Ann-OH
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 2020
posted
This restores my faith in researchers and makes me wonder: If this research could be done in Poland, why could not this test be done here by the poo-bahs at Yale.
It seems very straight-forward and has verifiable results. The ELISA has only 53% positive or borderline results!. The other two tests were 100% accurate!
The Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay - is the ELISA test, so often used here in the US and depended upon by doctors who believe it is the diagnostic test of choice. It is probably the greatest culprit in causing people with Lyme to become chronic cases.
In 1999, an FDA sponsored research study showed that testing was not reliable. http://www.ldbullseye.com/fda-1.html In re-reading this, I noticed it said to use either the ELISA or the immunofluorescence assay (IIFA) and then to follow up with the Western Blot. Note:"Immunoblotting" is what we call "Western Blot."
Brava! for Dr. Wojciechowska-Koszko and her colleagues! Ann-OH
Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 2011 Jan 22; [Epub ahead of print]
Serodiagnosis of Borreliosis: Indirect Immunofluorescence Assay, Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay and Immunoblotting.
Wojciechowska-Koszko I, Maczynska I, Szych Z, Giedrys-Kalemba S.
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Pomeranian Medical University, Powstancow Wielkopolskich 72, 70-111, Szczecin, Poland, [email protected] .
Lyme disease is an infectious, multi-system, tick-borne disease caused by genospecies of Borrelia burgdorferi bacteria sensu lato, characterized by remarkable heterogeneity. In this situation choosing an optimal antigen array for diagnostic tests seems problematic.
The serological tests for borrelia routinely done in laboratories often produce ambiguous results, which makes a proper diagnosis rather complicated and thus delays the implementation of an appropriate treatment regimen.
Thirty-seven outpatients and eight inpatients with suspected borreliosis diagnosis hospitalized at the Clinics of the Pomeranian Medical University (Szczecin, Poland), participated in the study.
In order to detect the antibodies against Borrelia sensu lato three kinds of serological tests were used: indirect immunofluorescence assay (IIFA),enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and immunoblot.
The IIFA and immunoblot tests conducted on 45 patients (100%) produced positive results for both the IgM and IgG antibody types.
In the case of ELISA, positive or borderline results were observed in only 24 patients (53.3%).
The immunoblot test for IgM most frequently detected antibodies against the outer surface protein C (OspC) antigen (p25), and, in the case of IgG, against the recombinant variable surface antigen (VlsE).
The IIFA screening test used for diagnosing Lyme borreliosis produced the highest percentage of positive results, which were then confirmed by immunoblot, but not by ELISA. Therefore using only ELISA as a screening test or for diagnosing Lyme borreliosis seems debatable.
posted
All my positive Lyme results were done with Elisa.
All three times over 7 years the western blot reflex done at Mayo was negative.
If what you say is true....I'm screwed cuz if I don't have Lyme, Bart and/or BAbs, then fear I'm just going to rot here til I die. Brain & muscle symptoms have escalated to home bound status. Found an LLNP who is convinced I have a multitude of Tick infections going back 7 to 15 years. Hope she is right, treatment begins tomorrow, hoping the Elisa was right and Western Blot was wrong...down to no other options.
Beagle
Posts: 348 | From MA | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
Western blots are not easy to interpret. ELISA misses about half of positive cases. And on top of that, Lyme is a clinical diagnosis, meaning that you should not rely on tests to be diagnosed.
Good luck with your treatment.
Posts: 340 | From san francisco, ca | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Ann-OH
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 2020
posted
Hey Beagle, their study didn't say the Elisa was completely wrong, just that it is not infallible, as so many doctors are willing to believe. "53% were positive or borderline."
5v is right, as was the FDA study - no test is absolutely reliable. The clinical diagnoses is still the best way to arrive at diagnosis. I know of people who were tested over a long period of time and did not have a positive western blot, then finally the western blot was positive.
I do hope you get some good results working with the new doc. If you have co-infections, as she thinks you do, they are treatable and once they are taken care of, Lyme disease usually can be more easily treated.
posted
Yeah, they mention low sensitivity as an afterthought, but the bulk of the article is that about how your positive doesn't really mean you have Lyme.
They were still trying to screw us.
There is no 100% accurate test for Lyme--there have been a number of things suppressed, like a test that Yale has the patent on that can tell you whether or not your band 41 is from Bb, which supposedly has 94% sensitivity.
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