Jespersen, Deborah J.

ABSTRACT The diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis (LB) is commonly made by serologic testing with Western blot (WB) analysis serving as an important supplemental assay. Although specific, the interpretation of WBs for diagnosis of LB (i.e., Lyme WBs) is subjective, with considerable variability in results. In addition, the processing, reading, and interpretation of Lyme WBs are laborious and time-consuming procedures. With the need for rapid processing and more objective interpretation of Lyme WBs, we evaluated the performances of two automated interpretive systems, TrinBlot/BLOTrix (Trinity Biotech, Carlsbad, CA) and BeeBlot/ViraScan (Viramed Biotech AG, Munich, Germany), using 518 serum specimens submitted to our laboratory for Lyme WB analysis. The results of routine testing with visual interpretation were compared to those obtained by BLOTrix analysis of MarBlot immunoglobulin M (IgM) and IgG and by ViraScan analysis of ViraBlot and ViraStripe IgM and IgG assays. BLOTrix analysis demonstrated an agreement of 84.7% for IgM and 87.3% for IgG compared to visual reading and interpretation. ViraScan analysis of the ViraBlot assays demonstrated agreements of 85.7% for IgM and 94.2% for IgG, while ViraScan analysis of the ViraStripe IgM and IgG assays showed agreements of 87.1 and 93.1%, respectively. Testing by the automated systems yielded an average time savings of 64 min/run compared to processing, reading, and interpretation by our current procedure. Our findings demonstrated that automated processing and interpretive systems yield results comparable to those of visual interpretation, while reducing the subjectivity and time required for Lyme WB analysis.

ABSTRACT Specimens submitted in M5 medium for cell culture detection of Chlamydia trachomatis were tested by nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) and in cell cultures. Of 35 (genital) and 26 (nongenital) specimens positive for C. trachomatis , 21 and 14 specimens, respectively, were detected exclusively by NAAT. NAAT is significantly ( P < 0.0001) more sensitive than cell culture and should be considered the new “gold standard” for the laboratory diagnosis of C. trachomatis infections.

ABSTRACT Three enzyme immunoassays, Borrelia DotBlot G (GenBio, San Diego, Calif.), MarDx EIA (MarDx Diagnostics, Inc., Carlsbad, Calif.), and VIDAS (bioMérieux, St. Louis, Mo.) were compared for their ability to detect immunoglobulin G antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi in 100 human serum samples. The “gold standard” positive result for each of these samples was determined by Western immunoblot analysis (MarDx Marblot Test System) ( n = 99) or clinical signs and symptoms suggestive of Lyme disease with other laboratory results positive for B. burgdorferi ( n = 1). Based on these criteria for a gold standard positive result, 29 of the 100 samples tested were considered true positives and 71 were considered true negatives. The following sensitivities and specificities were noted, respectively, for each method: Borrelia DotBlot G, 93 and 90%; MarDx, 100 and 35%; and VIDAS, 100 and 92%. Because of high sensitivity and specificity and ease of use, the VIDAS test is an appealing method, especially for laboratories that perform high volumes of tests. The high sensitivity but low specificity of the MarDx method compared to the VIDAS and Borrelia DotBlot G methods requires that Western blot confirmatory tests be performed frequently. The Borrelia DotBlot G method has acceptable specificity but appears to lack sensitivity when compared to the VIDAS and MarDx methods.