Lyme Borreliosis: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Foekje F. Stelma
,
Anneleen Berende
,
Hadewych Ter Hofstede
,
Hedwig D. Vrijmoeth
,
Fidel Vos
,
Bart-Jan Kullberg

The diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis is based on two-tier testing using an ELISA and Western blot. About 5–10% of patients report persistent symptoms of unknown etiology after treatment, resulting in substantial difficulties in further diagnostic workup.

  • Borrelia
  • serology
  • PTLDS
  • Lyme borreliosis

1. Introduction

Lyme borreliosis (LB) is the most common tick-borne disease in the northern hemisphere [1]. In the Netherlands, a fourfold increase was observed in the number of consultations for Lyme borreliosis in primary care between 1994 and 2018, with an increase in the estimated incidence from 39 to 148 per 100,000 inhabitants, respectively [2][3][4]. The disease is caused by several Borrelia species within the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato complex, with the predominant species in Europe being B. garinii, B. afzelii, and B. burgdorferi sensu stricto, whereas in North America, it is mainly caused by B. burgdoferi ss [5][6]. In humans, LB primarily affects the skin, nervous system, heart, or joints and typically manifests as a skin lesion with an expanding bull’s-eye pattern called erythema migrans (EM), which appears several days to weeks after a tick bite. The skin lesion may be accompanied by flu-like symptoms such as fever, myalgia, and headache. Later manifestations of the disease, such as neuroborreliosis, acrodermatitis chronica atrophicans (ACA), or arthritis, can present weeks or months after infection [7][8][9][10][11][12]. Unfortunately, even after the recommended antibiotic treatment, on average, 5–10% of patients report symptoms for years after infection [13], after which neuroborreliosis can reach up to 48% [14][15]. This “chronic” form of borreliosis was recently described by Steere [16]. Considering Borrelia diagnostics, post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome (PTLDS) and central sensitization syndrome are the most challenging entities [12].
The symptoms in PSL are often non-specific and vary from chronic fatigue and musculoskeletal pain to neurocognitive difficulties, and the criteria were previously described by Wormser [17]. Although chemokine ligand 13 (CXCL13) is a recognized biomarker for acute neuroborreliosis [18], there are no specific biological markers for PSL, making it extremely difficult to define the disease. Furthermore, the etiology is unclear, and possible explanations range from persistent infection with Borrelia spp. to factors not related to LB [16].

2. Two-Tier Approach in Serological Diagnostics

Standard serological diagnosis relies on a two-tier approach, starting with a Borrelia-specific IgG and IgM enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). If the screening yields a positive or equivocal result, confirmation follows by testing the IgG and IgM reactivity by Western blotting (WB) against several Borrelia-specific proteins [19]. A modified two-tier approach has recently been evaluated and proven equally sensitive and specific. This modified approach consists of two consecutive Borrelia-specific ELISAs from different commercial brands [20][21][22].
Serological diagnostics are known to have poor positive predictive value in populations with a low pretest probability. Stage and symptom entities influence pretest probabilities and the level of false-positive serological results [3][23][24]. IgM reactivity is especially hampered by a high proportion of false-positive reactions [25]. Therefore, Borrelia serology should only be performed if a high pre-test probability is present. Further, laboratory specialists should only consider the serological results in combination with clinical information. Finally, clinicians should take great care not to trust alternative testing, as this might lead to misdiagnosing LB [26][27].

