Private economic interests behind Danish Borrelia diagnostic test 

Written by: Kristian Villesen, Sofie Tholen (original source in danish: http://www.information.dk/231920)
Information.
Created 02/05/2010 - 21:15

The Danish test for the disease Borrelia is very uncertain, says foreign experts. The doctor who  as advised the Board of Health to use a particular Borrelia test in Denmark has developed it and earns money on the sale - and he has not
disclosed his conflict of interest.

When doctors in Denmark test for the disease caused by Borrelia - a bacterium transmitted by ticks - they use an ELISA test. The test is clearly recommended in an article in IngentaConnect from 2006, written by Chief Physician at Rigshospitalet - and leading borrelia expert in Denmark - Klaus Hansen.

In the article, Klaus Hansen writes that the ELISA test is preferable to make a diagnosis of Borrelia. He advises against using the rival Western Blot test. A similar conclusion appears in the clarification report from 2006, which underlies the Board of Health recommendations.  
The report has Klaus Hansen as co-author. Klaus  Hansen has even developed the version of the ELISA test that is most widespread in Denmark - and he makes money on sales.

According to Klaus Hansen, how much money it involved is "irrelevant" . Information has learned that there are between 75,000 and 100,000 ELISA tests in Denmark every year and about half the market uses Klaus Hansen's version of the
test. Up to 50,000 of Klaus Hansen's ELISA tests are sold every year on the Danish market.
Information has not been able to get the price of the test, but Statens Serum Institut charges 590 kr. patient to carry it out.

The doctor's economic interest is not clear from either the article or clarification report from 2006.

"It is a clear example of the problems that arise when doctors have conflicts of interest," says Inga Marie Lunde from Doctors Without Sponsor, a network of physicians that promotes independence from commercial interests:
"It is a clear example of disguised marketing. We are assessing the data so that we can deal with it," says Inga Marie Lunde.
She particularly notes that Klaus Hansen has also written a clarification report without revealing any conflicts of interest:
"The clarification report is indeed the one that underlies the Danish practice in this area - which all practitioners follow," says Inga Marie Lunde.

Also Weekly News For Doctors believed that Klaus Hansen acted wrong:
"He should have declared this conflict of interest in his article in Weekly News for Doctors," writes Scientific Editor, Jacob Rosenberg in a brief email to Information.

Doubts about test

The ELISA that Klaus Hansen and his colleagues recommend is unreliable, says several experts who have spoken to Information. They prefer typical Western Blot test, which Klaus Hansen advises against using.

Among these are medical and research director Nikolaus Ackermann from the renowned Max von Pettenkofer Institute, Ludwig Maximilians University in Munich:
"Western Blot test is clearly better than the ELISA test. It is more precise. It has been recognized in Germany, where it becomes more and more common to use the Western Blot. The optimum is to use both tests, so you can compare the
results, "says Dr. Nikolaus Ackermann.

The American doctor Daniel Cameron, leader of ILADS - International Lyme And Associated Diseases Society, an international, nonprofit, medical Borrelia organization, agrees. Daniel Cameron has worked with Borrelia for 23 years and
believe that Danish doctors reliance on the ELISA test harms patients:
"Our frustration with the ELISA test is that it gives too many false-negative results. The Danish doctors rely on these tests, and it is a mistake that ultimately goes beyond the bad test. Because if doctors get a negative result from ELISA test,
they fail to initiate treatment of the infected patient, "says Daniel Cameron.

Consultant for the German private hospital for  borrelia treatment, Borreliosis Centrum Ausburg, Karsten Nicolaus, believes that the ELISA test alone is useless to diagnose the disease:

"The ELISA test is the cheapest, which is the only incentive to use the test as I see it. There is certainly no medical reason for relying on that test, and my suggestion is that you throw it away," says Karsten Nicolaus. Also in the Statens Serum Institut believe Dr. Kaare Mølbak that Western Blot is the best way to diagnose.
'The great strength of the Western Blot is that it can exclude other bacteria that resembles Borrelia. "

- Which Lyme test is best?
"The Western Blot," says Kaare Mølbak.

Yet he believes that the Danish practice of using only the ELISA test is fine:  'ELISA test is cheaper and more practical in an everyday context, and for routine use, it will  usually be fully sufficient," says Kaare Mølbak who stresses that he follows the recommendations of the Danish experts - meaning Klaus Hansen and the other authors of the clarification report.
"ELISA tests can give both false positive and false negative results. This means that one can learn that you have the disease without it - or think that you do not have the disease, even if you have it. The false-positive results are more common. Both are obviously dangerous - especially the false negative results which may lead to  prolonged untreated illness. An untreated Borrelia disease can cause severe paralysis and pain from the illness.

No evidence

Klaus Hansen denies that the Western Blot is the best way to diagnose Borrelia:
"In our industry we are so evidence-based. And there is no evidence that Western Blot is better," says Klaus Hansen.

