Division of Emergency Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
J Clin Microbiol. 2019 Sep 24;57(10). doi: 10.1128/JCM.00547-19. Print 2019 Oct.
Conventional two-tiered testing (CTTT) for Lyme disease includes a first-tier enzyme immunoassay (EIA) followed by a supplemental immunoblot, and modified two-tiered testing (MTTT) relies on two different sequential EIAs without the inclusion of an immunoblot. MTTT has shown promising results as an alternative strategy for the diagnosis of Lyme disease in adults but has not yet been evaluated in children. We performed a cross-sectional study of children and adolescents ≤21 years of age undergoing clinical investigation for suspected Lyme disease. Serum specimens were analyzed with both a whole-cell sonicate (WCS) and a C6 EIA, with a supplemental immunoblot if either EIA was positive or equivocal. We compared CTTT (WCS EIA followed by supplemental immunoblot) to MTTT (WCS EIA followed by C6 EIA) using McNemar's test to evaluate for agreement beyond chance alone. We then used a kappa statistic to measure level of the agreement between testing strategies. We included 1,066 serum specimens, of which 156 (14.6%) had a positive CTTT and 165 (15.5%) had a positive MTTT. There were no significant differences between MTTT and CTTT ( = 0.16). Although the overall agreement between MTTT and CTTT was high (kappa, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.84 to 0.92), 33 children had discordant test results. In a cohort of children and adolescents undergoing investigation for suspected Lyme disease, CTTT and MTTT results agreed in most cases. Since immunoblots are time-consuming, laborious, and challenging to interpret, MTTT provides a promising alternate Lyme disease testing strategy for children.
传统的两步检测(CTTT)用于莱姆病,包括第一级酶免疫分析(EIA),然后是补充免疫印迹,改良的两步检测(MTTT)依赖于两种不同的连续 EIA,不包括免疫印迹。MTTT 作为成人莱姆病诊断的替代策略显示出有希望的结果,但尚未在儿童中进行评估。我们对年龄在 21 岁以下接受疑似莱姆病临床检查的儿童和青少年进行了横断面研究。血清标本用全细胞超声提取物(WCS)和 C6 EIA 进行分析,如果任何 EIA 阳性或不确定,则进行补充免疫印迹。我们使用 McNemar 检验比较 CTTT(WCS EIA 后补充免疫印迹)和 MTTT(WCS EIA 后 C6 EIA),以评估仅超出偶然的一致性。然后,我们使用 Kappa 统计量来衡量两种检测策略之间的一致性水平。我们共纳入 1066 份血清标本,其中 156 份(14.6%)CTTT 阳性,165 份(15.5%)MTTT 阳性。MTTT 和 CTTT 之间无显著差异( = 0.16)。尽管 MTTT 和 CTTT 之间的总体一致性较高(Kappa 值,0.88;95%置信区间,0.84 至 0.92),但仍有 33 名儿童的检测结果不一致。在接受疑似莱姆病检查的儿童和青少年队列中,CTTT 和 MTTT 结果在大多数情况下一致。由于免疫印迹耗时、费力且难以解释,因此 MTTT 为儿童提供了一种有前途的替代莱姆病检测策略。