3. Serology in Early Lyme Borreliosis

Early borreliosis includes stage 1 and stage 2 diseases. Acute borreliosis (stage 1 disease) is often defined as symptoms developing within 30 days after exposure; however, the exact date of exposure is often difficult to pinpoint, and some scientists also define symptoms that develop within 10 weeks after exposure as early borreliosis. A large difference in the time span will influence the sensitivity of the serological test. Mounting a Borrelia-specific IgM response typically takes 2–4 weeks, and developing a Borrelia-specific IgG response may take up to two months [28][29]. Thus, the so-called “window period” in which no antibodies are detectable varies from several days to 2 months after the initial infection. When evaluating the performance of a serological test in the case of borreliosis, it is better to relate the findings to a clinical entity. Early borreliosis is best mirrored by the presence of EM, also referred to as early localized disease. In EM, the two-tier serological approach has been shown to have a limited sensitivity of 31–50% [3][29][30]. The early response is predominantly an IgM reaction with reactivity against outer surface protein C (OspC; 25 kDa), basic membrane protein A (BmpA; 39 kDa), and flagellin protein (41 kDa). Only 22% of serum samples in early localized disease have been shown to be reactive in a combination of IgG ELISA and WB, with a predominant protein reactivity against surface lipoprotein E (VlsE; 35 kDa) [31]. The intensity of the antibody response is related to the duration of the EM before antibiotic treatment and the extent of dissemination [31][32]. Because of the limited sensitivity of serology in early localized disease, it is advised to treat patients directly when EM is diagnosed and not rely on serological diagnostics [33].
In early disseminated disease (stage 2, acute neuroborreliosis, lymphocytoma, and carditis), the two-tier serology approach has a sensitivity of 63–77% [3][28][30]. In comparison to patients with EM, patients with neuroborreliosis have lower IgM optical density (OD) values and higher IgG OD values against B. burgdorferi antigens [34]. Cerebrospinal pleiocytosis, intrathecal antibody production of IgM and IgG isotypes, and an increased level of CXCL-13 in the cerebrospinal fluid are typically present in patients with neuroborreliosis [35].
Although IgM testing has proven to be sensitive in early Borrelia diagnostics, a high proportion of false-positive results has also been seen, especially if the IgM reactivity exceeded 1 month after exposure, with no evidence of IgG seroconversion [25][36]. Branda and colleagues [30] suggested an alternative two-tier approach using the IgG ELISA reactivity confirmed by one WB VlsE band. This approach reached 96% sensitivity in early disseminated disease and is, therefore, an adequate alternative to IgM testing at this disease stage and onward.

4. Serology in Late Clinical Lyme Borreliosis (ACA, Arthritis, Myocarditis, and Neuroborreliosis)

Late disseminated borreliosis (stage 3) presents as ACA, Lyme arthritis, and/or continuing neurological disease activity lasting more than 6 months [12]. The two-tier approach, including 5 of 11 IgG-positive WB bands, showed 95–100% sensitivity in this patient group [30]. To enhance specificity, a positive IgM immunoblot alone, in the absence of a positive IgG immunoblot, should not be interpreted as active LB in patients with an illness duration of more than 30 days [28].

5. Serology in Patients with Persistent Symptoms Attributed to Lyme Borreliosis (PSL)

The clinical manifestations, diagnostics, and antibiotic treatment of stages 1, 2, and 3 borreliosis are well-established. Most patients will recover, and the Borrelia-related inflammation will normalize. However, a small proportion of patients continue to suffer from non-specific symptoms consisting of fatigue, arthralgia, myalgia, and perceived cognitive impairment. These symptoms will typically persist in spite of antibiotic treatment. Case definitions show large variations, and diagnostic workup is difficult and often accompanied by confusion and controversy.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/life13051134

