Literature DB >> 24739342

Concerns regarding a new culture method for Borrelia burgdorferi not approved for the diagnosis of Lyme disease.

Christina Nelson, Sally Hojvat, Barbara Johnson, Jeannine Petersen, Marty Schriefer, C Ben Beard, Lyle Petersen, Paul Mead.   

Abstract

In 2005, CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning regarding the use of Lyme disease tests whose accuracy and clinical usefulness have not been adequately established. Often these are laboratory-developed tests (also known as "home brew" tests) that are manufactured and used within a single laboratory and have not been cleared or approved by FDA. Recently, CDC has received inquiries regarding a laboratory-developed test that uses a novel culture method to identify Borrelia burgdorferi, the spirochete that causes Lyme disease. Patient specimens reportedly are incubated using a two-step pre-enrichment process, followed by immunostaining with or without polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis. Specimens that test positive by immunostaining or PCR are deemed "culture positive". Published methods and results for this laboratory-developed test have been reviewed by CDC. The review raised serious concerns about false-positive results caused by laboratory contamination and the potential for misdiagnosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24739342      PMCID: PMC5779394     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep        ISSN: 0149-2195            Impact factor:   17.586


In 2005, CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning regarding the use of Lyme disease tests whose accuracy and clinical usefulness have not been adequately established (1). Often these are laboratory-developed tests (also known as “home brew” tests) that are manufactured and used within a single laboratory and have not been cleared or approved by FDA. Recently, CDC has received inquiries regarding a laboratory-developed test that uses a novel culture method to identify Borrelia burgdorferi, the spirochete that causes Lyme disease. Patient specimens reportedly are incubated using a two-step pre-enrichment process, followed by immunostaining with or without polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis. Specimens that test positive by immunostaining or PCR are deemed “culture positive” (2). Published methods and results for this laboratory-developed test have been reviewed by CDC. The review raised serious concerns about false-positive results caused by laboratory contamination and the potential for misdiagnosis (3). CDC recommends that laboratory tests cleared or approved by FDA be used to aid in the routine diagnosis of Lyme disease. A complete searchable list of such tests is available online (4). When evaluating testing options, providers and their patients might be confused by the distinction between Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) certification of laboratories and FDA clearance or approval of specific tests. CLIA certification of a laboratory indicates that the laboratory meets a set of basic quality standards.* It is important to note, however, that the CLIA program does not address the clinical validity of a specific test (i.e., the accuracy with which the test identifies, measures, or predicts the presence or absence of a clinical condition in a patient).† FDA clearance/approval of a test, on the other hand, provides assurance that the test itself has adequate analytical and clinical validation and is safe and effective.§ When laboratory testing is indicated, CDC recommends two-tier serologic testing for the diagnosis of Lyme disease. Two-tier testing consists of an FDA-cleared enzyme immunoassay (EIA) that, if positive or equivocal, is followed by an FDA-cleared immunoblot test, commonly known as a “Western blot” test. Results are considered positive only when both the EIA and Western blot are positive (5). Culture and PCR of clinical specimens are recommended only in certain rare circumstances (6). CDC encourages researchers to work with FDA to develop new or improved tests for the diagnosis of Lyme disease. As with any diagnostic test, it is critical that new tests for Lyme disease have adequate analytical and clinical validation to avoid misdiagnosis and improper treatment of patients.
  4 in total

1.  Recommendations for test performance and interpretation from the Second National Conference on Serologic Diagnosis of Lyme Disease.

Authors: 
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  1995-08-11       Impact factor: 17.586

Review 2.  Diagnosis of lyme borreliosis.

Authors:  Maria E Aguero-Rosenfeld; Guiqing Wang; Ira Schwartz; Gary P Wormser
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 26.132

3.  Assessment of new culture method for detection of Borrelia species from serum of lyme disease patients.

Authors:  Barbara J B Johnson; Mark A Pilgard; Theresa M Russell
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-08-14       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  Improved culture conditions for the growth and detection of Borrelia from human serum.

Authors:  Eva Sapi; Namrata Pabbati; Akshita Datar; Ellen M Davies; Amy Rattelle; Bruce A Kuo
Journal:  Int J Med Sci       Date:  2013-02-18       Impact factor: 3.738

  4 in total
  11 in total

1.  Precision medicine and the FDA's draft guidance on laboratory-developed tests.

Authors:  Thomas J Hwang; Lisa Soleymani Lehmann; Aaron S Kesselheim
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 54.908

Review 2.  A Review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Guidelines for the Clinical Laboratory Diagnosis of Lyme Disease.

Authors:  Caterina M Miraglia
Journal:  J Chiropr Med       Date:  2016-10-05

3.  Advances in Serodiagnostic Testing for Lyme Disease Are at Hand.

Authors:  John A Branda; Barbara A Body; Jeff Boyle; Bernard M Branson; Raymond J Dattwyler; Erol Fikrig; Noel J Gerald; Maria Gomes-Solecki; Martin Kintrup; Michel Ledizet; Andrew E Levin; Michael Lewinski; Lance A Liotta; Adriana Marques; Paul S Mead; Emmanuel F Mongodin; Segaran Pillai; Prasad Rao; William H Robinson; Kristian M Roth; Martin E Schriefer; Thomas Slezak; Jessica Snyder; Allen C Steere; Jan Witkowski; Susan J Wong; Steven E Schutzer
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2018-03-19       Impact factor: 9.079

4.  Lyme Borreliosis Serology: Performance of Several Commonly Used Laboratory Diagnostic Tests and a Large Resource Panel of Well-Characterized Patient Samples.

Authors:  Claudia R Molins; Mark J Delorey; Christopher Sexton; Martin E Schriefer
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2016-08-24       Impact factor: 5.948

5.  A concise critical analysis of serologic testing for the diagnosis of lyme disease.

Authors:  Roberta L DeBiasi
Journal:  Curr Infect Dis Rep       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 3.725

Review 6.  Update on persistent symptoms associated with Lyme disease.

Authors:  Carlos R Oliveira; Eugene D Shapiro
Journal:  Curr Opin Pediatr       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 2.856

Review 7.  Review: unraveling Lyme disease.

Authors:  Linda K Bockenstedt; Gary P Wormser
Journal:  Arthritis Rheumatol       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 10.995

8.  Lyme Disease Serology.

Authors:  Paul M Lantos; Paul G Auwaerter; Christina A Nelson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016-04-26       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 9.  Relevance of chronic lyme disease to family medicine as a complex multidimensional chronic disease construct: a systematic review.

Authors:  Liesbeth Borgermans; Geert Goderis; Jan Vandevoorde; Dirk Devroey
Journal:  Int J Family Med       Date:  2014-11-24

Review 10.  Current Guidelines, Common Clinical Pitfalls, and Future Directions for Laboratory Diagnosis of Lyme Disease, United States.

Authors:  Andrew Moore; Christina Nelson; Claudia Molins; Paul Mead; Martin Schriefer
Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 6.883

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.