Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Letter to the Editor

Reply to Lacout et al., “Value of Patient Population Selection and Lyme Borreliosis Tests”

Petr Kodym, Zuzana Kurzová, Dagmar Berenová, Dušan Pícha, Dita Smíšková, Lenka Moravcová, Marek Malý
Brad Fenwick, Editor
Petr Kodym
aDepartment of Zoonoses with Natural Focality, Centre for Epidemiology and Microbiology, National Institute of Public Health, Prague, Czech Republic
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Zuzana Kurzová
aDepartment of Zoonoses with Natural Focality, Centre for Epidemiology and Microbiology, National Institute of Public Health, Prague, Czech Republic
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dagmar Berenová
aDepartment of Zoonoses with Natural Focality, Centre for Epidemiology and Microbiology, National Institute of Public Health, Prague, Czech Republic
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dušan Pícha
bDepartment of Infectious Diseases, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Na Bulovce Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dita Smíšková
bDepartment of Infectious Diseases, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Na Bulovce Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lenka Moravcová
bDepartment of Infectious Diseases, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Na Bulovce Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marek Malý
cDepartment of Biostatistics, National Institute of Public Health, Prague, Czech Republic
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brad Fenwick
University of Tennessee at Knoxville
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01793-18
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

REPLY

We recently compared diagnostic parameters of different commercial serological kits based on three different antigen types and correlated test results with the status of the patient’s Borrelia infection (1). We thank Lacout et al. for comments on our article expressed in their comment letter (2).

Their objections mostly concern controversial issues, such as persistent polymorphic symptomatology after tick-bite (PPSTB), posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome (PTLDS), persistent or chronic Borrelia disease, etc., discussed in laboratory and clinical diagnostics of Lyme borreliosis for more than 30 years. These are extensive issues, which, in our opinion, are outside the scope of the original communication, so in a brief comment, there is no space for a qualified discussion on this controversial topic.

The selection of patients and their inclusion in clinical groups were performed in accordance with the national (3) and European (4, 5) standards and case definitions. Only patients with a typical, well-defined disease were included in the study.

Thus, the serological test results are compared between different clinical forms of the disease.

The statement of Lacout et al. that “the ‘sick patients’ sample does not appear to be reliable in this article because this might exclude a too-large population of patients” is irrelevant.

The purpose of the study was not to capture all patients with different forms of Lyme borreliosis but to compare the diagnostic parameters between the laboratory tests.

The negative-control group selection was also performed in accordance with the standard laboratory and clinical practice. The serum used was taken from blood donors who did not report recent clinical signs of the disease, and this approach is completely acceptable for a general comparison between serological tests. Therefore, in view of the stated aims of the study, the claims that “the selection of the control population ... is therefore debatable” and that the resulting sensitivity and specificity of the tests were not valid have to be rejected.

However, Lacout et al. are correct that it is impossible to calculate the absolute sensitivity and specificity of any serological test. As we have shown in our article, these values are always related to the nature of all “positive” and “control” samples in the respective panel. It cannot be ruled out that some of the blood donors were not actually negative and may have experienced asymptomatic borreliosis (we do not call them carriers since they do not pass borreliosis to another person) or even may not have admitted that they had clinical signs.

By comparing the diagnostic parameters obtained by different methods on the same panel, we yield relative results; we find out which of the methods has a higher or lower sensitivity/specificity than the other, with no absolute values.

However, the inclusion of unclearly defined clinical units of Lyme borreliosis, especially when “current serology cannot be used as a diagnostic marker of PTLDS” (6), as indirectly suggested by Lacout et al., not only would not improve the sensitivity and specificity of serological tests but would even have the opposite effect.

FOOTNOTES

  • This is a response to a letter by Lacout et al. (https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01517-18).

  • Copyright © 2019 American Society for Microbiology.

All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Kodym P,
    2. Kurzová Z,
    3. Berenová D,
    4. Pícha D,
    5. Smíšková D,
    6. Moravcová L,
    7. Malý M
    . 2018. Serological diagnostics of Lyme borreliosis: comparison of universal and Borrelia species-specific tests based on whole-cell and recombinant antigens. J Clin Microbiol 56:e00601-18. doi:10.1128/JCM.00601-18.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Lacout A,
    2. Marcy PY,
    3. Mas M,
    4. Perrone CH,
    5. Franck M
    . 2018. Value of patient population selection and Lyme borreliosis tests. J Clin Microbiol 57:e01517-18. doi:10.1128/JCM.01517-18.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. 3.↵
    1. Krbková L,
    2. Kybicová K,
    3. Pícha D,
    4. Roháčová H,
    5. Smíšková D
    . 2018. Guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme borreliosis. Klin Mikrobiol Infekc Lek 24:88–99. (In Czech.) https://www.infekce.cz/DPLB18.htm.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Stanek G,
    2. Fingerle V,
    3. Hunfeld K-P,
    4. Jaulhac B,
    5. Kaiser R,
    6. Krause A,
    7. Kristoferitsch W,
    8. O’Connell S,
    9. Ornstein K,
    10. Strle F,
    11. Gray J
    . 2011. Lyme borreliosis: clinical case definitions for diagnosis and management in Europe. Clin. Microbiol Infect 17:69–79. doi:10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03175.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    1. Mygland A,
    2. Ljøstad U,
    3. Fingerle V,
    4. Rupprecht T,
    5. Schmutzhard E,
    6. Steiner I
    . 2010. EFNS guidelines on the diagnosis and management of European Lyme neuroborreliosis. Eur J Neurol 17:8–e4. doi:10.1111/j.1468-1331.2009.02862.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Rebman AW,
    2. Bechtold KT,
    3. Yang T,
    4. Mihm EA,
    5. Soloski MJ,
    6. Novak CB,
    7. Aucott JN
    . 2017. The clinical, symptom, and quality-of-life characterization of a well-defined group of patients with posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome. Front Med (Lausanne) 4:224. doi:10.3389/fmed.2017.00224.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Reply to Lacout et al., “Value of Patient Population Selection and Lyme Borreliosis Tests”
Petr Kodym, Zuzana Kurzová, Dagmar Berenová, Dušan Pícha, Dita Smíšková, Lenka Moravcová, Marek Malý
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Feb 2019, 57 (3) e01793-18; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01793-18

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Clinical Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Reply to Lacout et al., “Value of Patient Population Selection and Lyme Borreliosis Tests”
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Clinical Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Reply to Lacout et al., “Value of Patient Population Selection and Lyme Borreliosis Tests”
Petr Kodym, Zuzana Kurzová, Dagmar Berenová, Dušan Pícha, Dita Smíšková, Lenka Moravcová, Marek Malý
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Feb 2019, 57 (3) e01793-18; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01793-18
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • REPLY
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JCM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • Editor Conflicts of Interest
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Resources for Clinical Microbiologists
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #JClinMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

 

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0095-1137; Online ISSN: 1098-660X