Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of two commercially available rapid diagnostic tests for Lyme borreliosis

  • Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The diagnosis of Lyme disease is very complicated and a single diagnostic method cannot exclude infection. We assessed the performance of two commercially available Borrelia burgdorferi rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) in comparison to multiple laboratory-based diagnostic assays using specimens with a gradually increasing probability of Borrelia infection. Based on 200 specimens, the analytical sensitivities for IgG and IgM were 18 and 23 % for the Lyme RDT and 24 and 32 % for the Borreliose Complete RDT. The sensitivity for detecting diagnosed Lyme borreliosis cases was low (26 % Lyme RDT and 32 % with the Borreliose Complete RDT respectively), whereas the specificity was good (85 % Lyme RDT and 88 % Borreliose Complete). Based on this evaluation, the performance of RDTs in detecting Lyme borreliosis appeared to be below that of laboratory-based diagnostics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Stanek G, Wormser GP, Gray J, Strle F (2012) Lyme borreliosis. Lancet 379:461–473

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Aguero-Rosenfeld M, Wang Q, Schwartz I, Wormser GP (2005) Diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis. Clin Microbiol Rev 18:484–509

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Jaakola S, Lyytikäinen O, Rimhanen-Finne R et al (2013) Infectious diseases in Finland 2013. National Institute of Health and Welfare, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  4. Busson L, Reynders M, Van den Wijngaert S et al (2012) Evaluation of commercial screening tests and blot assays for the diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 73:246–251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lee SH, Vigliotti JS, Vigliotti VS, Jones W, Shearer DM (2014) Detection of borreliae in archived sera from patients with clinically suspect Lyme disease. Int J Mol Sci 15:4284–4298

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Ang CW, Notermans DW, Hommes M, Simoons-Smit AM, Herremans T (2011) Large differences between test strategies for the detection of anti-Borrelia antibodies are revealed by comparing eight ELISAs and five immunoblots. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 30:1027–1032

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Smit P, Mabey D, Changalucha J et al (2013) The trade-off between accuracy and accessibility of syphilis screening assays. PLoS One 8:e75327

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Mygland A, Ljøstad U, Fingerle V, Rupprecht T, Schmutzhard E, Steiner I (2010) EFNS guidelines on the diagnosis and management of European Lyme neuroborreliosis. Eur J Neurol 17(8–16):e1–e4

    Google Scholar 

  9. Mabey D, Peeling RW, Ustianowski A, Perkins MD (2004) Diagnostics for the developing world. Nat Rev Microbiol 2:231–240

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mabey DC, Sollis KA, Kelly HA et al (2012) Point-of-care tests to strengthen health systems and save newborn lives: the case of syphilis. PLoS Med 9:e1001233

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Hurly DS, Buhrer-Skinner M, Badman SG et al (2013) Field evaluation of the CRT and ACON chlamydia point-of-care tests in a tropical, low-resource setting. Sex Transm Infect 90:179–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Herring AJ, Ballard RC, Pope V et al (2006) A multi-centre evaluation of nine rapid, point-of-care syphilis tests using archived sera. Sex Transm Infect 82 [Suppl 5]:v7–v12

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Aftab Jasir, Androulla Efstratiou, Triin Pärn and Jaana Vuopio for critically proofreading the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Program for Public Health Microbiology Training, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Stockholm, Sweden

    P. W. Smit

  2. Department of Infectious Disease Surveillance and Control, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland

    P. W. Smit & M. Kuusi

  3. Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    S. Kurkela & O. Vapalahti

  4. Helsinki University Central Hospital Laboratory, Helsinki, Finland

    S. Kurkela & O. Vapalahti

  5. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    O. Vapalahti

Authors
  1. P. W. Smit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Kurkela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Kuusi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. O. Vapalahti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. W. Smit.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smit, P.W., Kurkela, S., Kuusi, M. et al. Evaluation of two commercially available rapid diagnostic tests for Lyme borreliosis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 34, 109–113 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-014-2217-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-014-2217-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation