Hoosiers51
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 15759
posted
Which is more common: to have a positive Elisa but a negative Western Blot IgM, or a negative Elisa but a positive Western Blot IgM?
I ask because last year while I was on high dose Amoxicillin my LLMD ordered an Elisa and a Western Blot, both from Stony Brook.
At this point I had been sick 5 years, and had done lots of different treatments. He just likes to periodically re-run all my bloodwork. I think he does this with a lot of his patients.
For what I think is the Elisa, it says "Non-Reactive" and next to it it says 0.033. And this is checked (so i am non-reactive). And next to Reactive it says 0.139 and next to Borderline it says 0.111.
So basically on this test, it looks like I was not even remotely close to Borderline.
Then, my Western Blot which was done on the same day says negative IgG, but IgM it says I had 23, 39, 41, and other "CDC non-specific bands": 18, 58.
My LLMD said that I had 3 out of the 3 criteria for the CDC positive IgM, and the CDC only requires 2 out of the 3 criteria that I had for a positive. So in other words, I was "very positive" on this, according to him.
My question is this: Why would my Western Blot be so positive and the Elisa be so negative? Is that the more common scenario, or is it the other way around?
I know that I had Lyme....that much is clear. But I am just wondering if anyone can tell me if these results are "more legit" or "less legit" as far as the IDSA is concerned, i.e., which tests are considered the harder ones to get a positive on?
PS--the reason I got to thinking about all this is that a place close to me is accepting plasma donations from people who have a positive lyme test. You get paid a lot of money for each donation, so I want to donate.
She said a positive IgM is enough proof for them. But she also said they like people that are acutely sick with it (for example, you can't just have IgG is how she explained it).....she said, "you know, like, you were just infected."
And I told her I wasn't "just infected," but that I sometimes get positive IgM's. And she seemed to think that was good enough.
Still, i don't want to screw up their system and not give them what they need. I said, 'what if my elisa is negative but my Western Blot is IgM positive?"
And she said, "that is good, the Western Blot is what we want."
So that got me wondering which test is a MORE accurate or legitimate indicator of a brand spanking new infection..... (which i obviously don't have....nor do I have classic Lyme symptoms. In fact, when my IgM was positive, my symptoms were relatively better).
Basically, I feel bad accepting the money if I am not giving them the kind of plasma they need.
So that is why I'm asking, anyways.
Posts: 4590 | From Midwest | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Hoosiers51
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 15759
posted
Okay, I recently read this on a website (obviously not an ILADS site!):
"An abnormal ELISA result must be followed up with a Western blot test. Only a positive Western blot test can confirm the diagnosis of Lyme disease.
For many people, the ELISA test remains positive even after being treated and having no more symptoms.
A positive ELISA can help confirm the diagnosis, but isn't enough by itself because other infectious diseases and some types of inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis can give the same results."
So isn't that weird because it seems like the positive Western Blot is the harder one to come by?
Sorry, I don't mean to over think this, my results just struck me as odd.
Has anyone else out there had this happen?
Posts: 4590 | From Midwest | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic