Evaluation of a passive hemagglutination assay as screening test and of a recombinant immunoblot as confirmatory test for serological diagnosis of Lyme disease

  • A. Hamann-Brand
  • M. Flondor
  • V. Brade
Article

Abstract

In order to evaluate a commercially available passive hemagglutination assay (PHA) as a screening test for the diagnosis of Lyme disease, 173 sera were tested by PHA and the results compared with those obtained by an indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) and a conventional immunoblot using whole cell antigen (IB). Identical results were found by PHA and IFA in 80 % of all cases. The sensitivity of the PHA was comparable to that of the IB (96 %). However, confirmation of positive PHA results was necessary due to lack of specificity. A commercially available recombinant immunoblot (RIB) was compared to a conventional IB for its efficiency as a confirmatory assay. The rate of agreement was 86 % of 64 sera tested positive or negative by IB. However, in order to obtain this high concordance of the RIB and IB, it was necessary to modify the RIB interpretation criteria of the manufacturer. Thus, screening of serum specimens by the PHA and confirmation of test results by the RIB appears to be a convenient test combination that allows the serological diagnosis of Lyme disease in most cases.

Keywords

Internal Medicine Screen Test Identical Result Lyme Disease Indirect Immunofluorescence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Grodzicki RL, Steere AC: Comparison of immunoblotting and indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay using different antigen preparations for diagnosing early Lyme disease. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1988, 157: 790–797.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grellner W, Erbguth F, Brade V: Serodiagnostik bei Lyme Borreliose: Antikörpertiter und -spezifität im IFT und Western-Blot Immunität und Infektion 1989, 17: 189–194.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rose CD, Fawcett PT, Singsen BH, Dubbs SB, Doughty RA: Use of Western blot and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays to assist in the diagnosis of Lyme disease. Pediatrics 1991, 88: 465–470.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Huycke MM, D'Alessio DD, Marx JJ: Prevalence of antibody toBorrelia burgdorferi by indirect fluorescent antibody assay, ELISA, and Western immunoblot in healthy adults in Wisconsin and Arizona. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1992, 165: 1133–1137.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dressler F, Whalen JA, Reinhardt BN, Steere AC: Western blotting in the serodiagnosis of Lyme disease. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1993, 167: 392–400.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wilske B, Preac-Mursic V, Schierz G, Busch KV: Immunochemical and immunological analysis of EuropeanBorrelia burgdorferi strains. Zentralblatt für Bakteriologie, Mikrobiologie und Hygiene 1986, 263: 92–102.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bruckbauer HR, Preac-Mursic R, Fuchs R, Wilske B: Cross-reactive proteins ofBorrelia burgdorferi. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 1992, 11: 224–232.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Preac-Mursic V, Wilske B, Schierz G: EuropeanBorrelia burgdorferi isolated from humans and ticks — culture conditions and antibiotic susceptibility. Zentralblatt für Bakteriologie, Mikrobiologie und Hygiene 1986, 263: 112–118.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Braun W, Abraham R: Modified diffusion blotting for rapid and efficient protein transfer with PhastSystem. Electrophoresis 1989, 10: 249–253.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schwartz BS, Goldstein MD, Ribeiro JMC, Schulze TL, Shahied SI: Antibody testing in Lyme disease — a comparison of results of four laboratories. Journal of the American Medical Association 1989, 262: 3431–3434.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Luger SW, Krauss E: Serologic tests for Lyme disease. Archives of Internal Medicine 1990, 150: 761–763.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bakken LL, Case KL, Callister SM, Bourdeau NJ, Schell RF: Performance of 45 laboratories participating in a proficiency testing program for Lyme disease serology. Journal of the American Medical Association 1992, 268: 891–895.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vogt A, Bauer R, Rawiel M, Rasiah C, Otto A, Gassmann GS: Die Wertigkeit der Standardverfahren in der Serodiagnose der Borreliose. In: Hassler D (ed): Fortschritte in der Infektiologie-Lyme-Borreliose. MMV Medizin Verlag, München, 1992, p. 11–23.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Putzker M, Mertes T, Faulde M, Sobe D: Gegenüberstellung der Exoproteinmuster dreier europäischer Isolate vonBorrelia burgdorferi. Vergleich von 14 kommerziell erhältlichen und einem selbst enwickelten und evaluierten ELISA fur die serologische Diagnostik der Lyme-Borreliose. Laboratoriumsmedizin 1990, 14: 397–403.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Corpuz M, Hilton E, Lardis P, Singer C, Zolan J: Problems in the use of serologic tests for the diagnosis of Lyme disease. Archives of Internal Medicine 1991, 151: 1837–1840.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wilske B, Fingerle V, Herzer P, Hofmann A, Lehnert G, Peters H, Pfister HW, Preac-Mursic V, Soutschek E, Weber K: Recombinant immunoblot in the serodiagnosis of Lyme borreliosis. Medical Microbiology and Immunology 1993, 182: 255–270.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn Verlagsgesellschaft mbH 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Hamann-Brand
    • 1
  • M. Flondor
    • 1
  • V. Brade
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Medical MicrobiologyUniversity Hospital of FrankfurtFrankfurt am MainGermany

Personalised recommendations