australian laboratories and in specialist laboratories outside Australia and sometimes conflicting results are obtained. Such discrepancies cause the patients to question the results from the Australian laboratories and seek assistance from the Australian Government in clarifying why the discrepancies occur. The aim of this study was to determine the level of agreement in results between commonly used B. burgdorferi serology assays in specimens of known status, and between results reported by different laboratories when they use the same serology assay. Five immunoassays and five immunoblots used in Australia and elsewhere were examined for the detection of IgG antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato. Predominantly, archived specimens previously tested for Lyme disease were used for the study and included 639 contributed by seven clinical laboratories located either in Australia or in areas endemic for Lyme disease. Also included were 308 prospectively collected Australian blood donor specimens. All clinical specimens were tested in all 10 assays whereas blood donor specimens were tested in all immunoassays and a subset was tested on immunoblots. With the exception of one immunoblot, the results between the assays agreed with each other in a known positive specimen population ≥ 77% of the time and in a known negative population, 88% of the time or greater. The test results obtained during the study were different from the participating laboratory’s less than 2% of the time when the same assay was used. These findings suggest that discordance in results between laboratories is more likely due to variation in algorithms or in the use of assays with different sensitivities or specificities rather than conflicting results being reported from the same assay in different laboratories. In the known negative population, specificities of the immunoassays ranged between 87.7% and 99.7%. In Australia’s low prevalence population, this would translate to a positive predictive value of < 4%.

Validation of an immunoblot assay employing an objective reading system and used as a confirmatory test in equine infectious anaemia surveillance programs

Equine infectious anaemia (EIA) is a blood borne disease that is listed among the notifiable diseases of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). EIA is also regulated by the OIE for the international trading provisions and is generally subject to control programmes. Since 2011, Italy has been conducting a surveillance plan based on a three-tier diagnostic system, using a serological ELISA as screening test, an agar gel immunodiffusion test (AGIDT) as a confirmatory method, and an immunoblot (IB) as an alternative confirmatory assay for discordant results between the first two tests. As for the in-house competitive ELISA (c-ELISA) and the AGIDT, the Italian National Reference Laboratory for EIA (NRL) validated the IB according to the OIE guidelines, employing eight panels containing positive sera, including those from EIA virus (EIAV) proven infected horses, and negative horse, mule and donkey sera collected from different geographical areas. In addition, two international reference image panels were employed for the optimization and the validation of the digital image reading system adopted that allows an impartial measurement of the serum reactivity in the IB assay. The immunological reactivity to EIAV antigens, p26, gp45 and gp90 adsorbed on the IB membrane, determines the serological status of the animal and for EIA, a p26 positive band together with at least one of the other antigen defines a subject as serologically positive for EIAV. For validation, the parameters assessed were threshold values, analytical and diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, repeatability and reproducibility. These parameters were evaluated for each antigen as well as in combination, according to the diagnostic algorithm established above. The validation data defined the IB as having a satisfactory sensitivity, specificity, repeatability and reproducibility for all antigens and species tested. An instrumental recording of the results improves the confidence in using IB as a confirmatory test for EIAV, differently from the AGIDT that is read by an operator. The advantages of using the IB are its higher sensitivity, to that of the AGIDT, which allows an earlier detection of infection that reduces the risk of transmission and therefore the incidence of the EIA, and its higher specificity to that of the ELISA which is based on the discrimination of subjects reacting only against the p26, the antigen used by all ELISAs available, which are not considered as infected by EIAV. In particular, when this assay is used in outbreaks it can detect new cases earlier than the AGIDT, and therefore reduce the restriction period with an economic benefit for the animal owners and the public veterinary sanitary system.

A description of 'Australian Lyme disease' epidemiology and impact: an analysis of submissions to an Australian senate inquiry

BACKGROUND

Many Australian patients are diagnosed and treated for the scientifically and politically controversial diagnosis of an endemic form of 'Australian Lyme Disease'. Patient advocacy led Senator John Madigan to propose an Australian Senate Inquiry into this illness.

AIM

To describe the symptomology and outcomes of patients diagnosed and treated with Lyme disease in Australia.

METHODS

All public, first-person submissions (n = 698) to the inquiry were reviewed and responses analysed for epidemiology, symptoms and impact against structured criteria.

RESULTS

The most common symptoms described were fatigue (62.6%), disordered thinking (51.9%) and sensory disturbance (46.1%). Respondents reported experiencing symptoms for a median of 10 years and spent a median of $30 000 on diagnosis and treatment. Almost 10% of respondents self-diagnosed after being exposed to a media report of Australian Lyme disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients diagnosed with Lyme disease in Australia display a symptomology similar to 'medically unexplained physical symptoms' syndromes, experience social and financial harms, and are at risk of nosocomial harms. Negative medical interactions and the media may contribute to patients seeking alternative and potentially non-evidence-based diagnoses and treatments.

Laboratory diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis: Current state of the art and future perspectives

This review is directed at physicians and laboratory personnel in private practice and clinics who treat and diagnose Lyme borreliosis (LB) in patients as part of their daily work. A major objective of this paper is to bring together background information on Borrelia (B.) burgdorferi sensu lato (s.l.) and basic clinical knowledge of LB, which is one of the most frequently reported vector-borne diseases in the Northern Hemisphere. The goal is to provide practical guidance for clinicians and for laboratory physicians, and scientists for a better understanding of current achievements and ongoing obstacles in the laboratory diagnosis of LB, an infectious disease that still remains one of the diagnostic chameleons of modern clinical medicine. Moreover, in bringing together current scientific information from guidelines, reviews, and original papers, this review provides recommendations for selecting the appropriate tests in relation to the patient's stage of disease to achieve effective, stage-related application of current direct and indirect laboratory methods for the detection of B. burgdorferi s.l. Additionally, the review aims to discuss the current state of the art concerning the diagnostic potential and limitations of the assays and test methods currently in use to optimize LB patient management and provide insight into the possible future prospects of this rapidly changing area of laboratory medicine.

Promising alternatives for one-tier testing of Lyme borreliosis

A main focus of human health studies is the early detection of infectious diseases to enable more rapid treatment and prevent disease transmission. Diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis has been always challenging because of the lack of specific, but simple assay formats. Two-tiered testing has been recommended by US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to provide more specific results for diagnosis of Lyme disease. However, such a technique is time consuming and is not well suited for early stage detection. Therefore, many tests were proposed as alternatives to overcome these drawbacks. Simple assays, which are mainly performed in one-tier manner, could be conducted with better performance than the two-tiered testing. Proposed assays utilize both newly identified antigens and new platforms to improve detection performance. These assays can be classified into those based on employing a single antigen and assays based on using multiple antigens. In addition to assays to this type of assays, immunoassays on borreliosis-related biomarkers are available. We report here the most recent assays developed over the last 10 years, for detection of Lyme borreliosis in body fluids.