LYMEPOLICYWONK: New Lyme Disease Culture Test Could be Game Changer

Byldoadmin

One of the primary causes of the Lyme controversy is the lack of a “gold standard” diagnostic test to determine who has the disease, who has persisting disease, and who has cleared the infection.  Currently available Lyme tests rely on indirect methods of detecting the disease using antibodies produced by the patient. The sensitivity of most of these commercially available antibody tests has been so low that they may miss one out of every two people with the disease.

The new test identifies Borrelia burgdorferi using histology and growth characteristics in conjunction with fluorescent immunostaining.  Positive results can be further confirmed using standard molecular biology methods (PCR) based on DNA sequencing. 

The testing is now available for use in all states except California, New York, and Florida, which require a higher level of lab certification for testing. Physicians can obtain lab test kits from ALSI in Pennsylvania.  Contact information about the lab can be obtained from their website.

Those seeking further information may wish to read: 

The Advanced Laboratory Services press release.

Dr. Burrascano’s informal release regarding the testing.

My blog post announcing the in vitro culture results. 

The research study is also available open access (free).  Sapi E, Kaur N, Anyanwu S, Luecke DF, Datar A, Patel S, et al. Evaluation of in-vitro antibiotic susceptibility of different morphological forms of Borrelia burgdorferi. Infect Drug Resist 2011;4:97-113.

 

 

 

 

 

The LYME POLICY WONK blog is written by Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA, who is CALDA’s Chief Executive Officer. Contact her at lbjohnson@lymedisease.org.

 

Similar Posts

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Patient-Powered Research and Lyme Disease

    Many of you know that I am a patient representative for the Patient Centered Research Institute (PCORI), a government funding organization that seeks to put patients at the center of research. Last week, I was fortunate to be a co-author of an article in Health Affairs—together with the lead team at PCORI. The article describes the importance of patient powered research. But what is patient powered research and why is it important to the Lyme community?

  • IDSA: Caution when opening–contents under pressure

    When is an open hearing not an open hearing? How do you give the appearance of being open without, well, actually being open? How do you deal with the issue of public accountability in Lyme disease guidelines when you would rather not? I'd say the IDSA open hearing, which excludes the public from participating, but allows them to "view" the proceeds from a safe distance probably fits the bill. And that, my friends, is what the IDSA intends to do. Hold a public hearing that fits the "form" but not the "substance" of a public hearing. In this way–the IDSA does not have to face the patients whose lives it is destroying. This is a one sided communication device–something the patients are quite used to, but something the IDSA should set aside in favor of accountable transparency. If you are going to talk the talk , you ought to walk the walk. Let's call this hearing what it is– one more way to "silence the sick".

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: IDSA Dissing Lyme Advocates in the Lancet

    A recent article in Lancet written primarily by authors of the IDSA Lyme guidelines aims ”to blow apart the world of the Lyme disease advocates”–a goal that sounds more appropriate to warfare than medical journalism. Most of the authors of the article were under investigation by the Connecticut Attorney General for violation of antitrust laws in connection with the development process for the IDSA Lyme guidelines. The opinion piece is included in Lancet’s “personal view” section and reads like a personal vendetta from those named in the antitrust investigation, referring to patient advocacy groups as “antiscience” and making ad hominem attacks on physicians who treat chronic Lyme disease.

  • IDSA Announces New Guidelines Panel–Balanced or Biased?

    The IDSA panel list for the Lyme disease guidelines review panel were announced on Monday. The IDSA has a history of stacking its guidelines panels with like-minded experts and excluding divergent points of view. For patients this has meant limited or no treatment options. Imagine a prostate cancer panel of surgeons only—radiation, hormone treatment and watchful waiting might no longer be viable treatment options. How well-informed would surgeons be of alternatives to surgery? After the antitrust investigation launched by the Connecticut Attorney General, the IDSA was forced, as part of its settlement agreement, to have its 2006 Lyme disease guidelines reviewed by a new panel. The 2006 panel was riddled with conflicts of interest, exclusion of divergent viewpoints, and suppression of scientific evidence. (Click on title to read full article.)

  • |

    LYMEPOLICYWONK: New York Times blew this Lyme story big time

    The New York Times article “New Infection, Not Relapse, Brings Back Lyme Symptoms, Study Says” published on November 14 sounds like it is about a study about the cause of chronic Lyme disease. But it’s not. None of the patients in this small sample (17) had chronic Lyme disease. Nor was this a study about the persistent cognitive impairment, pain, and fatigue symptoms of chronic Lyme that force 25% of chronic Lyme patients onto disability. The study looked at people diagnosed with an EM rash, promptly treated, and restored to health, who over a 10year period, developed another EM rash and required treatment. Hardly, surprising in an endemic area, like New York and certainly not “big news.” Also not disputed is that most (not all, but most) patients diagnosed on EM can be successfully treated. But a study of patients with EM or recurring EM is not a study of patients with chronic Lyme disease. And you cannot compare apples to oranges in a study like this. Patients were justifiably outraged when the NY Times said the study challenged the notion the Lyme disease can become a chronic illness.