Lyme 'Nano technology' antigen urine test available in EU.

[Research 1st]

New test is coming to EU, no longer limited to USA.

Source: https://caudwelllyme.com/2017/08/21/a-new-lyme-disease-urine-test-now-available-in-europe/
NB: Contact details are on the link above at the bottom of the page.

Assay info:
http://www.ceresnano.com/nanotrap-lyme-test

Nanotrap technology papers, the company is promoting incuding virus detection:
http://www.ceresnano.com/publications

With this assay now coming to the EU is the Ceres Nano borellia test from the USA that if positive
you would have proof of an active borrelia infection, rather than 'just' relying on evidence of an immune response against Borrelia and trying to convince a physician to give you a 'clinical diagnosis', based on signs and symptoms. (Impossible in the UK, and most other countries world wide).

Denying Chronic Lyme is easy as an immune response is good, and it doesn't prove Borrelia is making you sick now, and thus anyone can dismiss you have Chronic Lyme if they wish. The exception to this is if you
obtained a PCR blood test, yet I would imagine this is very hard to be positive years or decades after the infection.

This test then, in comparison, would be unique in that it could show that you still have Borrelia DNA passing through your kidneys into your urine, so you must be actively infected, rather than having an immune 'memory' of an infection only. Hence my interest in this test, and why I wanted to share with you guys.

It would be nice to know where and when it'll be available and if anyone here with ME CFS tests positive! This, and the previousTickplex persister form antibody test for Chronic Lyme is the best we've had in years in terms of assays.

 

[NotThisGuy]

I'm too brain fogged to find a link.
Where can I order this test in the EU?

 

[Legolas]

Urinary OspA in patients suspected of having “chronic” LB
Lyme disease is too often diagnosed after the infection
is well established and the patient has raised an antibody
titer against the bacteria B. burgdorferi. Persistent
LB, treatment resistant, recurrent, or a new LB is also
extremely difficult to diagnose when the serologic titer
is equivocal or if the patient has persistent symptoms
(e.g. neurologic, arthritic, or dermatologic) in the face of
therapy. Unfortunately patients with clinical history of
LB (serology positive or serology inconclusive) can present
with articular and neuromuscolar symptoms. Lack
of response to treatment can theoretically be due to persistence
of infection via one or more mechanims already
discussed, such as sequestration in tissue or biofilm.
Given the polymicrobial nature of tick borne illnesses,
infection with one or more different pathogens is a consideration.
On the other hand, persistence of symptoms has been postulated
to be the result of a new LB infection, or perhaps to improper diagnosis of
LB and unrelated co-existing musculoskeletal morbidity
or to persistence of infection in a sequestered tissue such
as joint cartilage, or biofilm. In this study, we evaluated the level of urinary OspA
protein in 100 previously or currently treated patients
with joint, neurologic, and other objective symptoms.
This group of patients were being evaluated for the potential of recurrent or
persistent infection with Borrelia.
Our analysis was blinded to outcome. 41 of 100 (41 %) patients
were positive for urinary OspA protein. This percentage of positive
urinary OspA, assuming that it reflects a specific
infection by Bb that is shedding OspA C-terminal fragments,
is in keeping with prior studies. Patients evaluated
in endemic LB regions who presented with arthritis
and neurologic symptoms were estimated to have active
and prior LB (7–31 % active disease and 5–20 % previous
Lyme disease in endemic areas. IDSA and
ILADS differ in their recommendations for the clinical
assessment and treatment of persistent LB. A highly
specific antigen test for Borrelia proteins might provide
new class of evidence to refine the guidelines for diagnosis
and treatment of LB. It is widely acknowledged that
patients suspected of having chronic Lyme borreliosis
based neurologic or joint symptomatology may not truly
have Lyme borreliosis, or may have other tick borne diseases.
Therefore in patients who are suspected of having
chronic Lyme disease, as evaluated in the present study,
there has not been a means to assess the true positive
patients. Most, if not all, of these patients have a negative
Lyme serology by the 2 tier criteria. Thus our findings of 41 %
positive patients in this population cannot
be defined as a level of sensitivity and specificity, since
none, or all, of these patients could actually have had an
active Borrelia infection. Importantly, our data provides
the first antigenic evidence that at least 41 % of these
patients may have an active Bb infection. Therefore these
data contribute significant new information to the debate
about chronic Lyme disease.

from: https://caudwelllymedotnet.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/application-of-nanotrap-technology.pdf

 

[duncan]

I think Mark Davis or one of those peeps used this in one of his Lyme investigations - not sure of the results. The chances of detecting Bb in blood (as opposed to tissue) diminishes over time, even with DNA amplification. I would think the same holds true with urine. Still, I think this is the way to go, i.e., direct testing of some sort.

 

[Legolas]

BTW, OspA is a protein essential for maintenance of the spirochete within the tick environment, so its even rather suprising to be found in chronic patients since one would expect it to be down regulated by that time. So maybe the actual group of chronic patients with active Bb infection is ( a lot) larger then the 41%.