Reply to Lacout et al.,

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00064211%3A_____%2F19%3AW0000029" target="_blank" >RIV/00064211:_____/19:W0000029 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://jcm.asm.org/content/57/3/e01793-18.long" target="_blank" >https://jcm.asm.org/content/57/3/e01793-18.long</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01793-18" target="_blank" >10.1128/JCM.01793-18</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Reply to Lacout et al.,

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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. 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.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Reply to Lacout et al.,

Popis výsledku anglicky

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. 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.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30303 - Infectious Diseases

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2019

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY

ISSN

0095-1137

e-ISSN

1098-660X

Svazek periodika

57

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

3

Stát vydavatele periodika

US - Spojené státy americké

Počet stran výsledku

2

Strana od-do

-

Kód UT WoS článku

000459801000026

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85062420581