Cargando…

Multicenter Evaluation of the C6 Lyme ELISA Kit for the Diagnosis of Lyme Disease

Lyme disease (LD), caused by infection with Borrelia burgdorferi, is the most common tick-borne infection in many regions of Eurasia. Antibody detection is the most frequently used laboratory test, favoring a two-step serodiagnostic algorithm; immunoenzymatic detection of antibodies to C6 has been s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zannoli, Silvia, Fantini, Michela, Semprini, Simona, Marchini, Barbara, Ceccarelli, Barbara, Sparacino, Monica, Schiavone, Pasqua, Belgrano, Anna, Ruscio, Maurizio, Gobbetti, Martina, Nicoletti, Maira, Robatscher, Eva, Pagani, Elisabetta, Sambri, Vittorio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7143974/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32213811
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8030457
_version_ 1783519740188164096
author Zannoli, Silvia
Fantini, Michela
Semprini, Simona
Marchini, Barbara
Ceccarelli, Barbara
Sparacino, Monica
Schiavone, Pasqua
Belgrano, Anna
Ruscio, Maurizio
Gobbetti, Martina
Nicoletti, Maira
Robatscher, Eva
Pagani, Elisabetta
Sambri, Vittorio
author_facet Zannoli, Silvia
Fantini, Michela
Semprini, Simona
Marchini, Barbara
Ceccarelli, Barbara
Sparacino, Monica
Schiavone, Pasqua
Belgrano, Anna
Ruscio, Maurizio
Gobbetti, Martina
Nicoletti, Maira
Robatscher, Eva
Pagani, Elisabetta
Sambri, Vittorio
author_sort Zannoli, Silvia
collection PubMed
description Lyme disease (LD), caused by infection with Borrelia burgdorferi, is the most common tick-borne infection in many regions of Eurasia. Antibody detection is the most frequently used laboratory test, favoring a two-step serodiagnostic algorithm; immunoenzymatic detection of antibodies to C6 has been shown to perform similarly to a standard two-step workflow. The aim of this study was the performance evaluation of the C6 Lyme ELISA kit compared to a standard two-step algorithm in three laboratories located in the northeastern region of Italy which cater to areas with different LD epidemiology. A total of 804 samples were tested, of which 695 gave concordant results between C6 testing and routine workflow (564 negative, 131 positive). Wherever available, clinical presentation and additional laboratory tests were analyzed to solve discrepancies. The C6 based method showed a good concordance with the standard two-step algorithm (Cohen’s κ = 0.619), however, the distribution of discrepancies seems to point towards a slightly lower specificity of C6 testing, which is supported by literature and could impact on patient management. The C6 ELISA, therefore, is not an ideal stand-alone test; however, if integrated into a two-step algorithm, it might play a part in achieving a sensitive, specific laboratory diagnosis of LD.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7143974
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71439742020-04-13 Multicenter Evaluation of the C6 Lyme ELISA Kit for the Diagnosis of Lyme Disease Zannoli, Silvia Fantini, Michela Semprini, Simona Marchini, Barbara Ceccarelli, Barbara Sparacino, Monica Schiavone, Pasqua Belgrano, Anna Ruscio, Maurizio Gobbetti, Martina Nicoletti, Maira Robatscher, Eva Pagani, Elisabetta Sambri, Vittorio Microorganisms Article Lyme disease (LD), caused by infection with Borrelia burgdorferi, is the most common tick-borne infection in many regions of Eurasia. Antibody detection is the most frequently used laboratory test, favoring a two-step serodiagnostic algorithm; immunoenzymatic detection of antibodies to C6 has been shown to perform similarly to a standard two-step workflow. The aim of this study was the performance evaluation of the C6 Lyme ELISA kit compared to a standard two-step algorithm in three laboratories located in the northeastern region of Italy which cater to areas with different LD epidemiology. A total of 804 samples were tested, of which 695 gave concordant results between C6 testing and routine workflow (564 negative, 131 positive). Wherever available, clinical presentation and additional laboratory tests were analyzed to solve discrepancies. The C6 based method showed a good concordance with the standard two-step algorithm (Cohen’s κ = 0.619), however, the distribution of discrepancies seems to point towards a slightly lower specificity of C6 testing, which is supported by literature and could impact on patient management. The C6 ELISA, therefore, is not an ideal stand-alone test; however, if integrated into a two-step algorithm, it might play a part in achieving a sensitive, specific laboratory diagnosis of LD. MDPI 2020-03-24 /pmc/articles/PMC7143974/ /pubmed/32213811 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8030457 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Zannoli, Silvia
Fantini, Michela
Semprini, Simona
Marchini, Barbara
Ceccarelli, Barbara
Sparacino, Monica
Schiavone, Pasqua
Belgrano, Anna
Ruscio, Maurizio
Gobbetti, Martina
Nicoletti, Maira
Robatscher, Eva
Pagani, Elisabetta
Sambri, Vittorio
Multicenter Evaluation of the C6 Lyme ELISA Kit for the Diagnosis of Lyme Disease
title Multicenter Evaluation of the C6 Lyme ELISA Kit for the Diagnosis of Lyme Disease
title_full Multicenter Evaluation of the C6 Lyme ELISA Kit for the Diagnosis of Lyme Disease
title_fullStr Multicenter Evaluation of the C6 Lyme ELISA Kit for the Diagnosis of Lyme Disease
title_full_unstemmed Multicenter Evaluation of the C6 Lyme ELISA Kit for the Diagnosis of Lyme Disease
title_short Multicenter Evaluation of the C6 Lyme ELISA Kit for the Diagnosis of Lyme Disease
title_sort multicenter evaluation of the c6 lyme elisa kit for the diagnosis of lyme disease
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7143974/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32213811
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8030457
work_keys_str_mv AT zannolisilvia multicenterevaluationofthec6lymeelisakitforthediagnosisoflymedisease
AT fantinimichela multicenterevaluationofthec6lymeelisakitforthediagnosisoflymedisease
AT semprinisimona multicenterevaluationofthec6lymeelisakitforthediagnosisoflymedisease
AT marchinibarbara multicenterevaluationofthec6lymeelisakitforthediagnosisoflymedisease
AT ceccarellibarbara multicenterevaluationofthec6lymeelisakitforthediagnosisoflymedisease
AT sparacinomonica multicenterevaluationofthec6lymeelisakitforthediagnosisoflymedisease
AT schiavonepasqua multicenterevaluationofthec6lymeelisakitforthediagnosisoflymedisease
AT belgranoanna multicenterevaluationofthec6lymeelisakitforthediagnosisoflymedisease
AT rusciomaurizio multicenterevaluationofthec6lymeelisakitforthediagnosisoflymedisease
AT gobbettimartina multicenterevaluationofthec6lymeelisakitforthediagnosisoflymedisease
AT nicolettimaira multicenterevaluationofthec6lymeelisakitforthediagnosisoflymedisease
AT robatschereva multicenterevaluationofthec6lymeelisakitforthediagnosisoflymedisease
AT paganielisabetta multicenterevaluationofthec6lymeelisakitforthediagnosisoflymedisease
AT sambrivittorio multicenterevaluationofthec6lymeelisakitforthediagnosisoflymedisease