Who Is Ben Beard?
Charles Benjamin (Ben) Beard, PhD
Deputy Director, Division of Vector-Borne Diseases
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Associate Editor, Emerging Infectious Diseases
Dr. Beard earned a B.S. in 1980 at Auburn University, a M.S. in 1983 at the Louisiana State University School of Medicine, and a Ph.D. in 1987 at the University of Florida. He was a post-doctoral fellow and associate research scientist at the Yale University School of Medicine from 1987 to 1991.
In 1991, he joined CDC’s Division of Parasitic Diseases, where he served as Chief of the Vector Genetics Section from 1999 to 2003. In 2003, he moved to CDC’s Division of Vector-Borne Diseases in Fort Collins, CO to become Chief of the Bacterial Diseases Branch.
In this capacity, he coordinated CDC’s programs on Lyme borreliosis, tick-borne relapsing fever, Bartonella, plague, and tularemia.
During his tenure at CDC, Dr. Beard has worked in the prevention of vector-borne diseases, both in the domestic and global arenas. In addition to his work as Chief of the Bacterial Diseases Branch, in 2011 Dr. Beard was appointed as the Associate Director for Climate Change in CDC’s National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, where he coordinated CDC’s efforts to mitigate the potential impact of climate variability and disruption on infectious diseases in humans.
In 2017, he was appointed as the Acting Deputy Director of CDC’s Division of Vector-Borne Diseases. He has published over 125 scientific papers, books, and book chapters collectively, and has served on a variety of committees and panels both inside and outside of CDC, including working groups or advisory panels for the World Health Organization, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the American Meteorological Society.
He is an Associate Editor for Emerging Infectious Diseases and past president of the Society for Vector Ecology and served as Deputy Incident Manager for CDC’s Zika virus outbreak response.
Source
https://www.hhs.gov/ash/advisory-committees/tickbornedisease/members/index.html
How Wrong Can He Be?
https://sites.google.com/view/marylandlyme/chronic-lyme/how-wrong-can-they-be
Last Updated- March 2020
Lucy Barnes
scc
From CDC website- March 4, 2020
Diagnosis and Testing
When assessing a patient for Lyme disease, health care providers should consider:
- The signs and symptoms of Lyme disease
- The likelihood that the patient has been exposed to infected blacklegged ticks
- The possibility that other illnesses may cause similar symptoms
- Results of laboratory tests, when indicated
Laboratory testing
CDC currently recommends a two-step testing process for Lyme disease. Both steps are required and can be done using the same blood sample. If this first step is negative, no further testing is recommended. If the first step is positive or indeterminate (sometimes called “equivocal”), the second step should be performed. The overall result is positive only when the first test is positive (or equivocal) and the second test is positive (or for some tests equivocal).
Key points to remember
- Most Lyme disease tests are designed to detect antibodies made by the body in response to infection.
- Antibodies can take several weeks to develop, so patients may test negative if infected only recently.
- Antibodies normally persist in the blood for months or even years after the infection is gone; therefore, the test cannot be used to determine cure.
- Infection with other diseases, including some tickborne diseases, or some viral, bacterial, or autoimmune diseases, can result in false positive test results.
- Some tests give results for two types of antibody, IgM and IgG. Positive IgM results should be disregarded if the patient has been ill for more than 30 days.
CDC supports the development of new tests
New tests may be developed as alternatives to one or both steps of the two-step process. Before CDC will recommend new tests, they must be cleared by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). For more details, see: Recommendations for Test Performance and Interpretation from the Second National Conference on Serologic Diagnosis of Lyme Disease.
NEW! Updated CDC Recommendation for Serologic Diagnosis of Lyme Disease
Page last reviewed: November 20, 2019
Content source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Division of Vector-Borne Diseases (DVBD)
- Preventing tick bitesplus icon
- Tick removal and testing
- Transmission
- Signs and symptomsplus icon
- Diagnosis and testingplus icon
- Treatment
- Data and surveillanceplus icon
- Post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome
- Lyme disease FAQ
- Health care providers
- Educational materials
- Why is CDC concerned about Lyme disease?
https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/diagnosistesting/index.html
Submit
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR)
Updated CDC Recommendation for Serologic Diagnosis of Lyme Disease
Weekly / August 16, 2019 / 68(32);703
Paul Mead, MD1; Jeannine Petersen, PhD1; Alison Hinckley, PhD1 (View author affiliations)
Summary
What is already known about this topic?
Serologic testing is the principal means of laboratory diagnosis of Lyme disease. Current recommendations include using a sensitive enzyme immunoassay (EIA) or immunofluorescence assay, followed by a western immunoblot assay for specimens yielding positive or equivocal results.
What is added by this report?
On July 29, 2019, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared several Lyme disease serologic assays with new indications for use, allowing for an EIA rather than western immunoblot assay as the second test in a Lyme disease testing algorithm.
What are the indications for public health practice?
When cleared by FDA for this purpose, serologic assays that utilize a second EIA in place of western immunoblot assay are acceptable alternatives for the serologic diagnosis of Lyme disease.
Article Metrics
Altmetric:
Mendeley (21)
Citations: 7
Views: 37,932
Views equals page views plus PDF downloads
Related Materials
- PDF pdf icon[55K] [PDF]
Lyme disease is a tickborne zoonosis for which serologic testing is the principal means of laboratory diagnosis. In 1994, the Association of State and Territorial Public Health Laboratory Directors, CDC, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, and the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards convened the Second National Conference on Serologic Diagnosis of Lyme Disease (1).
The conference proceedings recommended a two-test methodology using a sensitive enzyme immunoassay (EIA) or immunofluorescence assay as a first test, followed by a western immunoblot assay for specimens yielding positive or equivocal results (1,2). Regarding the development of future tests, the report advised that evaluation of new serologic assays include blind testing against a comprehensive challenge panel, and that new assays should only be recommended if their specificity, sensitivity, and precision equaled or surpassed the performance of tests used in the recommended two-test procedure. To assist serologic test developers, CDC has made available, with support from NIH, a comprehensive panel of sera from patients with various stages of Lyme disease and other conditions, as well as healthy persons (3).
On July 29, 2019, FDA cleared several Lyme disease serologic assays with new indications for use based on a modified two-test methodology (4). The modified methodology uses a second EIA in place of a western immunoblot assay. Clearance by FDA of the new Lyme disease assays indicates that test performance has been evaluated and is “substantially equivalent to or better than” a legally marketed predicate test.
Recommendation
When cleared by FDA for this purpose, serologic assays that utilize EIA rather than western immunoblot assay in a two-test format are acceptable alternatives for the laboratory diagnosis of Lyme disease. Based on the criteria established at the 1994 Second National Conference on Serologic Diagnosis of Lyme Disease, clinicians and laboratories should consider serologic tests cleared by FDA as CDC-recommended procedures for Lyme disease serodiagnosis.
Corresponding author: Paul Mead, pmead@cdc.gov, 970-221-6474.
1Division of Vector-borne Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, CDC.
All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.
References
- Association of State and Territorial Public Health Laboratory Directors. In: proceedings of the Second National Conference on Serologic Diagnosis of Lyme Disease; October 27–29, 1994; Dearborn, MI. Washington, DC: Association of State and Territorial Public Health Laboratory Directors; 1994.
- CDC. Notice to readers: recommendations for test performance and interpretation from the Second National Conference on Serologic Diagnosis of Lyme Disease. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1995;44:590–1. PubMedexternal icon
- Molins CR, Sexton C, Young JW, et al. Collection and characterization of samples for establishment of a serum repository for Lyme disease diagnostic test development and evaluation. J Clin Microbiol 2014;52:3755–62. CrossRefexternal icon PubMedexternal icon
- Food and Drug Administration. FDA clears new indications for existing Lyme disease tests that may help streamline diagnoses. [News release]. Silver Spring, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration; 2019. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-clears-new-indications-existing-lyme-disease-tests-may-help-streamline-diagnosesexternal icon
Suggested citation for this article: Mead P, Petersen J, Hinckley A. Updated CDC Recommendation for Serologic Diagnosis of Lyme Disease. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2019;68:703. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6832a4external icon.
MMWR and Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report are service marks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Use of trade names and commercial sources is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. References to non-CDC sites on the Internet are provided as a service to MMWR readers and do not constitute or imply endorsement of these organizations or their programs by CDC or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. CDC is not responsible for the content of pages found at these sites. URL addresses listed in MMWR were current as of the date of publication.All HTML versions of MMWR articles are generated from final proofs through an automated process. This conversion might result in character translation or format errors in the HTML version. Users are referred to the electronic PDF version (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr) and/or the original MMWR paper copy for printable versions of official text, figures, and tables. Questions or messages regarding errors in formatting should be addressed to mmwrq@cdc.gov.View Page In:pdf icon PDF [55K]
Page last reviewed: August 15, 2019
Content source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6832a4.htm?s_cid=mm6832a4_w#contribAff