References

  1. Marques, A.R.; Strle, F.; Wormser, G.P. Comparison of Lyme Disease in the United States and Europe. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2021, 27, 2017–2024.
  2. RIVM. Lyme Disease Cases Have Quadruppled. Available online: https://www.rivm.nl/en/news/lyme-disease-cases-have-quadrupled (accessed on 16 April 2018).
  3. Leeflang, M.M.; Ang, C.W.; Berkhout, J.; Bijlmer, H.A.; Van Bortel, W.; Brandenburg, A.H.; Van Burgel, N.D.; Van Dam, A.P.; Dessau, R.B.; Fingerle, V.; et al. The diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for Lyme borreliosis in Europe: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Infect. Dis. 2016, 16, 140.
  4. van den Wijngaard, C.C.; Hofhuis, A.; Harms, M.G.; Haagsma, J.A.; Wong, A.; de Wit, G.A.; Havelaar, A.H.; Lugner, A.K.; Suijkerbuijk, A.W.; van Pelt, W. The burden of Lyme borreliosis expressed in disability-adjusted life years. Eur. J. Public Health 2015, 25, 1071–1078.
  5. Cerar, T.; Strle, F.; Stupica, D.; Ruzic-Sabljic, E.; McHugh, G.; Steere, A.C.; Strle, K. Differences in Genotype, Clinical Features, and Inflammatory Potential of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto Strains from Europe and the United States. Emerg. Infect Dis. 2016, 22, 818–827.
  6. Saint Girons, I.; Gern, L.; Gray, J.S.; Guy, E.C.; Korenberg, E.; Nuttall, P.A.; Rijpkema, S.G.; Schonberg, A.; Stanek, G.; Postic, D. Identification of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato species in Europe. Zentralbl. Bakteriol. 1998, 287, 190–195.
  7. Feder, H.M., Jr.; Johnson, B.J.; O’Connell, S.; Shapiro, E.D.; Steere, A.C.; Wormser, G.P.; Ad Hoc International Lyme Disease, G.; Agger, W.A.; Artsob, H.; Auwaerter, P.; et al. A critical appraisal of “chronic Lyme disease”. N. Engl. J. Med. 2007, 357, 1422–1430.
  8. Koedel, U.; Pfister, H.W. Lyme neuroborreliosis. Curr. Opin. Infect Dis. 2017, 30, 101–107.
  9. Shapiro, E.D. Lyme disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 371, 684.
  10. Stanek, G.; Fingerle, V.; Hunfeld, K.P.; Jaulhac, B.; Kaiser, R.; Krause, A.; Kristoferitsch, W.; O’Connell, S.; Ornstein, K.; Strle, F.; et al. Lyme borreliosis: Clinical case definitions for diagnosis and management in Europe. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Off. Public Eur. Soc. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2011, 17, 69–79.
  11. Stanek, G.; Wormser, G.P.; Gray, J.; Strle, F. Lyme borreliosis. Lancet 2012, 379, 461–473.
  12. Cardenas-de la Garza, J.A.; De la Cruz-Valadez, E.; Ocampo-Candiani, J.; Welsh, O. Clinical spectrum of Lyme disease. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. Off. Public Eur. Soc. Clin. Microbiol. 2019, 38, 201–208.
  13. Ursinus, J.; Vrijmoeth, H.D.; Harms, M.G.; Tulen, A.D.; Knoop, H.; Gauw, S.A.; Zomer, T.P.; Wong, A.; Friesema, I.H.M.; Vermeeren, Y.M.; et al. Prevalence of persistent symptoms after treatment for lyme borreliosis: A prospective observational cohort study. Lancet Reg. Health Eur. 2021, 6, 100142.
  14. Cairns, V.; Godwin, J. Post-Lyme borreliosis syndrome: A meta-analysis of reported symptoms. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2005, 34, 1340–1345.
  15. Ljostad, U.; Mygland, A. Remaining complaints 1 year after treatment for acute Lyme neuroborreliosis; frequency, pattern and risk factors. Eur. J. Neurol. 2010, 17, 118–123.
  16. Steere, A.C. Posttreatment Lyme disease syndromes: Distinct pathogenesis caused by maladaptive host responses. J. Clin. Investig. 2020, 130, 2148–2151.
  17. Wormser, G.P.; Dattwyler, R.J.; Shapiro, E.D.; Halperin, J.J.; Steere, A.C.; Klempner, M.S.; Krause, P.J.; Bakken, J.S.; Strle, F.; Stanek, G.; et al. The clinical assessment, treatment, and prevention of lyme disease, human granulocytic anaplasmosis, and babesiosis: Clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin. Infect. Dis. Off. Public Infect. Dis. Soc. Am. 2006, 43, 1089–1134.
  18. Leth, T.A.; Dessau, R.B.; Moller, J.K. Discriminating between Lyme neuroborreliosis and other central nervous system infections by use of biomarkers CXCL13 and IL-6. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. 2022, 13, 101984.
  19. Waddell, L.A.; Greig, J.; Mascarenhas, M.; Harding, S.; Lindsay, R.; Ogden, N. The Accuracy of Diagnostic Tests for Lyme Disease in Humans, A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of North American Research. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0168613.
