This is topic Faster Western Blots from the HOLD THE MAYO Clinic in forum Medical Questions at LymeNet Flash.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flash.lymenet.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/1/66479

---

Posted by Tincup (Member # 5829) on :
 
After 20 years and a zillion dollars in medical bills spent by folks across the country... we finally heard from ONE patient who tested positive for Lyme disease at the Mayo Clinic using their lab.

It was a day of celebration when they finally got one right!

I guess they think this makes them experts now? HA!

But they can save 64 minutes!!!



J Clin Microbiol. 2008 May 7. [Epub ahead of print] Links
Evaluation of Two Commercial Systems for the Automated Processing, Reading and Interpretation of Lyme Western Blots.

Binnicker MJ, Jespersen DJ, Harring JA, Rollins LO, Bryant SC, Beito EM.

Division of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota 55905.

The diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis (LB) is commonly made by serologic testing with Western blot (WB) serving as an important supplemental assay.

While specific, the interpretation of Lyme WB is subjective with considerable variability in results. In addition, the processing, reading, and interpretation of Lyme WB are laborious and time-consuming procedures.

With the need for rapid processing and more objective interpretation of Lyme WB, we evaluated the performance of two automated interpretive systems, TrinBlot/BLOTrix(R) (Trinity Biotech, Carlsbad, CA) and BeeBlot/ViraScan(R) (Viramed(R) Biotech AG, Munich, Germany), using 518 serum specimens submitted to our laboratory for Lyme WB analysis.

The results of routine testing with visual interpretation were compared to those obtained by BLOTrix analysis of MarBlot(TM) IgM and IgG, and by ViraScan analysis of ViraBlot(R) and ViraStripe(R) IgM and IgG assays.

BLOTrix analysis demonstrated an agreement of 84.7% for IgM and 87.3% for IgG when compared to visual reading and interpretation.

ViraScan analysis of the ViraBlot assays demonstrated an agreement of 85.7% for IgM and 94.2% for IgG, while ViraScan analysis of the ViraStripe IgM and IgG assays showed an agreement of 87.1% and 93.1%, respectively.

Testing on the automated systems yielded an average time-savings of 64 min/run when compared to processing, reading, and interpretation by our current procedure.

Our findings demonstrated that automated processing and interpretive systems yield comparable results to visual interpretation, while reducing the subjectivity and time required for Lyme WB analysis.
 

---

Posted by Geneal (Member # 10375) on :
 
That's just great.

Now if their WB was reliable.....

How many years did it take me to get diagnosed?

64 minutes wouldn't matter one way or the other.

Hugs,

Geneal
 

---

Posted by Lymetoo (Member # 743) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geneal:
64 minutes wouldn't matter one way or the other.

---