Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Performance of two modified two-tier algorithms for the serologic diagnosis of Lyme disease.

UNLABELLED: We compared the performance of a new modified two-tier testing (MTTT) platform, the Diasorin Liaison chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA), to the Zeus enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) MTTT and to Zeus ELISA/Viramed immunoblot standard two-tier testing (STTT) algorithm. Of 537 samples included in this study, 91 (16.9%) were positive or equivocal by one or more screening tests. Among these 91 samples, only 57 samples were concordant positive by first-tier screening tests, and only 19 of 57 were concordant by the three second-tier methods. For IgM results, positive percent agreement (PPA) was 68.1% for Diasorin versus 89.4% for Zeus compared to immunoblot. By contrast, the PPA for IgG for both Diasorin and Zeus was 100%. Using a 2-out-of-3 consensus reference standard, the PPAs for IgM were 75.6%, 97.8%, and 95.6% for Diasorin, Zeus, and immunoblot, respectively. The difference between Zeus MTTT and Diasorin MTTT for IgM detection was significant ( P = 0.0094). PPA for both Diasorin and Zeus MTTT IgG assays was 100% but only 65.9% for immunoblot STTT ( P = 0.0005). In total, second-tier positive IgM and/or IgG results were reported for 57 samples by Diasorin MTTT, 63 by Zeus MTTT, and 54 by Viramed STTT. While Diasorin CLIA MTTT had a much more rapid, automated, and efficient workflow, Diasorin MTTT was less sensitive for the detection of IgM than Zeus MTTT and STTT including in 5 early Lyme cases that were IgM negative but IgG positive.

IMPORTANCE: The laboratory diagnosis of Lyme disease relies upon the detection of antibodies to Borrelia species. Standard two tier testing (STTT) methods rely upon immunoblots which have clinical and technical limitations. Modified two-tier testing (MTTT) methods have recently become available and are being widely adopted. There are limited independent data available assessing the performance of MTTT and STTT methods.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app