Sandbox : anmol: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(376 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
__NOTOC__
__NOTOC__
{{Lyme disease}}
{{CMG}} {{AE}} {{IMD}}
==Overview==
Laboratory blood tests are helpful if used correctly and performed with validated methods. Laboratory tests are not recommended for patients who do not have symptoms typical of Lyme disease. [[Polymerase chain reaction]] (PCR) tests for Lyme disease have also been developed to detect the genetic material ([[DNA]]) of the Lyme disease spirochete.


==Laboratory Findings==
{{CMG}}; {{AE}} {{Anmol}}
* Lyme disease is diagnosed based on:
#Signs and symptoms
#A history of possible exposure to infected blacklegged ticks
* Laboratory blood tests are helpful if used correctly and performed with validated methods.
* Laboratory tests are not recommended for patients who do not have symptoms typical of Lyme disease.
* Just as it is important to correctly diagnose Lyme disease when a patient has it, it is important to avoid misdiagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease when the true cause of the illness is something else.


===Serology===
==Tables==
 
{| class="wikitable"
==== Two-step Laboratory Testing Process<ref name="urlTwo-step Laboratory Testing Process| Lyme Disease | CDC">{{cite web |url=https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/diagnosistesting/labtest/twostep/index.html |title=Two-step Laboratory Testing Process&#124; Lyme Disease &#124; CDC |format= |work= |accessdate=}}</ref> ====
|+
*The [[serology|serological]] laboratory tests most widely available and employed are the [[Western blot]] and [[ELISA]].
!Diagnosis
*A two-tiered protocol is recommended by the [[Centers for Disease Control|CDC]]: the more sensitive ELISA is performed first, if it is positive or equivocal, the more [[Specificity (tests)|specific]] Western blot is run. The reliability of testing in diagnosis remains controversial, however studies show the Western blot [[IgM]] has a specificity of 94&ndash;96% for patients with clinical symptoms of early Lyme disease.<ref name="Engstrom">{{cite journal | author=Engstrom SM, Shoop E, Johnson RC | title=Immunoblot interpretation criteria for serodiagnosis of early Lyme disease | journal=J Clin Microbiol | year=1995 | pages=419-27 | volume=33 | issue=2 | pmid = 7714202 | url=http://jcm.asm.org/cgi/reprint/33/2/419.pdf | format=PDF}}</ref><ref name="Sivak">{{cite journal | author=Sivak SL, Aguero-Rosenfeld ME, Nowakowski J, Nadelman RB, Wormser GP | title=Accuracy of IgM immunoblotting to confirm the clinical diagnosis of early Lyme disease | journal=Arch Intern Med | year=1996 | pages=2105-9 | volume=156 | issue=18 | pmid = 8862103}}</ref>
!Lab findings
*The two steps of Lyme disease testing are designed to be done together. CDC does not recommend skipping the first test and just doing the Western blot. Doing so will increase the frequency of false positive results and may lead to misdiagnosis and improper treatment.
!
 
!
* Erroneous test results have been widely reported in both early and late stages of the disease. These errors can be caused by several factors, including [[antibody]] cross-reactions from other infections including [[Epstein-Barr virus]] and [[Cytomegalovirus]],<ref name="Gossens">{{cite journal | author=Goossens HA, Nohlmans MK, van den Bogaard AE | title=Epstein-Barr virus and cytomegalovirus infections cause false-positive results in IgM two-test protocol for early Lyme borreliosis | journal=Infection | year=1999 | pages=231 | volume=27 | issue=3 | pmid= 10378140}}</ref> as well as [[Herpes simplex virus]].<ref name="Strasfeld">{{cite journal | author=Strasfeld L, Romanzi L, Seder RH, Berardi VP | title=False-positive serological test results for Lyme disease in a patient with acute herpes simplex virus type 2 infection | journal=Clin Infect Dis | year=2005 | pages=1826-7 | volume=41 | issue=12 | pmid= 16288417}}</ref>
|-
 
!
* [[Polymerase chain reaction]] (PCR) tests for Lyme disease have also been developed to detect the genetic material ([[DNA]]) of the Lyme disease spirochete. PCR tests are rarely susceptible to [[Type I and type II errors|false-positive]] results but can often show [[Type I and type II errors|false-negative]] results, and the overall reliability of PCR in this role remains unclear.
!
* With the exception of PCR, there is no currently practical means for detection of the presence of the organism, as serologic studies only test for [[antibodies]] of ''Borrelia''.
!
* High titers of either immunoglobulin G (IgG) or immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies to ''Borrelia'' antigens indicate disease, but lower titers can be misleading.
!
* The IgM antibodies may remain after the initial infection, and IgG antibodies may remain for years.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Burdash N, Fernandes J |title=Lyme borreliosis: detecting the great imitator |journal=The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association |volume=91 |issue=6 |pages=573-4, 577-8 |year=1991 |pmid=1874654 |url=http://www.jaoa.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/6/573}}</ref>
|-
* Western blot, ELISA and PCR can be performed by either blood test via [[venipuncture]] or [[cerebral spinal fluid]] (CSF) via [[lumbar puncture]].
|
* Though lumbar puncture is more definitive of diagnosis, antigen capture in the CSF is much more elusive, reportedly CSF yields positive results in only 10-30% of patients cultured.
|
* The diagnosis of neurologic infection by ''Borrelia'' should not be excluded solely on the basis of normal routine CSF or negative CSF antibody analyses.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Coyle PK, Schutzer SE, Deng Z, ''et al'' |title=Detection of Borrelia burgdorferi-specific antigen in antibody-negative cerebrospinal fluid in neurologic Lyme disease |journal=Neurology |volume=45 |issue=11 |pages=2010-5 |year=1995 |pmid=7501150 }}</ref>
|
* New techniques for clinical evaluation if ''Borrelia'' infection are under investigation, including ''Lymphocyte transformation tests'' <ref>{{cite journal |author=Valentine-Thon E, Ilsemann K, Sandkamp M |title=A novel lymphocyte transformation test (LTT-MELISA) for Lyme borreliosis |journal=Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. |volume=57 |issue=1 |pages=27-34 |year=2007 |pmid=16876371 |doi=10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2006.06.008}}</ref> and ''focus floating microscopy''.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Eisendle K, Grabner T, Zelger B |title=Focus floating microscopy: "gold standard" for cutaneous borreliosis? |journal=Am. J. Clin. Pathol. |volume=127 |issue=2 |pages=213-22 |year=2007 |pmid=17210530 |doi=10.1309/3369XXFPEQUNEP5C}}</ref>
|
* New research indicates [[chemokine]] [[CXCL13]] may also be a possible marker for neuroborreliosis.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Cadavid D |title=The mammalian host response to borrelia infection |journal=Wien. Klin. Wochenschr. |volume=118 |issue=21-22 |pages=653-8 |year=2006 |pmid=17160603 |doi=10.1007/s00508-006-0692-0}}</ref>
|-
 
|
===Other Types of Laboratory Testing===
|
* Some laboratories offer Lyme disease testing using assays whose accuracy and clinical usefulness have not been adequately established.
|
* These tests include urine antigen tests, immunofluorescent staining for cell wall-deficient forms of Borrelia burgdorferi, and lymphocyte transformation tests.
|
* In general, CDC does not recommend these tests.
|-
* Patients are encouraged to ask their physicians whether their testing for Lyme disease was performed using validated methods and whether results were interpreted using appropriate guidelines.
|
 
|
===Testing Ticks===
|
* Patients who have removed a tick often wonder if they should have it tested.
|
* In general, the identification and testing of individual ticks is not useful for deciding if a person should get antibiotics following a tick bite.
|}


==References==
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Needs overview]]
[[Category:Bacterial diseases]]
[[Category:Insect-borne diseases]]
[[Category:Lyme disease]]
[[Category:Zoonoses]]
[[Category:Spirochaetes]]
[[Category:Disease]]
[[Category:Infectious disease]]
[[Category:Dermatology]]
[[Category:Emergency medicine]]
[[Category:Intensive care medicine]]
{{WikiDoc Help Menu}}
{{WikiDoc Sources}}

Latest revision as of 17:32, 14 January 2019


Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief: Anmol Pitliya, M.B.B.S. M.D.[2]

Tables

Diagnosis Lab findings

References