评估欧洲莱姆病实验室诊断莱姆包虫病的不同标准和改良双层检测策略。

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases Pub Date : 2024-10-07 DOI:10.1007/s10096-024-04956-y
B J A Hoeve-Bakker, K Kerkhof, M Heron, S F T Thijsen, T van Gorkom
{"title":"评估欧洲莱姆病实验室诊断莱姆包虫病的不同标准和改良双层检测策略。","authors":"B J A Hoeve-Bakker, K Kerkhof, M Heron, S F T Thijsen, T van Gorkom","doi":"10.1007/s10096-024-04956-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis (LB) relies on clinical symptoms and detection of Borrelia-specific antibodies. Guidelines recommend a two-tier testing (TTT) strategy for disseminated LB: serological screening with a sensitive enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and confirmation with a specific immunoblot. Searching for the most sensitive and specific approach, this retrospective study evaluated standard (STTT) and modified (MTTT) strategies using a well-defined study population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cases included patients with active Lyme neuroborreliosis (LNB; n = 29) or Lyme arthritis (LA; n = 17). Controls comprised patients treated for LNB (n = 36) or LA (n = 8), healthy individuals who were either untreated (n = 75) or treated for LB (n = 15) in the past, and patients with potentially cross-reactive diseases (n = 16). Sera were subjected to three EIAs and two immunoblots. Reactive screening results were confirmed by immunoblot (STTT) or EIA (MTTT). Solitary IgM results in the screening assay and effects of antibiotic treatment on isotype-specific seropositivity rates were also assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sensitivities of STTT strategies ranged from 90%-97% for LNB and were 100% for LA. MTTT strategies were 100% sensitive. Specificities ranged from 89%-95% for STTT and from 88%-93% for MTTT strategies. Differences between STTT and MTTT strategies were not statistically significant. Solitary IgM reactivity was common among controls. Antibiotic treatment significantly reduced IgM/IgG positivity for LNB patients; for LA patients, a decline was only observed for IgM.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In conclusion, MTTT strategies showed a slightly higher sensitivity and similar specificity compared to STTT strategies. Since EIAs are more time- and cost-efficient, MTTT strategies seem more favorable for clinical use. IgG testing enhances specificity with minimal sensitivity loss.</p>","PeriodicalId":11782,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of different standard and modified two-tier testing strategies for the laboratory diagnosis of lyme borreliosis in a European setting.\",\"authors\":\"B J A Hoeve-Bakker, K Kerkhof, M Heron, S F T Thijsen, T van Gorkom\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10096-024-04956-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis (LB) relies on clinical symptoms and detection of Borrelia-specific antibodies. Guidelines recommend a two-tier testing (TTT) strategy for disseminated LB: serological screening with a sensitive enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and confirmation with a specific immunoblot. Searching for the most sensitive and specific approach, this retrospective study evaluated standard (STTT) and modified (MTTT) strategies using a well-defined study population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cases included patients with active Lyme neuroborreliosis (LNB; n = 29) or Lyme arthritis (LA; n = 17). Controls comprised patients treated for LNB (n = 36) or LA (n = 8), healthy individuals who were either untreated (n = 75) or treated for LB (n = 15) in the past, and patients with potentially cross-reactive diseases (n = 16). Sera were subjected to three EIAs and two immunoblots. Reactive screening results were confirmed by immunoblot (STTT) or EIA (MTTT). Solitary IgM results in the screening assay and effects of antibiotic treatment on isotype-specific seropositivity rates were also assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sensitivities of STTT strategies ranged from 90%-97% for LNB and were 100% for LA. MTTT strategies were 100% sensitive. Specificities ranged from 89%-95% for STTT and from 88%-93% for MTTT strategies. Differences between STTT and MTTT strategies were not statistically significant. Solitary IgM reactivity was common among controls. Antibiotic treatment significantly reduced IgM/IgG positivity for LNB patients; for LA patients, a decline was only observed for IgM.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In conclusion, MTTT strategies showed a slightly higher sensitivity and similar specificity compared to STTT strategies. Since EIAs are more time- and cost-efficient, MTTT strategies seem more favorable for clinical use. IgG testing enhances specificity with minimal sensitivity loss.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-024-04956-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-024-04956-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:莱姆包虫病(LB)的诊断依赖于临床症状和包虫病特异性抗体的检测。指南建议对播散性莱姆病采用双层检测(TTT)策略:用灵敏的酶免疫分析法(EIA)进行血清学筛查,再用特异性免疫印迹法进行确诊。为了寻找最灵敏、最特异的方法,这项回顾性研究利用明确界定的研究人群对标准(STTT)和改良(MTTT)策略进行了评估:病例包括活动性莱姆神经源性疾病(LNB;n = 29)或莱姆关节炎(LA;n = 17)患者。对照组包括接受过 LNB(36 人)或 LA(8 人)治疗的患者、过去未接受过治疗(75 人)或接受过 LB 治疗(15 人)的健康人,以及可能患有交叉反应疾病的患者(16 人)。对血清进行了三次 EIA 和两次免疫印迹。通过免疫印迹(STTT)或 EIA(MTT)确认反应筛选结果。此外,还评估了筛查试验中单独的 IgM 结果以及抗生素治疗对异型特异性血清阳性率的影响:结果:STTT 方法对 LNB 的灵敏度在 90%-97% 之间,对 LA 的灵敏度为 100%。MTTT 策略的敏感性为 100%。STTT 策略的特异性为 89%-95%,MTT 策略的特异性为 88%-93%。STTT 和 MTTT 策略之间的差异无统计学意义。单独的 IgM 反应在对照组中很常见。抗生素治疗明显降低了 LNB 患者的 IgM/IgG 阳性率;而 LA 患者的 IgM 阳性率仅有所下降:总之,MTTT 策略与 STTT 策略相比,灵敏度略高,特异性相似。由于 EIA 更节省时间和成本,因此 MTTT 策略似乎更适合临床使用。IgG 检测可提高特异性,但灵敏度损失极小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluation of different standard and modified two-tier testing strategies for the laboratory diagnosis of lyme borreliosis in a European setting.

