Loading…

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&qu...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:PloS one 2019-04, Vol.14 (4), p.e0214402-e0214402
Main Authors: Best, Susan J, Tschaepe, Marlene I, Wilson, Kim M
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-8def96ccb07c0ab93f24827731ad9c43c3d4b15298ee24819ea8b5bf009361ef3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-8def96ccb07c0ab93f24827731ad9c43c3d4b15298ee24819ea8b5bf009361ef3
container_end_page e0214402
container_issue 4
container_start_page e0214402
container_title PloS one
container_volume 14
creator Best, Susan J
Tschaepe, Marlene I
Wilson, Kim M
description 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%.
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0214402
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2217092838</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A583952695</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_48d7250ec0e948d0a32c3a93fa410a19</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A583952695</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-8def96ccb07c0ab93f24827731ad9c43c3d4b15298ee24819ea8b5bf009361ef3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk9uK2zAQhk1p6W7TvkFpDYXSXiTVwSfdFMLSQyCw0NOtGMtjR0G2spK9NG9fufEucdmL4guJ0Te_NL9nouglJSvKc_phbwfXgVkdbIcrwmiSEPYouqSCs2XGCH98tr-Innm_JyTlRZY9jS44JTxJBLuMYNPdou91A722XWzruN9hfEBXW9dCp3AMeXTW2EYrMDF4D0cfDx6rODDx9thiXGmP4DHuR6muiXUXrwffOzAankdPajAeX0zrIvr5-dOPq6_L7fWXzdV6u1SZYP2yqLAWmVIlyRWBUvCaJQXLc06hEirhildJSVMmCsRwQgVCUaZlTYjgGcWaL6LXJ92DsV5O7njJGM2JYAUvArE5EZWFvTw43YI7Sgta_g1Y10hwvVYGZVJUOUsJKoIi7AlwpjiER0FCCQRfF9HH6bahbLFS2I3VzkTnJ53eycbeyiwpCpLRIPBuEnD2Zgi-yVZ7hcZAh3Y4vTsYwAgJ6Jt_0Ierm6gGQgG6q224V42icp0WXKQsE2mgVg9Q4auw1Sq0Uq1DfJbwfpYQmB5_9w0M3svN92__z17_mrNvz9gdgul33pphbEM_B5MTqJz13mF9bzIlcpyEOzfkOAlymoSQ9ur8B90n3bU-_wMHxwOp</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2217092838</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Investigation of the performance of serological assays used for Lyme disease testing in Australia</title><source>NCBI_PubMed Central(免费)</source><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><creator>Best, Susan J ; Tschaepe, Marlene I ; Wilson, Kim M</creator><contributor>Wooten, R. Mark</contributor><creatorcontrib>Best, Susan J ; Tschaepe, Marlene I ; Wilson, Kim M ; Wooten, R. Mark</creatorcontrib><description>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 &lt; 4%.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214402</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31034492</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; Antibodies ; Antibodies, Bacterial - immunology ; Antibodies, Bacterial - isolation &amp; purification ; Arachnids ; Assaying ; Australia - epidemiology ; Australians ; Blood ; Blood donation ; Blood Donors ; Borrelia burgdorferi ; Borrelia burgdorferi - isolation &amp; purification ; Borrelia burgdorferi - pathogenicity ; Borrelia burgdorferi Group - immunology ; Borrelia burgdorferi Group - isolation &amp; purification ; Care and treatment ; Discordance ; Enzymes ; Female ; Health aspects ; Humans ; Illnesses ; Immunoassay ; Immunoassays ; Immunoglobulin G ; Immunoglobulins ; Immunologic Tests ; Laboratories ; Lyme disease ; Lyme Disease - blood ; Lyme Disease - diagnosis ; Lyme Disease - immunology ; Lyme Disease - microbiology ; Male ; Medical research ; Medical tests ; Pathogens ; Patients ; Peptides ; Risk factors ; Serologic Tests ; Serology ; Signs and symptoms ; Testing laboratories ; Vector-borne diseases</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2019-04, Vol.14 (4), p.e0214402-e0214402</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2019 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2019 Best et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2019 Best et al 2019 Best et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-8def96ccb07c0ab93f24827731ad9c43c3d4b15298ee24819ea8b5bf009361ef3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-8def96ccb07c0ab93f24827731ad9c43c3d4b15298ee24819ea8b5bf009361ef3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-7662-2127</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2217092838/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2217092838?