Direct Diagnostic Tests for Lyme Disease. (11th October 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Schutzer, Steven E; Body, Barbara A; Boyle, Jeff; Branson, Bernard M; Dattwyler, Raymond J; Fikrig, Erol; Gerald, Noel J; Gomes-Solecki, Maria; Kintrup, Martin; Ledizet, Michel; Levin, Andrew E; Lewinski, Michael; Liotta, Lance A; Marques, Adriana; Mead, Paul S; Mongodin, Emmanuel F; Pillai, Segaran; Rao, Prasad; Robinson, William H; Roth, Kristian M; Schriefer, Martin E; Slezak, Thomas; Snyder, Jessica L; Steere, Allen C; Witkowski, Jan; Wong, Susan J; Branda, John A
• Is Part Of: Clinical infectious diseases. Volume 68:Number 6(2019)
• Page Start: 1052
• Page End: 1057
• Publication Date: 2018-10-11
• Subjects: Lyme disease -- Borrelia burgdorferi -- tests -- PCR -- high-throughput sequencing; Communicable diseases -- Periodicals; 616.905
• DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciy614
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1058-4838

Abstract

Abstract: Borrelia burgdorferi was discovered to be the cause of Lyme disease in 1983, leading to seroassays. The 1994 serodiagnostic testing guidelines predated a full understanding of key B. burgdorferi antigens and have a number of shortcomings. These serologic tests cannot distinguish active infection, past infection, or reinfection. Reliable direct-detection methods for active B. burgdorferi infection have been lacking in the past but are needed and appear achievable. New approaches have effectively been applied to other emerging infections and show promise in direct detection of B. burgdorferi infections. Abstract : Serologic tests for Lyme disease have significant drawbacks. A single antibody test cannot indicate active infection, and there is a long lag from onset of infection to positivity. Direct assays, effective with other infections, can overcome these drawbacks and are being tested.