Das Lyme-Disease-Forum > Das Lyme-Disease-Forum

German quacks cash in with useless tests, just to get alibis for fake treatments

(1/1)

worelia:
https://twitter.com/LymeScience/status/1190094720401149952

[*quote*]
LymeScience @LymeScience

Many fake chronic Lyme diagnoses are facilitated by quack private labs in Germany that use ELISpot/Lymphocyte Transformation testing. A new study shows this testing is useless for Lyme. It failed to detect real Lyme and falsely diagnosed healthy people. 😮
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/31665540/?i=1&from=lyme

7:34 PM - 31 Oct 2019

    10 Retweets
    14 Likes
    Terry Polevoy, MD
    Tracey Jolliffe 🦇
    Benderounet
    Apple du vide 🍏🏳️‍🌈
    Yoram Puius, MD, PhD
    Peter R. Hansen
    Disciple_Neuro
    Take That, Medicine!
    Marcel van Drunen

1 reply 10 retweets 14 likes

        New conversation
        Dando Shaft

🕷
‏ @lennylaw
4h4 hours ago
Replying to @LymeScience @Flatsquid

You might want to contact Portsmouth News about this front-page story from earlier this week. The quack clinic she visited uses that test and advertises it on their website.

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/health/mum-of-two-shares-her-experiences-of-living-with-lyme-disease-to-raise-awareness-and-funds-for-6-000-treatment-1-9122997

1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Tracey Jolliffe
🦇
‏ @The_BatNurse
32m32 minutes ago

Wow. Unfortunately the only thing that that clinic will cure her of is having £6000 😕
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
New conversation
Dando Shaft
🕷
‏ @lennylaw
22m22 minutes ago

They might diagnose electro sensitivity as well.

I could have a look at her and diagnose amalgam toxicity..
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes

[*/quote*]




https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/31665540/?i=1&from=lyme

[*quote*]
↓ Full text
Prospective comparison of two enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assays for the diagnosis of Lyme neuroborreliosis.
van Gorkom T, et al. Clin Exp Immunol. 2019.
Authors
van Gorkom T1,2, Voet W3, Sankatsing SUC4, Nijhuis CDM2, Ter Haak E2, Kremer K2, Thijsen SFT1.
Author information

1
    Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Diakonessenhuis Hospital, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
2
    Centre for Infectious Diseases Research, Diagnostics and Laboratory Surveillance, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
3
    Department of Neurology, Diakonessenhuis Hospital, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
4
    Department of Internal Medicine, Diakonessenhuis Hospital, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Citation

Clin Exp Immunol. 2019 Oct 30. doi: 10.1111/cei.13393. [Epub ahead of print]
Abstract

Commercial cellular tests are used to diagnose Lyme borreliosis, but studies on their clinical validation are lacking. This study evaluated the utility of an in-house and a commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot (ELISpot) assay for the diagnosis of Lyme neuroborreliosis. Prospectively, peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were isolated from patients and controls and analysed by using an in-house Borrelia ELISpot assay and the commercial LymeSpot assay. Borrelia burgdorferi B31 whole cell lysate and a mixture of outer surface proteins were used to stimulate the PBMCs and the numbers of interferon-gamma-secreting T cells were measured. Results were evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Eighteen active and 12 treated Lyme neuroborreliosis patients, 10 healthy individuals treated for an early (mostly cutaneous) manifestation of Lyme borreliosis in the past, and 47 untreated healthy individuals were included. Both assays showed a poor diagnostic performance with sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative predictive values ranging from 44.4% to 66.7%, 42.0% to 72.5%, 21.8% to 33.3%, and 80.5% to 87.0%, respectively. The LymeSpot assay performed equally poor when the calculation method of the manufacturer was used. Both the in-house and the LymeSpot assay are unable to diagnose active Lyme neuroborreliosis nor to monitor antibiotic treatment success.
© 2019 British Society for Immunology.
PMID 31665540 [ - as supplied by publisher]
Full text
Full text at journal site
https://doi.org/10.1111/cei.13393
[*/quote*]


https://doi.org/10.1111/cei.13393
--> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cei.13393


https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cei.13393

[*quote*]
Prospective comparison of two enzyme‐linked immunosorbent spot assays for the diagnosis of Lyme neuroborreliosis

T. van Gorkom
W. Voet
S.U.C. Sankatsing
C.D.M. Nijhuis
E. ter Haak
K. Kremer
S.F.T. Thijsen
First published: 30 October 2019

https://doi.org/10.1111/cei.13393

This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi:10.1111/cei.13393
[*/quote*]


https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cei.13393

[*quote*]
Abstract

Commercial cellular tests are used to diagnose Lyme borreliosis, but studies on their clinical validation are lacking. This study evaluated the utility of an in‐house and a commercial enzyme‐linked immunosorbent spot (ELISpot) assay for the diagnosis of Lyme neuroborreliosis.

Prospectively, peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were isolated from patients and controls and analysed by using an in‐house Borrelia ELISpot assay and the commercial LymeSpot assay. Borrelia burgdorferi B31 whole cell lysate and a mixture of outer surface proteins were used to stimulate the PBMCs and the numbers of interferon‐gamma‐secreting T cells were measured. Results were evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

Eighteen active and 12 treated Lyme neuroborreliosis patients, 10 healthy individuals treated for an early (mostly cutaneous) manifestation of Lyme borreliosis in the past, and 47 untreated healthy individuals were included. Both assays showed a poor diagnostic performance with sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative predictive values ranging from 44.4% to 66.7%, 42.0% to 72.5%, 21.8% to 33.3%, and 80.5% to 87.0%, respectively. The LymeSpot assay performed equally poor when the calculation method of the manufacturer was used.

Both the in‐house and the LymeSpot assay are unable to diagnose active Lyme neuroborreliosis nor to monitor antibiotic treatment success.
Supporting Information
Publication cover image

Accepted Articles

Accepted, unedited articles published online and citable. The final edited and typeset version of record will appear in the future.

    Related
    Information

    Metrics
[*/quote*]



The format of this is garbled. Go an read the original:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cei.13393

[*quote*]
This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1111/cei.13393This article is protected by copyright. All rights reservedMS. TAMARA VAN GORKOM (Orcid ID : 0000-0002-1565-5902)Article type : Original ArticleProspective comparison of two enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assays for the diagnosis of Lyme neuroborreliosisT. van Gorkoma,d,W. Voetb, S.U.C. Sankatsingc, C.D.M. Nijhuisd, E. ter Haakd, K. Kremerd, S.F.T. Thijsena,#a. Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Diakonessenhuis Hospital, Utrecht, the Netherlandsb. Department of Neurology, Diakonessenhuis Hospital, Utrecht, the Netherlandsc. Department of Internal Medicine, Diakonessenhuis Hospital, Utrecht, the Netherlandsd. Centre for Infectious Diseases Research, Diagnostics and Laboratory Surveillance, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, the NetherlandsRunning title: Comparison of two ELISpot assays for neuroborreliosis# Address correspondence to S.F.T. Thijsen Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology Diakonessenhuis HospitalBosboomstraat 13508 TG Utrecht, The NetherlandsTelephone: +31-88-2506911Accepted Article
[*/quote*]


The full text can be downloaded. The url is disgustingly long and looks like being valid only for a short time. So go there and follow the text to the point where you can download the pdf.

Navigation

[0] Message Index