Waddell Lisa A, Greig Judy, Mascarenhas Mariola, Harding Shannon, Lindsay Robbin, Ogden Nicholas
National Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
National Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
PLoS One. 2016 Dec 21;11(12):e0168613. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168613. eCollection 2016.
There has been an increasing incidence of Lyme disease (LD) in Canada and the United States corresponding to the expanding range of the Ixodes tick vector and Lyme disease agent (Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto). There are many diagnostic tests for LD available in North America, all of which have some performance issues, and physicians are concerned about the appropriate use and interpretation of these tests. The objective of this systematic review is to summarize the North American evidence on the accuracy of diagnostic tests and test regimes at various stages of LD. Included in the review are 48 studies on diagnostic tests used in North America published since 1995. Thirteen studies examined a two-tier serological test protocol vs. clinical diagnosis, 24 studies examined single assays vs. clinical diagnosis, 9 studies examined single immunoblot vs. clinical diagnosis, 7 studies compared culture or PCR direct detection methods vs. clinical diagnosis, 22 studies compared two or more tests with each other and 8 studies compared a two-tiered serological test protocol to another test. Recent studies examining the sensitivity and specificity of various test protocols noted that the Immunetics® C6 B. burgdorferi ELISA™ and the two tier approach have superior specificity compared to proposed replacements, and the CDC recommended western blot algorithm has equivalent or superior specificity over other proposed test algorithms. There is a dramatic increase in test sensitivity with progression of B. burgdorferi infection from early to late LD. Direct detection methods, culture and PCR of tissue or blood samples were not as sensitive or timely compared to serological testing. It was also noted that there are a large number of both commercial (n = 42) and in-house developed tests used by private laboratories which have not been evaluated in the primary literature.
在加拿大和美国,莱姆病(LD)的发病率不断上升,这与肩突硬蜱传播媒介和莱姆病病原体(狭义伯氏疏螺旋体)范围的扩大相对应。北美有许多针对莱姆病的诊断测试,所有这些测试都存在一些性能问题,医生们担心这些测试的合理使用和解读。本系统评价的目的是总结北美关于莱姆病不同阶段诊断测试和测试方案准确性的证据。该评价纳入了自1995年以来发表的48项关于北美使用的诊断测试的研究。13项研究比较了两层血清学检测方案与临床诊断,24项研究比较了单项检测与临床诊断,9项研究比较了单项免疫印迹与临床诊断,7项研究比较了培养或PCR直接检测方法与临床诊断,22项研究相互比较了两种或更多种测试,8项研究比较了两层血清学检测方案与另一种测试。最近关于各种测试方案敏感性和特异性的研究指出,Immunetics® C6伯氏疏螺旋体酶联免疫吸附测定法(ELISA™)和两层检测方法与其他替代方法相比具有更高的特异性,且美国疾病控制与预防中心(CDC)推荐的免疫印迹算法与其他推荐的测试算法相比具有同等或更高的特异性。随着伯氏疏螺旋体感染从莱姆病早期发展到晚期,测试敏感性显著增加。与血清学检测相比,组织或血液样本的直接检测方法、培养和PCR检测既不敏感也不及时。还注意到,私营实验室使用的大量商业测试(n = 42)和内部开发的测试在主要文献中尚未得到评估。