"Development of a multi-antigen panel for improved detection of Borrelia burgdorferi infection..."

[Kyla]

http://jcm.asm.org/content/early/2015/10/01/JCM.02111-15.abstract

Development of a multi-antigen panel for improved detection of Borrelia burgdorferi infection in early Lyme disease

1. Lauren J. Laheya,b,
2. Michael W. Panasc,
3. Rong Maoa,b,
4. Michelle Delanoyd,
5. John Flanagand,
6. Steven R. Binderd,
7. Alison W. Rebmane,
8. Jose G. Montoyaf,
9. Mark J. Soloskie,
10. Allen C. Steereg,
11. Raymond J. Dattwylerh,i,
12. Paul M. Arnaboldih,i,
13. John N. Aucotte and
14. William H. Robinsona,b#

ABSTRACT
The current standard for laboratory diagnosis of Lyme disease in the United States is serologic detection of antibodies against Borrelia burgdorferi (Bb). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a two-tiered testing algorithm, however this scheme has limited sensitivity in detecting early Lyme disease. Thus, there is a need to improve diagnostics for Lyme disease at the early stage when antibiotic treatment is highly efficacious. We examined novel and established antigen markers to develop a multiplex panel that identifies early infection using the combined sensitivity of multiple markers, while simultaneously maintaining high specificity by requiring a positive test at two markers. Ten markers were selected from our initial analysis of 62 Bb surface proteins and synthetic peptides by assessing binding of IgG and IgM to each in a training set of Lyme disease patient samples and controls. In a validation set, this 10-antigen panel identified a higher proportion of early Lyme disease patients as positive at the baseline or post-treatment visit compared to two-tiered testing (87.5% and 67.5% respectively, P<0.05). Equivalent specificities of 100% were observed in 26 healthy controls. Upon further analysis, positivity on the novel 10-antigen panel was associated with longer illness duration and multiple erythema migrans. The improved sensitivity and comparable specificity of our 10-antigen panel compared to two-tiered testing in detecting early Bbinfection indicates that multiplex analysis, featuring the next generation of markers, could advance diagnostic technology to better aid clinicians in diagnosing and treating early Lyme disease.

 

[Antares in NYC]

Great to see the name of Dr. Jose Montoya in this study. If he's in it, then they are on to something good.

On the other hand, I'm surprised to see that the very controversial Allen Steere is attached to this project. He has been one of the most staunch advocates (and creators) of the official two-tiered test.

We also saw recently another staunch IDSA committee member, Auwaerter, taking part in Dr. Zhang's study on Lyme persistence.

Not sure what to make of this. Is the tide turning? Can they no longer keep denying the severity of Lyme in the face of so many peer-reviewed studies being published? Or is this a case of the rats leaving the sinking ship?
A couple of years from now, these people will start telling us that they have never, ever denied the severity and persistence of Lyme disease.

On the other hand, most of the members of the IDSA Lyme panel have often spoken from both sides of their mouth, subscribing to the official IDSA guidelines, but then holding patents and researching treatments and vaccines to treat "chronic Lyme". Hmmm...

 

[SOC]

A couple of years from now, these people will start telling us that they have never, ever denied the severity and persistence of Lyme disease.

The standard line is, "We were just working with the evidence we had at the time. There was no solid evidence then of persistence of Lyme disease. Now that there's evidence, we're 100% behind it." That completely ignores their efforts to undermine progress in the field, of course, but that always seems to get swept under the rug.

 

[Antares in NYC]

The standard line is, "We were just working with the evidence we had at the time. There was no solid evidence then of persistence of Lyme disease. Now that there's evidence, we're 100% behind it." That completely ignores their efforts to undermine progress in the field, of course, but that always seems to get swept under the rug.

Spot on!
The same folks that prevented the Embers study with live monkeys from being published for 12 years!
(Yes, the famous Embers study that was published two years ago was funded in 1998 and completed in 2001)