Background: Diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis (LB) relies on clinical symptoms and detection of Borrelia-specific antibodies. Guidelines recommend a two-tier testing (TTT) strategy for disseminated LB: serological screening with a sensitive enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and confirmation with a specific immunoblot. Searching for the most sensitive and specific approach, this retrospective study evaluated standard (STTT) and modified (MTTT) strategies using a well-defined study population.

Methods: Cases included patients with active Lyme neuroborreliosis (LNB; n = 29) or Lyme arthritis (LA; n = 17). Controls comprised patients treated for LNB (n = 36) or LA (n = 8), healthy individuals who were either untreated (n = 75) or treated for LB (n = 15) in the past, and patients with potentially cross-reactive diseases (n = 16). Sera were subjected to three EIAs and two immunoblots. Reactive screening results were confirmed by immunoblot (STTT) or EIA (MTTT). Solitary IgM results in the screening assay and effects of antibiotic treatment on isotype-specific seropositivity rates were also assessed.

Results: Sensitivities of STTT strategies ranged from 90%-97% for LNB and were 100% for LA. MTTT strategies were 100% sensitive. Specificities ranged from 89%-95% for STTT and from 88%-93% for MTTT strategies. Differences between STTT and MTTT strategies were not statistically significant. Solitary IgM reactivity was common among controls. Antibiotic treatment significantly reduced IgM/IgG positivity for LNB patients; for LA patients, a decline was only observed for IgM.

Conclusion: In conclusion, MTTT strategies showed a slightly higher sensitivity and similar specificity compared to STTT strategies. Since EIAs are more time- and cost-efficient, MTTT strategies seem more favorable for clinical use. IgG testing enhances specificity with minimal sensitivity loss.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.40
自引率
2.20%
发文量
138
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: EJCMID is an interdisciplinary journal devoted to the publication of communications on infectious diseases of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin.
期刊最新文献
Silent risk: the vertical transmission of Oropouche virus. Optimal incubation duration of liquid cultures for assessing culture negative conversion in patients with Mycobacterium avium complex and Mycobacterium abscessus pulmonary diseases. Ten years of detecting Neoehrlichia mikurensis infections in Sweden: demographic, clinical and inflammatory parameters. Understanding bacterial diversity, infection dynamics, prevention of antibiotic resistance: an integrated study in an Algerian hospital context. An insight on the powerful of bacterial quorum sensing inhibition.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1