BACKGROUND: The commercially-available C6 Lyme enzyme immunoassay (EIA) has been approved to replace the standard whole-cell sonicate EIA as a first-tier test for the diagnosis of Lyme disease and has been suggested as a stand-alone diagnostic. However, the C6 EIA has not been extensively studied in pediatric patients undergoing evaluation for Lyme disease. METHODS: We collected discarded serum samples from children and adolescents (aged ≤21 years) undergoing conventional 2-tiered testing for Lyme disease at a single hospital-based clinical laboratory located in an area endemic for Lyme disease. We performed a C6 EIA on all collected specimens, followed by a supplemental immunoblot if the C6 EIA result was positive but the whole-cell sonicate EIA result was negative. We defined a case of Lyme disease as either a clinician-diagnosed erythema migrans lesion or a positive standard 2-tiered serologic result in a patient with symptoms compatible with Lyme disease. We then compared the performance of the C6 EIA alone and as a first-tier test followed by immunoblot, with that of standard 2-tiered serology for the diagnosis of Lyme disease. RESULTS: Of the 944 specimens collected, 114 (12%) were from patients with Lyme disease. The C6 EIA alone had sensitivity similar to that of standard 2-tiered testing (79.8% vs 81.6% for standard 2-tiered testing; P = .71) with slightly lower specificity (94.2% vs 98.8% 2; P < .002). Addition of a supplemental immunoblot improved the specificity of the C6 EIA to 98.6%. CONCLUSIONS: For children and adolescents undergoing evaluation for Lyme disease, the C6 EIA could guide initial clinical decision making, although a supplemental immunoblot should still be performed.
BACKGROUND: The commercially-available C6 Lyme enzyme immunoassay (EIA) has been approved to replace the standard whole-cell sonicate EIA as a first-tier test for the diagnosis of Lyme disease and has been suggested as a stand-alone diagnostic. However, the C6 EIA has not been extensively studied in pediatric patients undergoing evaluation for Lyme disease. METHODS: We collected discarded serum samples from children and adolescents (aged ≤21 years) undergoing conventional 2-tiered testing for Lyme disease at a single hospital-based clinical laboratory located in an area endemic for Lyme disease. We performed a C6 EIA on all collected specimens, followed by a supplemental immunoblot if the C6 EIA result was positive but the whole-cell sonicate EIA result was negative. We defined a case of Lyme disease as either a clinician-diagnosed erythema migrans lesion or a positive standard 2-tiered serologic result in a patient with symptoms compatible with Lyme disease. We then compared the performance of the C6 EIA alone and as a first-tier test followed by immunoblot, with that of standard 2-tiered serology for the diagnosis of Lyme disease. RESULTS: Of the 944 specimens collected, 114 (12%) were from patients with Lyme disease. The C6 EIA alone had sensitivity similar to that of standard 2-tiered testing (79.8% vs 81.6% for standard 2-tiered testing; P = .71) with slightly lower specificity (94.2% vs 98.8% 2; P < .002). Addition of a supplemental immunoblot improved the specificity of the C6 EIA to 98.6%. CONCLUSIONS: For children and adolescents undergoing evaluation for Lyme disease, the C6 EIA could guide initial clinical decision making, although a supplemental immunoblot should still be performed.
Authors: Amy D Thompson; Keri A Cohn; Samir S Shah; Todd Lyons; Elizabeth J Welsh; Elizabeth M Hines; Lise E Nigrovic Journal: Pediatr Infect Dis J Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 2.129
Authors: Keri A Cohn; Amy D Thompson; Samir S Shah; Elizabeth M Hines; Todd W Lyons; Elizabeth J Welsh; Lise E Nigrovic Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2011-12-19 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Gary P Wormser; Martin Schriefer; Maria E Aguero-Rosenfeld; Andrew Levin; Allen C Steere; Robert B Nadelman; John Nowakowski; Adriana Marques; Barbara J B Johnson; J Stephen Dumler Journal: Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2012-10-11 Impact factor: 2.803
Authors: Alison F Hinckley; Neeta P Connally; James I Meek; Barbara J Johnson; Melissa M Kemperman; Katherine A Feldman; Jennifer L White; Paul S Mead Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2014-05-30 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Gary P Wormser; Andrew Levin; Sandeep Soman; Omosalewa Adenikinju; Michael V Longo; John A Branda Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2013-09-25 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: John A Branda; Klemen Strle; Lise E Nigrovic; Paul M Lantos; Timothy J Lepore; Nitin S Damle; Mary Jane Ferraro; Allen C Steere Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2017-04-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Lise E Nigrovic; Jonathan E Bennett; Fran Balamuth; Michael N Levas; Rachel L Chenard; Alexandra B Maulden; Aris C Garro Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Aris Garro; Jonathan Bennett; Fran Balamuth; Michael N Levas; Desiree Neville; John C Branda; Alexandra B Maulden; Paul M Lantos; Lise E Nigrovic Journal: Pediatr Infect Dis J Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 2.129
Authors: Arianna H Dart; Kenneth A Michelson; Paul L Aronson; Aris C Garro; Thomas J Lee; Kimberly M Glerum; Peter A Nigrovic; Mininder S Kocher; Richard G Bachur; Lise E Nigrovic Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2018-04-18 Impact factor: 7.124