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,25753,27924,27925,37012,37013,44590,53791,53793,75126</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31034492$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Wooten, R. Mark</contributor><creatorcontrib>Best, Susan J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tschaepe, Marlene I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Kim M</creatorcontrib><title>Investigation of the performance of serological assays used for Lyme disease testing in Australia</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>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 &lt; 4%.</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Antibodies</subject><subject>Antibodies, Bacterial - immunology</subject><subject>Antibodies, Bacterial - isolation &amp; purification</subject><subject>Arachnids</subject><subject>Assaying</subject><subject>Australia - epidemiology</subject><subject>Australians</subject><subject>Blood</subject><subject>Blood donation</subject><subject>Blood Donors</subject><subject>Borrelia burgdorferi</subject><subject>Borrelia burgdorferi - isolation &amp; purification</subject><subject>Borrelia burgdorferi - pathogenicity</subject><subject>Borrelia burgdorferi Group - immunology</subject><subject>Borrelia burgdorferi Group - isolation &amp; purification</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Discordance</subject><subject>Enzymes</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Illnesses</subject><subject>Immunoassay</subject><subject>Immunoassays</subject><subject>Immunoglobulin G</subject><subject>Immunoglobulins</subject><subject>Immunologic Tests</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Lyme disease</subject><subject>Lyme Disease - blood</subject><subject>Lyme Disease - diagnosis</subject><subject>Lyme Disease - immunology</subject><subject>Lyme Disease - microbiology</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medical tests</subject><subject>Pathogens</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Peptides</subject><subject>Risk factors</subject><subject>Serologic Tests</subject><subject>Serology</subject><subject>Signs and symptoms</subject><subject>Testing laboratories</subject><subject>Vector-borne diseases</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk9uK2zAQhk1p6W7TvkFpDYXSXiTVwSfdFMLSQyCw0NOtGMtjR0G2spK9NG9fufEucdmL4guJ0Te_NL9nouglJSvKc_phbwfXgVkdbIcrwmiSEPYouqSCs2XGCH98tr-Innm_JyTlRZY9jS44JTxJBLuMYNPdou91A722XWzruN9hfEBXW9dCp3AMeXTW2EYrMDF4D0cfDx6rODDx9thiXGmP4DHuR6muiXUXrwffOzAankdPajAeX0zrIvr5-dOPq6_L7fWXzdV6u1SZYP2yqLAWmVIlyRWBUvCaJQXLc06hEirhildJSVMmCsRwQgVCUaZlTYjgGcWaL6LXJ92DsV5O7njJGM2JYAUvArE5EZWFvTw43YI7Sgta_g1Y10hwvVYGZVJUOUsJKoIi7AlwpjiER0FCCQRfF9HH6bahbLFS2I3VzkTnJ53eycbeyiwpCpLRIPBuEnD2Zgi-yVZ7hcZAh3Y4vTsYwAgJ6Jt_0Ierm6gGQgG6q224V42icp0WXKQsE2mgVg9Q4auw1Sq0Uq1DfJbwfpYQmB5_9w0M3svN92__z17_mrNvz9gdgul33pphbEM_B5MTqJz13mF9bzIlcpyEOzfkOAlymoSQ9ur8B90n3bU-_wMHxwOp</recordid><startdate>20190429</startdate><enddate>20190429</enddate><creator>Best, Susan J</creator><creator>Tschaepe, Marlene I</creator><creator>Wilson, Kim M</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7662-2127</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20190429</creationdate><title>Investigation of the performance of serological assays used for Lyme disease testing in Australia</title><author>Best, Susan J ; Tschaepe, Marlene I ; Wilson, Kim M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-8def96ccb07c0ab93f24827731ad9c43c3d4b15298ee24819ea8b5bf009361ef3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Antibodies</topic><topic>Antibodies, Bacterial - immunology</topic><topic>Antibodies, Bacterial - isolation &amp; purification</topic><topic>Arachnids</topic><topic>Assaying</topic><topic>Australia - epidemiology</topic><topic>Australians</topic><topic>Blood</topic><topic>Blood donation</topic><topic>Blood Donors</topic><topic>Borrelia burgdorferi</topic><topic>Borrelia burgdorferi - isolation &amp; purification</topic><topic>Borrelia burgdorferi - pathogenicity</topic><topic>Borrelia burgdorferi Group - immunology</topic><topic>Borrelia burgdorferi Group - isolation &amp; purification</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Discordance</topic><topic>Enzymes</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Illnesses</topic><topic>Immunoassay</topic><topic>Immunoassays</topic><topic>Immunoglobulin G</topic><topic>Immunoglobulins</topic><topic>Immunologic Tests</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Lyme disease</topic><topic>Lyme Disease - blood</topic><topic>Lyme Disease - diagnosis</topic><topic>Lyme Disease - immunology</topic><topic>Lyme Disease - microbiology</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medical tests</topic><topic>Pathogens</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Peptides</topic><topic>Risk factors</topic><topic>Serologic Tests</topic><topic>Serology</topic><topic>Signs and symptoms</topic><topic>Testing laboratories</topic><topic>Vector-borne diseases</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Best, Susan J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tschaepe, Marlene I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Kim M</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (ProQuest Medical &amp; Health Databases)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database (ProQuest Medical &amp; Health Databases)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>https://resources.nclive.org/materials</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Journals</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest advanced technologies &amp; aerospace journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials science collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Best, Susan J</au><au>Tschaepe, Marlene I</au><au>Wilson, Kim M</au><au>Wooten, R. Mark</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Investigation of the performance of serological assays used for Lyme disease testing in Australia</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2019-04-29</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>e0214402</spage><epage>e0214402</epage><pages>e0214402-e0214402</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>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 &lt; 4%.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>31034492</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0214402</doi><tpages>e0214402</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7662-2127</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2019-04, Vol.14 (4), p.e0214402-e0214402
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_plos_journals_2217092838
source NCBI_PubMed Central(免费); Publicly Available Content Database
subjects Algorithms
Antibodies
Antibodies, Bacterial - immunology
Antibodies, Bacterial - isolation & purification
Arachnids
Assaying
Australia - epidemiology
Australians
Blood
Blood donation
Blood Donors
Borrelia burgdorferi
Borrelia burgdorferi - isolation & purification
Borrelia burgdorferi - pathogenicity
Borrelia burgdorferi Group - immunology
Borrelia burgdorferi Group - isolation & purification
Care and treatment
Discordance
Enzymes
Female
Health aspects
Humans
Illnesses
Immunoassay
Immunoassays
Immunoglobulin G
Immunoglobulins
Immunologic Tests
Laboratories
Lyme disease
Lyme Disease - blood
Lyme Disease - diagnosis
Lyme Disease - immunology
Lyme Disease - microbiology
Male
Medical research
Medical tests
Pathogens
Patients
Peptides
Risk factors
Serologic Tests
Serology
Signs and symptoms
Testing laboratories
Vector-borne diseases
title Investigation of the performance of serological assays used for Lyme disease testing in Australia
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-30T04%3A51%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Investigation%20of%20the%20performance%20of%20serological%20assays%20used%20for%20Lyme%20disease%20testing%20in%20Australia&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Best,%20Susan%20J&rft.date=2019-04-29&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=e0214402&rft.epage=e0214402&rft.pages=e0214402-e0214402&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0214402&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA583952695%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-8def96ccb07c0ab93f24827731ad9c43c3d4b15298ee24819ea8b5bf009361ef3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2217092838&rft_id=info:pmid/31034492&rft_galeid=A583952695&rfr_iscdi=true