Regarding conflicts of interest Klaus Hansen admits that he erred:

"It's true. And I can only regret that I was not informed about it when we made the clarification report," he said, adding:
"In retrospect I should have said that I had a relationship with the company concerned. But there was no ulterior motive behind not saying it. We just didn't think about it. "

- How can you not think about making money from the test, if you recommend it?
"You have to take my word that I have not thought  about it. Today I can see what I should have done. And had anyone told me back in 2006, then I should have said 'yes, of course, we should write it', "says Klaus Hansen.

In appears that the report has been corrected - in April 2010 an update was added that Klaus Hansen has a conflict of interest. The group  behind the report noted the conflict of interest  without writing there was a new and updated
version. The clarification report is still called '1st edition 2006 ', as if the conflict of  interest had always been indicated. Only when information again addressed the issue, we were told that there is a new version from April 2010.
The group behind the report explained that there was a "bug", which has now been corrected.

Despite several invitations, Klaus Hansen refuses to say how much money he earns on the sale of the  ELISA tests.
"It does not matter. And this is my last word on the matter, "says Klaus Hansen.

In another article by the same two journalists from Information title translated:
UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE DANISH DIAGNOSIS OF BORRELIOSIS
(original source in danish http://www.information.dk/231899

"It is true, that the test may give false negative result. But only in the first weeks of the illness. At latest 3 months (after symptom debut) every patient vill form antibodies and therefore be tested positive with an ELISA test, if the infection is active and therefore necessary to treat" says Klaus Hansen, which is co-author of the danish clearing report, which underlies the common practice in this matter.


Marie Kroun, MD - has for many years recommended to the Danish National Board of Health to give all Hansens publications and the test manufacturers specifications, i.e. the science behind it, which is referred to and used as backup for the common statements about Borreliosis: 
... a thorough review on the science behind the flagella antibody test regarding documentation for the last statement: http://lymerick.net/2006-OXOID-DAKO.html
- revealed that also in April 1992 another publication - very detailed review of it in http://lymerick.net/8423881.html - was send in for publication, where IgG cut-off suddenly had been increased by a factor 1.5, from previously 0.160 to 0.240 - while the manufacturers specification (which is referred to as the only source of the increase in 8423888!) refers only to two older publications (Hansen 1988, Karlsson 1990) in which the IgG cut-off was actually determined to be 0.160 NOT 0.240 - so it seem there is really no scientific justification for the increase in IgG cut-off, that of course make it harder for Borrelia patients to get a positive IgG!

Evidence based medicin requires one to do a systematic review of ALL the scientifically peer-review published literature - not just a selection of publications, that suits your own opinions!
Each piece must thereafter be evaluated for the  strength of evidence before finally weighing ALL evidence FOR up against ALL evidence AGAINST!


The very best microbiological evidence FOR INFECTION, is when the MICROBIAL AGENT can be CULTURED from the patients tissues/fluids, this is therefore named the gold standard method, a positive culture outrules all other negative test-results, including Hansens serology test, if there are discrepant results the gold standard diagnosis method wins!
However, not all microbes can be cultured outside the mammal host, in-vitro, in the laboratory, the syphilis spirochete for instance can not, BUT SPIROCHAETES can be VISUALIZED in tissues and cancre sores by microscopy aided by specific immune stain or other unspecific staining methods for spirocheates as mentioned in http://lymerick.net/Borrelia-culture.htm
Borrelia burgdorferi spirochaetes can also be seen in the microscope ... 

Hansen failed to validate his serology test on culture or by other direct detection methods proven cases! - when they actually attempted to follow serology in culture verified cases of EM, it turned out that 41% stayed seronegative and actually only 24% developed positive IgG in serum!
Lomholt et al. Acta Derm Venereol 2000 Sep-Oct;80(5):362-6. PMID: 11200835! - the culture positive EM patients were "found" in 1989 and 1992, and the follow-up time was 23+/-14 months, i.e. follow-up finished around 1995, then - why did it take 5 more years to publish these important study results?  

When saying "all" and "always" ~ postulating as if the statements are 100% certain and totally reliable
- there MUST NOT BE FOUND ONE SINGLE PEER-REVIEW PUBLISHED CULTURE VERIFIED CASE OF LATE BORRELIA - i.e. with disease duration longer than the time limit of 3 MONTHS, THAT TEST NEGATIVE FOR ANTIBODIES IN SERUM ON HANSENS TEST!
But, indeed, Hansens test FAILED to show Borrelia infection i 6 out of 12 cultureverified cases peer-review published by Oksi et al. in J Clin Microbiol 1995, which Hansen et al. chose to IGNORE discussion of in the danish clearing report from 2006! - shows Hansen et als. IGNORANCE!

Hansen claims he does practice evidence based medicine, however he does NOT, because he chose to ignore many publiched culture verified Borreliosis cases that had documented his "opinions" are not true, even before he wrote them!