Multicenter Clinical Evaluation of Modified Two-Tiered Testing Algorithms for Lyme Disease Using Zeus Scientific Commercial Assays

Modified two-tiered testing (MTTT) algorithms for Lyme disease (LD), which involve the sequential use of orthogonal enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) without immunoblotting, are acceptable alternatives to standard two-tiered testing (STTT; EIA followed by immunoblots) provided the EIAs have been FDA-cleare...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of clinical microbiology Vol. 60; no. 5; p. e0252821
Main Authors Sfeir, Maroun M., Meece, Jennifer K., Theel, Elitza S., Granger, Dane, Fritsche, Thomas R., Steere, Allen C., Branda, John A.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States American Society for Microbiology 18.05.2022
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN0095-1137
1098-660X
1070-633X
1098-660X
DOI10.1128/jcm.02528-21

Cover

More Information
Summary:Modified two-tiered testing (MTTT) algorithms for Lyme disease (LD), which involve the sequential use of orthogonal enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) without immunoblotting, are acceptable alternatives to standard two-tiered testing (STTT; EIA followed by immunoblots) provided the EIAs have been FDA-cleared for this intended use. We evaluated four Zeus Scientific LD EIAs used in two distinct MTTT algorithms for FDA review. Modified two-tiered testing (MTTT) algorithms for Lyme disease (LD), which involve the sequential use of orthogonal enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) without immunoblotting, are acceptable alternatives to standard two-tiered testing (STTT; EIA followed by immunoblots) provided the EIAs have been FDA-cleared for this intended use. We evaluated four Zeus Scientific LD EIAs used in two distinct MTTT algorithms for FDA review. MTTT 1 used a VlsE1/pepC10 polyvalent EIA followed by a whole-cell sonicate (WCS) polyvalent EIA. MTTT 2 used the same first-tier EIA followed by separate IgM and IgG WCS EIAs. In a retrospective phase, we compared each MTTT algorithm to STTT using archived samples from LD patients or control subjects. In a prospective phase, we used the same algorithms to analyze consecutive excess samples submitted for routine LD serology to three clinical laboratories. For the retrospective phase, MTTTs 1 and 2 were more sensitive (56% and 74%) than STTT (41%; P  ≤ 0.03) among 61 patients with acute erythema migrans (EM). In LD patients with neuroborreliosis, carditis, or arthritis ( n =  75), sensitivity was comparable between algorithms (96 to 100%; P = 1.0). Among 190 control subjects without past LD, all algorithms were highly and comparably specific (≥99%, P = 0.48). For the prospective phase, ( n =  2,932), positive percent-agreement (PPA), negative percent-agreement (NPA), and overall agreement of MTTT 1 with STTT were 93%, 97.7% and 97.4% (kappa 0.80). MTTT 2 yielded higher PPA (98%) but lower NPA (96.1%) and overall agreement (96.2%, kappa 0.74; all P < 0.05). Compared with STTT, both MTTT algorithms provided increased sensitivity in EM patients, comparable sensitivity in later disease and non-inferior specificity.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
The authors declare a conflict of interest. This study was funded by Zeus Scientific. J.A.B. has received research support for other studies from Pfizer, bioMerieux, Immunetics, Alere, DiaSorin, and the Bay Area Lyme Foundation (BALF) and has consulted for DiaSorin and Roche Diagnostics. E.S.T. has consulted for Euroimmune Inc. and Serimmune Scientific. T.R.F. and J.E.M. have received research support for other studies from bioMerieux, Immunetics and DiaSorin. TRF has consulted for DiaSorin. All other authors: No conflicts.
Maroun M. Sfeir and Jennifer K. Meece contributed equally to this article. Author order was determined by drawing straws.
ISSN:0095-1137
1098-660X
1070-633X
1098-660X
DOI:10.1128/jcm.02528-21