Diagnostic Performance of C6 Enzyme Immunoassay for Lyme Arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: In Lyme disease endemic areas, initial management of children with arthritis can be challenging because diagnostic tests take several days to return results, leading to potentially unnecessary invasive procedures. Our objective was to examine the role of the C6 peptide enzyme immunoassay (EIA) test to guide initial management. METHODS: We enrolled children with acute arthritis undergoing evaluation for Lyme disease presenting to a participating Pedi Lyme Net emergency department (2015-2019) and performed a C6 EIA test. We defined Lyme arthritis with a positive or equivocal C6 EIA test result followed by a positive supplemental immunoblot result and defined septic arthritis as a positive synovial fluid culture result or a positive blood culture result with synovial fluid pleocytosis. Otherwise, children were considered to have inflammatory arthritis. We report the sensitivity and specificity of the C6 EIA for the diagnosis of Lyme arthritis. RESULTS: Of the 911 study patients, 211 children (23.2%) had Lyme arthritis, 11 (1.2%) had septic arthritis, and 689 (75.6%) had other inflammatory arthritis. A positive or equivocal C6 EIA result had a sensitivity of 100% (211 out of 211; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 98.2%-100%) and specificity of 94.2% (661 out of 700; 95% CI: 92.5%-95.9%) for Lyme arthritis. None of the 250 children with a positive or equivocal C6 EIA result had septic arthritis (0%; 95% CI: 0%-1.5%), although 75 children underwent diagnostic arthrocentesis and 27 underwent operative joint washout. CONCLUSIONS: In Lyme disease endemic areas, a C6 EIA result could be used to guide initial clinical decision-making, without misclassifying children with septic arthritis.

[Arthrocentesis of the temporomandibular joint and intra-articular injections : An update]. / Arthrocentèse de l'articulation temporomandibulaire et injection(s) intra-articulaire(s) : un état des lieux.

INTRODUCTION: Arthocentesis of the temporomandibular joint combined with intra-articular washout and, more recently, intra-articular injection of pharmacological agents has been developed from the 1990s and is nowadays extensively in use for the treatment of temporomandibular dysfunctions (TMDs). The goal of our work was to answer 3 questions: 1. Is intra-articular washout effective for the treatment of TMDs ? 2. What kind of pharmacological agents may nowadays be injected in addition to washout and are these injections useful ? 3. What is the place of these treatments in the treatment strategies of TMDs ? MATERIAL AND METHODS: A bibliographic research has been carried out in the PubMed database using following keywords arthrocentesis, temporomandibular joint. The 27 articles published between 1991 and 2016, indicating patient's inclusion criterions and objectively evaluating the clinical results (mouth opening, intra-articular noises, pain) were selected. Pharmacological agents were noticed when used. RESULTS: 1. All authors concluded to the efficacy of intra-articular washout. No prognostic factor for arthrocentesis efficacy could be identified. 2. Main pharmacological agents used were steroids, hyaluronic acid, morphine-based drugs and platelet rich plasma. Superiority of ith-injection protocols failed to win unanimous support. All authors who compared with- and without-injection protocols concluded to the superiority of with-injection protocols, whatever the agent. DISCUSSION: Numerous studies have proven the efficacy of intra-articular washout for the treatment of TMDs resistant to noninvasive treatments. The advantage of any kind of pharmacological agent is not clear. Mechanisms of action are not all elucidated. No pharmacological agent showed any superiority over another. Study methodologies are often defective: imprecise inclusion criterions, short follow-up, confounding variables not taken into account, few comparison between pharmacological agents.