Andrew E. Levin

Single-tier testing with the C6 peptide ELISA kit compared with two-tier testing for Lyme disease

For the diagnosis of Lyme disease, the 2-tier serologic testing protocol for Lyme disease has a number of shortcomings including low sensitivity in early disease; increased cost, time, and labor; and subjectivity in the interpretation of immunoblots. In this study, the diagnostic accuracy of a single-tier commercial C6 ELISA kit was compared with 2-tier testing. The results showed that the C6 ELISA was significantly more sensitive than 2-tier testing with sensitivities of 66.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 61.7-71.1) and 35.2% (95% CI 30.6-40.1), respectively (P < 0.001) in 403 sera from patients with erythema migrans. The C6 ELISA had sensitivity statistically comparable to 2-tier testing in sera from Lyme disease patients with early neurologic manifestations (88.6% versus 77.3%, P = 0.13) or arthritis (98.3% versus 95.6%, P = 0.38). The specificities of C6 ELISA and 2-tier testing in over 2200 blood donors, patients with other conditions, and Lyme disease vaccine recipients were found to be 98.9% and 99.5%, respectively (P < 0.05, 95% CI surrounding the 0.6 percentage point difference of 0.04 to 1.15). In conclusion, using a reference standard of 2-tier testing, the C6 ELISA as a single-step serodiagnostic test provided increased sensitivity in early Lyme disease with comparable sensitivity in later manifestations of Lyme disease. The C6 ELISA had slightly decreased specificity. Future studies should evaluate the performance of the C6 ELISA compared with 2-tier testing in routine clinical practice.

Effect of Borrelia burgdorferi Genotype on the Sensitivity of C6 and 2-Tier Testing in North American Patients with Culture-Confirmed Lyme Disease

BACKGROUND A potential concern with any serologic test to detect antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi is whether the epitopes incorporated in the test provide sufficient cross-reactivity to detect infection with all of the pathogenic strains of the species. This is a particular concern for the C6 test, which is based on reactivity to a single peptide. METHODS C6 testing and 2-tier testing were performed on acute-phase serum samples obtained from >158 patients with erythema migrans for whom the genotype of the borrelial isolate was defined on the basis of an analysis of the 16S-23S ribosomal DNA spacer region and/or on the genetic variation of the outer surface protein C gene (ospC). The sonicated whole cell-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, the immunoblots used in the 2-tier testing, and the C6 assay all used antigens from B. burgdorferi sensu stricto strain B31. RESULTS The sensitivity of C6 testing (69.5%) was greater than that of 2-tier testing (38.9%) (P<.001); the difference in sensitivity, however, was statistically significant only for patients infected with 2 of the 3 ribosomal spacer type-defined genotypes. The lower sensitivity of 2-tier testing was attributable to the low sensitivity of the immunoblot tests, rather than the first-tier enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. There was also a trend for the sensitivity of 2-tier testing to vary according to the ospC genotype for the 14 genotypes represented in the study (P=.07); this relationship was not observed with C6 testing. CONCLUSIONS Lack of sensitivity of the C6 test because of strain diversity seems less likely to be a limitation of this serologic test, compared with 2-tier testing in North American patients with early Lyme disease.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of two-tiered testing strategies for serodiagnosis of lyme disease with noncutaneous manifestations.

ABSTRACT The mainstay of laboratory diagnosis for Lyme disease is two-tiered serological testing, in which a reactive first-tier enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) or an immunofluorescence assay is supplemented by separate IgM and IgG immunoblots. Recent data suggest that the C6 ELISA can be substituted for immunoblots without a reduction in either sensitivity or specificity. In this study, the costs of 4 different two-tiered testing strategies for Lyme disease were compared using the median charges for these tests at 6 commercial diagnostic laboratories in 2012. The study found that a whole-cell sonicate ELISA followed by the C6 ELISA was the most cost-effective two-tiered testing strategy for Lyme disease with acute-phase serum samples. We conclude that the C6 ELISA can substitute for immunoblots in the two-tiered testing protocol for Lyme disease without a loss of sensitivity or specificity and is less expensive.

Serologic Diagnosis of Human Taenia solium Cysticercosis by Using Recombinant and Synthetic Antigens in QuickELISA

Diagnosis of Taenia solium cysticercosis is an important component in the control and elimination of cysticercosis and taeniasis. New detection assays using recombinant and synthetic antigens originating from the lentil lectin-purified glycoproteins (LLGPs) of T. solium cysticerci were developed in a QuickELISA™ format. We analyzed a panel of 474 serum samples composed of 108 serum samples from donors with two or more viable cysts, 252 serum samples from persons with other parasitic infections, and 114 serum samples from persons with no documented illnesses. The sensitivities and specificities of T24H QuickELISA™, GP50 QuickELISA™, and Ts18var1 QuickELISA™ were 96.3% and 99.2%, 93.5% and 98.6%, and 89.8% and 96.4%, respectively, for detecting cases with multiple, viable cysts. T24H QuickELISA™ performs best among the three assays, and has sensitivity and specificity values comparable to those of the LLGP enzyme-linked immunosorbent blot. The QuickELISA™ are simple, rapid quantitative methods for detecting antibodies specific for T. solium cysticerci antigens.

Determination of Babesia microti seroprevalence in blood donor populations using an investigational enzyme immunoassay

Transfusion‐transmitted babesiosis caused by Babesia microti has emerged as a significant risk to the US blood supply. This study estimated the prevalence of B. microti antibodies in blood donors using an investigational enzyme immunoassay (EIA).

Transfusion-transmitted babesiosis: is it time to screen the blood supply?

Purpose of reviewThis review summarizes the current status of blood screening to prevent transfusion-transmitted babesiosis (TTB). Recent findingsBabesia microti has recently been determined to be the most common transfusion-transmitted pathogen in the United States. Patients who acquire TTB often experience severe illness with an associated mortality rate of about 20%. Recent studies have demonstrated that laboratory screening using B. microti antibody and/or PCR assays can effectively identify infectious blood donors and that this approach may offer a cost- effective means of intervention. Pathogen inactivation methods may offer an alternative solution. None of these methods has yet been licensed by US Food and Drug Administration, however, and current efforts to prevent TTB rely on excluding blood donors who report having had babesiosis. SummaryTTB imposes a significant health burden on the United States population. Further research is needed to better inform decisions on optimal screening strategies and reentry criteria, but given the acute need and the currently available screening tools, initiation of blood donor screening to prevent TTB should be given high priority.

Serologic screening of United States blood donors for Babesia microti using an investigational enzyme immunoassay

The tick‐borne pathogen Babesia microti has become recognized as the leading infectious risk associated with blood transfusion in the United States, yet no Food and Drug Administration–licensed screening tests are currently available to mitigate this risk. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of an investigational enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for B. microti as a screening test applied to endemic and nonendemic blood donor populations.

A prospective evaluation of chronic Babesia microti infection in seroreactive blood donors

Babesia microti is the foremost infectious risk to the US blood supply for which a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)‐licensed test is unavailable for donation screening. Characterization of the antibody response to B. microti and correlation with parasitemia is necessary to guide screening and donor management policies.

HIV Vaccine-Induced Sero-Reactivity: A Challenge for Trial Participants, Researchers, and Physicians

Antibody-inducing vaccines are a major focus in the preventive HIV vaccine field. Because the most common tests for HIV infection rely on detecting antibodies to HIV, they may also detect antibodies induced by a candidate HIV vaccine. The detection of vaccine-induced antibodies to HIV by serological tests is most commonly referred to as vaccine-induced sero-reactivity (VISR). VISR can be misinterpreted as a sign of HIV infection in a healthy study participant. In a participant who has developed vaccine-induced antibodies, accurate diagnosis of HIV infection (or lack thereof) may require specialized tests and algorithms (differential testing) that are usually not available in community settings. Organizations sponsoring clinical testing of preventive HIV vaccine candidates have an ethical obligation not only to inform healthy volunteers about the potential problems associated with participating in a clinical trial but also to help manage any resulting issues. This article explores the scope of VISR-related issues that become increasingly prevalent as the search for an effective HIV vaccine continues and will be paramount once a preventive vaccine is deployed. We also describe ways in which organizations conducting HIV vaccine trials have addressed these issues and outline areas where more work is needed.

Performance of a Redesigned HIV Selectest Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay Optimized To Minimize Vaccine-Induced Seropositivity in HIV Vaccine Trial Participants

ABSTRACT Vaccine-induced seropositivity (VISP) or seroreactivity (VISR), defined as the reaction of antibodies elicited by HIV vaccines with antigens used in HIV diagnostic immunoassays, can result in reactive assay results for vaccinated but uninfected individuals, with subsequent misclassification of their infection status. The eventual licensure of a vaccine will magnify this issue and calls for the development of mitigating solutions in advance. An immunoassay that discriminates between antibodies elicited by vaccine antigens and those elicited by infection has been developed to address this laboratory testing need. The HIV Selectest is based on consensus and clade-specific HIV peptides that are omitted in many HIV vaccine constructs. The assay was redesigned to enhance performance across worldwide clades and to simplify routine use via a standard kit format. The redesigned assay was evaluated with sera from vaccine trial participants, HIV-infected and uninfected individuals, and healthy controls. The HIV Selectest exhibited specificities of 99.5% with sera from uninfected recipients of 6 different HIV vaccines and 100% with sera from normal donors, while detecting HIV-1 infections, including intercurrent infections, with 95 to 100% sensitivity depending on the clade, with the highest sensitivities for clades A and C. HIV Selectest sensitivity decreased in very early seroconversion specimens, which possibly explains the slightly lower sensitivity observed for asymptomatic blood donors than for clinical HIV cases. Thus, the HIV Selectest provides a new laboratory tool for use in vaccine settings to distinguish the immune response to HIV vaccine antigens from that due to true infection.