  20. Pegalajar-Jurado, A.; Schriefer, M.E.; Welch, R.J.; Couturier, M.R.; MacKenzie, T.; Clark, R.J.; Ashton, L.V.; Delorey, M.J.; Molins, C.R. Evaluation of Modified Two-Tiered Testing Algorithms for Lyme Disease Laboratory Diagnosis Using Well-Characterized Serum Samples. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2018, 56, e01943-17.
  21. Group, L.D.D.W. Modified two-tiered testing algorithm for Lyme disease serology: The Canadian context. Can. Commun. Dis. Rep. 2020, 46, 125–131.
  22. Baarsma, M.E.; Schellekens, J.; Meijer, B.C.; Brandenburg, A.H.; Souilljee, T.; Hofhuis, A.; Hovius, J.W.; van Dam, A.P. Diagnostic parameters of modified two-tier testing in European patients with early Lyme disease. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. Off. Public Eur. Soc. Clin. Microbiol. 2020, 39, 2143–2152.
  23. Dessau, R.B.; Bangsborg, J.M.; Ejlertsen, T.; Skarphedinsson, S.; Schonheyder, H.C. Utilization of serology for the diagnosis of suspected Lyme borreliosis in Denmark: Survey of patients seen in general practice. BMC Infect. Dis. 2010, 10, 317.
  24. Tugwell, P.; Dennis, D.T.; Weinstein, A.; Wells, G.; Shea, B.; Nichol, G.; Hayward, R.; Lightfoot, R.; Baker, P.; Steere, A.C. Laboratory evaluation in the diagnosis of Lyme disease. Ann. Intern. Med. 1997, 127, 1109–1123.
  25. Ang, C.W.; Brandenburg, A.H.; van Burgel, N.D.; Bijlmer, H.A.; Herremans, T.; Stelma, F.; Lunel, F.V.; van Dam, A.P.; Dutch Working Group on Diagnosis of Lyme, B. A Dutch nationwide evaluation of serological assays for detection of Borrelia antibodies in clinically well-defined patients. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect Dis. 2015, 83, 222–228.
  26. Patrick, D.M.; Miller, R.R.; Gardy, J.L.; Parker, S.M.; Morshed, M.G.; Steiner, T.S.; Singer, J.; Shojania, K.; Tang, P.; Complex Chronic Disease Study, G. Lyme Disease Diagnosed by Alternative Methods: A Phenotype Similar to That of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Clin. Infect. Dis. Off. Public Infect. Dis. Soc. Am. 2015, 61, 1084–1091.
  27. van de Schoor, F.R.; Baarsma, M.E.; Gauw, S.A.; Joosten, L.A.B.; Kullberg, B.J.; van den Wijngaard, C.C.; Hovius, J.W. Validation of cellular tests for Lyme borreliosis (VICTORY) study. BMC Infect. Dis. 2019, 19, 732.
  28. Branda, J.A.; Steere, A.C. Laboratory Diagnosis of Lyme Borreliosis. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2021, 34, e00018-19.
  29. Steere, A.C.; McHugh, G.; Damle, N.; Sikand, V.K. Prospective study of serologic tests for lyme disease. Clin. Infect. Dis. Off. Public Infect. Dis. Soc. Am. 2008, 47, 188–195.
  30. Branda, J.A.; Aguero-Rosenfeld, M.E.; Ferraro, M.J.; Johnson, B.J.; Wormser, G.P.; Steere, A.C. 2-tiered antibody testing for early and late Lyme disease using only an immunoglobulin G blot with the addition of a VlsE band as the second-tier test. Clin. Infect. Dis. Off. Public Infect. Dis. Soc. Am. 2010, 50, 20–26.
  31. Aguero-Rosenfeld, M.E.; Nowakowski, J.; Bittker, S.; Cooper, D.; Nadelman, R.B.; Wormser, G.P. Evolution of the serologic response to Borrelia burgdorferi in treated patients with culture-confirmed erythema migrans. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1996, 34, 1–9.
  32. Rebman, A.W.; Crowder, L.A.; Kirkpatrick, A.; Aucott, J.N. Characteristics of seroconversion and implications for diagnosis of post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome: Acute and convalescent serology among a prospective cohort of early Lyme disease patients. Clin. Rheumatol. 2015, 34, 585–589.
  33. CBO. Richtlijn Lymeziekte. Dutch CBO Guidelines. 2013. Available online: https://www.rivm.nl/documenten/cbo-richtlijn-lymeziekte-juli-2013 (accessed on 1 July 2013).
  34. Hammers-Berggren, S.; Lebech, A.M.; Karlsson, M.; Svenungsson, B.; Hansen, K.; Stiernstedt, G. Serological follow-up after treatment of patients with erythema migrans and neuroborreliosis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1994, 32, 1519–1525.
  35. Halperin, J.J. Lyme neuroborreliosis. Curr. Opin. Infect Dis. 2019, 32, 259–264.
  36. Seriburi, V.; Ndukwe, N.; Chang, Z.; Cox, M.E.; Wormser, G.P. High frequency of false positive IgM immunoblots for Borrelia burgdorferi in clinical practice. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2012, 18, 1236–1240.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback