This is topic AcuDart from Igenix. in forum Medical Questions at LymeNet Flash.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flash.lymenet.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/1/139067

Posted by 6t5frlane (Member # 8628) on :
 
Anybody use this home kit yet? If so did you feel it was accurate?
 
Posted by Bartenderbonnie (Member # 49177) on :
 
I have not tried it.
I found a video from a LLMDND.
She lists her pro’s and con’s on this new test from IGenix.

https://youtu.be/EBUXN5z766Q
 
Posted by kgg (Member # 5867) on :
 
I appreciate this ND making a video about this new test.

Her explanation confuses me. It is my understanding that the nature of Lyme and the immune reaction causes IgG and IgM to be not helpful.

That the immune system is effected by Borrelia to be depressed. So that if tested, you can be IgG or IgM positive or negative but it is not reflective of true immune status.

Has that understanding changed lately?
 
Posted by Phoiph (Member # 41238) on :
 
My understanding based on the video, is this test would be best utilized as a "screening" tool if you had just recently been bitten, before the immune system had time to become suppressed.

The advantage would be a lower cost than a more detailed Igenex test, being able to do it yourself with a finger prick (no prescription, no lab), and having results within a few days.

That said, to add to kgg's point, since they group IgG and IgM results together, even if just bitten, how would anyone know if a positive result was due to a current or past infection?
 
Posted by hiker53 (Member # 6046) on :
 
And even though I had a positive Igenex test it still took me forever to convince a doctor I had Lyme as the "CDC guidelines" were not met.

I had a hard time finding a LLMD near me.

But once you have Lyme it is my understanding that IgG and IgM will always show positive.
 
Posted by Phoiph (Member # 41238) on :
 
Hiker53,

I'm not sure that both IgG and IgM will ALWAYS show positive with past infection (?), but the fact that they frequently do makes this test even more ambiguous.

If you were someone who had just been bitten and believed you had never been exposed to ticks in the past, a quick turnaround screening (so treatment could be started sooner) might be useful.

Even so, more testing would likely be needed if the result was positive, and more $ spent.

Better to have the tick itself tested as a screening if possible.
 
Posted by hiker53 (Member # 6046) on :
 
Sadly, a lot of people (like me) never see the tick so can't take it to be screened.

But I am glad to see more tests available.
 
Posted by Phoiph (Member # 41238) on :
 
Hiker...Or like me, who didn't know what a tiny nymph tick was (thought it was a scab) and left it there!
 


Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3