Alison F Hinckley1, Neeta P Connally2, James I Meek3, Barbara J Johnson1, Melissa M Kemperman4, Katherine A Feldman5, Jennifer L White6, Paul S Mead1. 1. Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, Colorado. 2. Connecticut Emerging Infections Program, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Western Connecticut State University, Danbury. 3. Connecticut Emerging Infections Program, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven. 4. Minnesota Department of Health, St Paul. 5. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Baltimore. 6. New York State Department of Health, Albany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laboratory testing is helpful when evaluating patients with suspected Lyme disease (LD). A 2-tiered antibody testing approach is recommended, but single-tier and nonvalidated tests are also used. We conducted a survey of large commercial laboratories in the United States to assess laboratory practices. We used these data to estimate the cost of testing and number of infections among patients from whom specimens were submitted. METHODS: Large commercial laboratories were asked to report the type and volume of testing conducted nationwide in 2008, as well as the percentage of positive tests for 4 LD-endemic states. The total direct cost of testing was calculated for each test type. These data and test-specific performance parameters available in published literature were used to estimate the number of infections among source patients. RESULTS: Seven participating laboratories performed approximately 3.4 million LD tests on approximately 2.4 million specimens nationwide at an estimated cost of $492 million. Two-tiered testing accounted for at least 62% of assays performed; alternative testing accounted for <3% of assays. The estimated frequency of infection among patients from whom specimens were submitted ranged from 10% to 18.5%. Applied to the total numbers of specimens, this yielded an estimated 240 000 to 444 000 infected source patients in 2008. DISCUSSION: LD testing is common and costly, with most testing in accordance with diagnostic recommendations. These results highlight the importance of considering clinical and exposure history when interpreting laboratory results for diagnostic and surveillance purposes. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2014. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.
BACKGROUND: Laboratory testing is helpful when evaluating patients with suspected Lyme disease (LD). A 2-tiered antibody testing approach is recommended, but single-tier and nonvalidated tests are also used. We conducted a survey of large commercial laboratories in the United States to assess laboratory practices. We used these data to estimate the cost of testing and number of infections among patients from whom specimens were submitted. METHODS: Large commercial laboratories were asked to report the type and volume of testing conducted nationwide in 2008, as well as the percentage of positive tests for 4 LD-endemic states. The total direct cost of testing was calculated for each test type. These data and test-specific performance parameters available in published literature were used to estimate the number of infections among source patients. RESULTS: Seven participating laboratories performed approximately 3.4 million LD tests on approximately 2.4 million specimens nationwide at an estimated cost of $492 million. Two-tiered testing accounted for at least 62% of assays performed; alternative testing accounted for <3% of assays. The estimated frequency of infection among patients from whom specimens were submitted ranged from 10% to 18.5%. Applied to the total numbers of specimens, this yielded an estimated 240 000 to 444 000 infected source patients in 2008. DISCUSSION: LD testing is common and costly, with most testing in accordance with diagnostic recommendations. These results highlight the importance of considering clinical and exposure history when interpreting laboratory results for diagnostic and surveillance purposes. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2014. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.
Entities:
Keywords:
United States; cost; diagnostic testing; infection; lyme disease
Authors: R T Trevejo; P J Krause; V K Sikand; M E Schriefer; R Ryan; T Lepore; W Porter; D T Dennis Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: K A Orloski; G L Campbell; C A Genese; J W Beckley; M E Schriefer; K C Spitalny; D T Dennis Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1998-02-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Gary P Wormser; Raymond J Dattwyler; Eugene D Shapiro; John J Halperin; Allen C Steere; Mark S Klempner; Peter J Krause; Johan S Bakken; Franc Strle; Gerold Stanek; Linda Bockenstedt; Durland Fish; J Stephen Dumler; Robert B Nadelman Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2006-10-02 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: M E Aguero-Rosenfeld; J Nowakowski; S Bittker; D Cooper; R B Nadelman; G P Wormser Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 1996-01 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Ian R C Davis; Shelly A McNeil; Wanda Allen; Donna MacKinnon-Cameron; L Robbin Lindsay; Katarina Bernat; Antonia Dibernardo; Jason J LeBlanc; Todd F Hatchette Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2020-06-24 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: N Thomas; H J Rutz; S A Hook; A F Hinckley; G Lukacik; B P Backenson; K A Feldman; J L White Journal: Zoonoses Public Health Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 2.702
Authors: John N Aucott; Mark J Soloski; Alison W Rebman; Lauren A Crowder; Lauren J Lahey; Catriona A Wagner; William H Robinson; Kathleen T Bechtold Journal: Clin Vaccine Immunol Date: 2016-09-06
Authors: Susan C Lipsett; John A Branda; Alexander J McAdam; Louis Vernacchio; Caroline D Gordon; Catherine R Gordon; Lise E Nigrovic Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2016-06-28 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Ashley L Marcinkiewicz; Alan P Dupuis; Maxime Zamba-Campero; Nancy Nowak; Peter Kraiczy; Sanjay Ram; Laura D Kramer; Yi-Pin Lin Journal: Cell Microbiol Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 3.715
Authors: Claudia R Molins; Laura V Ashton; Gary P Wormser; Ann M Hess; Mark J Delorey; Sebabrata Mahapatra; Martin E Schriefer; John T Belisle Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2015-03-11 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Jessica L Snyder; Heidi Giese; Cheryl Bandoski-Gralinski; Jessica Townsend; Beck E Jacobson; Robert Shivers; Anna M Schotthoefer; Thomas R Fritsche; Clayton Green; Steven M Callister; John A Branda; Thomas J Lowery Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2017-05-31 Impact factor: 5.948