This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on ISI (17)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Bacterial Infections  • Pathology & Laboratory Medicine  • Diagnosis  • Alert me on articles by topic

Problems and Opportunities

Gary P. Wormser, MD; Maria E. Aguero-Rosenfeld, MD; Robert B. Nadelman, MD

JAMA. 1999;282:79-80.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Serologic assays for Lyme disease, first used in 1983,¹ are widely ordered in the United States, with an estimated 2.8 million tests performed annually.² High demand undoubtedly has provided a potent stimulus for the development and marketing of a large number of assays for detection of antibody to Borrelia burgdorferi. As reported by Brown and colleagues³ of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in this issue of THE JOURNAL, 45 first-step assays, including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), immunofluorescent assays (IFAs), or immunodot techniques, and 8 second-step (supplemental) immunoblot assays have been granted FDA approval. Given the tremendous interest in these tests, it is important for physicians, other health care professionals, and the public to appreciate the strengths and limitations of these tests so that they are used in a helpful way. Brown and colleagues have addressed many of . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Author Affiliations: Division of Infectious Diseases (Drs Wormser and Nadelman) and the Departments of Medicine and Pathology (Dr Aguero-Rosenfeld), New York Medical College, Valhalla.

RELATED ARTICLE

Role of Serology in the Diagnosis of Lyme Disease
S. Lori Brown, Sharon L. Hansen, and John J. Langone
JAMA. 1999;282(1):62-66.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT