Polymerase chain reaction control of antibiotic treatment in dermatoborreliosis

Cutaneous Lyme borreliosis: Guideline of the German Dermatology Society

This guideline of the German Dermatology Society primarily focuses on the diagnosis and treatment of cutaneous manifestations of Lyme borreliosis. It has received consensus from 22 German medical societies and 2 German patient organisations. It is the first part of an AWMF (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften e.V.) interdisciplinary guideline: “Lyme Borreliosis – Diagnosis and Treatment, development stage S3”.

The guideline is directed at physicians in private practices and clinics who treat Lyme borreliosis. Objectives of this guideline are recommendations for confirming a clinical diagnosis, recommendations for a stage-related laboratory diagnosis (serological detection of IgM and IgG Borrelia antibodies using the 2-tiered ELISA/immunoblot process, sensible use of molecular diagnostic and culture procedures) and recommendations for the treatment of the localised, early-stage infection (erythema migrans, erythema chronicum migrans, and borrelial lymphocytoma), the disseminated early-stage infection (multiple erythemata migrantia, flu-like symptoms) and treatment of the late-stage infection (acrodermatitis chronica atrophicans with and without neurological manifestations). In addition, an information sheet for patients containing recommendations for the prevention of Lyme borreliosis is attached to the guideline.

Progress in the molecular diagnosis of Lyme disease

INTRODUCTION

Current laboratory testing of Lyme borreliosis mostly relies on serological methods with known limitations. Diagnostic modalities enabling direct detection of pathogen at the onset of the clinical signs could overcome some of the limitations. Molecular methods detecting borrelial DNA seem to be the ideal solution, although there are some aspects that need to be considered. Areas covered: This review represent summary and discussion of the published data obtained from literature searches from PubMed and The National Library of Medicine (USA) together with our own experience on molecular diagnosis of Lyme disease. Expert commentary: Molecular methods are promising and currently serve as supporting diagnostic testing in Lyme borreliosis. Since the field of molecular diagnostics is under rapid development, molecular testing could become an important diagnostic modality.

Molecular diagnosis of Borrelia bacteria for the diagnosis of Lyme disease

INTRODUCTION

Lyme borreliosis is the most common vector-borne disease in the temperate climate zone of Europe and the US, and its frequency is increasing. Serology is often negative in the early stage of Lyme borreliosis and cannot distinguish between active and past infection. Culture is cumbersome and not very sensitive, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for the diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis has been described over the last 20 years, with varying results.

AREAS COVERED

In this article, all of the major studies in which PCR has been used to diagnose Lyme borreliosis in humans are critically reviewed. However, this article does not include studies that consisted of fewer than 10 patients, nor does it include studies that have inadequate descriptions of the patient population.

EXPERT OPINION

There is a lack of standardized protocols, and preamplification procedures have not been standardized. Nested PCRs seem to perform best, but are prone to contamination. PCR on skin biopsies can be used to diagnose early Lyme borreliosis in patients with atypical forms of erythema migrans. PCR also has diagnostic potential in Lyme arthritis and early neuroborreliosis. Blood and urine should not used for PCR. For future development, preamplification procedures should be optimized using materials from experimentally infected animals. Multi-center studies should follow to evaluate these optimized tests.

Skin manifestations of lyme borreliosis: diagnosis and management

Lyme borreliosis is a multisystem infectious disease caused by tick-transmitted spirochetes of the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato complex. The three characteristic cutaneous manifestations are erythema migrans, borrelial lymphocytoma, and acrodermatitis chronica atrophicans. Erythema migrans occurs in acute Lyme borreliosis, lymphocytoma is a subacute lesion, and acrodermatitis is the typical manifestation of late Lyme borreliosis. Clinical appearances of erythema migrans and lymphocytoma (when located on the ear or breast) are characteristic, whereas acrodermatitis is often confused with vascular conditions. The diagnosis of erythema migrans is made clinically. Serologic analyses often yield false-negative results and are not required for the diagnosis. However, serologic proof of the diagnosis in lymphocytoma (approximately 90% positive) and acrodermatitis (100% positive) is mandatory. Histopathologic examination often adds substantial information in patients with skin manifestations of Lyme borreliosis and is recommended in clinically (and serologically) undecided cases of erythema migrans or lymphocytoma and is obligatory in acrodermatitis. Polymerase chain reaction for Borrelia-specific DNA (rather than culture of the spirochete) and immunohistochemical investigations (lymphocytoma) are sometimes necessary adjuncts for the diagnosis. Antibacterial treatment is necessary in all patients to eliminate the spirochete, cure current disease, and prevent late sequelae. Oral doxycycline, also effective against coinfection with Anaplasma phagocytophilum, is the mainstay of therapy of cutaneous manifestations of Lyme borreliosis. Other first-line antibacterials are amoxicillin and cefuroxime axetil. Erythema migrans is treated for 2 weeks, lymphocytoma for 3-4 weeks, and acrodermatitis for at least 4 weeks.

[Lyme disease: prophylaxis after tick bite]

Lyme disease is a bacterial infection caused by Borrelia burgdorferi, which is transmitted by infected ticks. The transmission depends on several factors, especially on the duration of the tick's presence in the host body (the nymph which is smaller than the adults and thus less visible, is in this case the most frequently involved) and on whether the tick is infected or not. The interpretation of results in the few available studies is made difficult by the lack of information obtained (due to difficulty to collect information and examination costs). The comparison is made even more difficult by the difference between Borrelia ticks species in various regions. Today, the best methods are preventive: protective clothing, tick repellents, checking and removal of ticks after a journey in an endemic zone, and in case of tick bite, regular examination of the bite site during the following weeks in order to initiate an early curative treatment if ECM is diagnosed. The currently available data seems to be insufficient to suggest systematic antimicrobial prophylaxis in case of tick bite.

Diagnosis of lyme borreliosis

A large amount of knowledge has been acquired since the original descriptions of Lyme borreliosis (LB) and of its causative agent, Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto. The complexity of the organism and the variations in the clinical manifestations of LB caused by the different B. burgdorferi sensu lato species were not then anticipated. Considerable improvement has been achieved in detection of B. burgdorferi sensu lato by culture, particularly of blood specimens during early stages of disease. Culturing plasma and increasing the volume of material cultured have accomplished this. Further improvements might be obtained if molecular methods are used for detection of growth in culture and if culture methods are automated. Unfortunately, culture is insensitive in extracutaneous manifestations of LB. PCR and culture have high sensitivity on skin samples of patients with EM whose diagnosis is based mostly on clinical recognition of the lesion. PCR on material obtained from extracutaneous sites is in general of low sensitivity, with the exception of synovial fluid. PCR on synovial fluid has shown a sensitivity of up to >90% (when using four different primer sets) in patients with untreated or partially treated Lyme arthritis, making it a helpful confirmatory test in these patients. Currently, the best use of PCR is for confirmation of the clinical diagnosis of suspected Lyme arthritis in patients who are IgG immunoblot positive. PCR should not be used as the sole laboratory modality to support a clinical diagnosis of extracutaneous LB. PCR positivity in seronegative patients suspected of having late manifestations of LB most likely represents a false-positive result. Because of difficulties in direct methods of detection, laboratory tests currently in use are mainly those detecting antibodies to B. burgdorferi sensu lato. Tests used to detect antibodies to B. burgdorferi sensu lato have evolved from the initial formats as more knowledge on the immunodominant antigens has been collected. The recommendation for two-tier testing was an attempt to standardize testing and improve specificity in the United States. First-tier assays using whole-cell sonicates of B. burgdorferi sensu lato need to be standardized in terms of antigen composition and detection threshold of specific immunoglobulin classes. The search for improved serologic tests has stimulated the development of recombinant protein antigens and the synthesis of specific peptides from immunodominant antigens. The use of these materials alone or in combination as the source of antigen in a single-tier immunoassay may someday replace the currently recommended two-tier testing strategy. Evaluation of these assays is currently being done, and there is evidence that certain of these antigens may be broadly cross-reactive with the B. burgdorferi sensu lato species causing LB in Europe.

Recent advances in the diagnosis of Lyme disease

Diagnosis of human Lyme borreliosis is usually based on serology, which has a number of pitfalls. In the early phase of the disease serology can still be negative, whereas false-positive results are also common. The interpretation of confirmatory Western blot tests is not always easy. Furthermore, routine serology cannot discriminate between active and past infection. In addition, recombinant antigens are being introduced to improve serologic tests. New developments in the diagnosis of Lyme disease are the development of PCR tests. This review gives an overview of the molecular diagnostic possibilities of Lyme borreliosis, mainly by PCR, and describes some interesting possibilities for future serology.

Diagnostic value of PCR for detection of Borrelia burgdorferi DNA in clinical specimens from patients with erythema migrans and Lyme neuroborreliosis

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study is to evaluate the diagnostic sensitivity of a 16S ribosomal RNA-based PCR on clinical specimens from patients with erythema migrans (EM) and neuroborreliosis and to compare the sensitivities with those obtained by in vitro culture and serological testing. A semiquantitative detection system, representing the input amount of specific DNA and thus the density of spirochetes in clinical specimens, indicated the preferred clinical sample to obtain for PCR testing.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Skin biopsy and urine samples from 31 patients with EM and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and urine samples from 30 patients with neuroborreliosis were investigated. Borrelia burgdorferi DNA was detected in 71% of the skin biopsy specimens and 13% of the urine samples from patients with EM. Forty-one percent of the patients with EM were found to have B burgdorferi-specific antibodies in serum, and B burgdorferi was cultured in 29% of the EM specimens. For patients with neuroborreliosis, the diagnostic sensitivities in CSF and urine samples were 17% and 7%, respectively. Specific intrathecal antibody production was found in 90% of the patients, and 87% showed elevated B burgdorferi antibodies in serum. In general, PCR of skin biopsy samples yielded very high amounts of amplicons versus low amounts for CSF and urine samples.

CONCLUSIONS

PCR of skin biopsy specimens is currently the most sensitive and specific test for the diagnosis of patients with EM, superior to culture and serological testing. For B burgdorferi-specific CSF disgnosis in patients with neuroborreliosis, the measurement of specific intrathecal antibody synthesis is superior to PCR. However, in patients with a short duration of disease (<14 days), PCR may be a useful diagnostic supplement. PCR of urine samples cannot be recommended at the present time for routine diagnosis of patients with EM or neuroborreliosis.

Diagnostic value of PCR for detection of Borrelia burgdorferi in skin biopsy and urine samples from patients with skin borreliosis

Skin biopsies of 36 patients with erythema migrans and acrodermatitis chronica atrophicans (ACA) before therapy and those of 8 patients after therapy were examined for Borrelia burgdorferi DNA by PCR. Skin biopsies of 27 patients with dermatological diseases other than Lyme borreliosis and those of 10 healthy persons were examined as controls. Two different primer sets targeting 23S rRNA (PCR I) and 66-kDa protein (PCR II) genes were used. PCR was performed with freshly frozen tissue (FFT) and paraffin-embedded tissue (PET). For FFT specimens of erythema migrans, 73% were positive by PCR I, 79% were positive by PCR II, and 88% were positive by combining PCR I and II. For PET specimens, PCR was less sensitive (PCR I, 44%; PCR II, 52%). For FFT specimens of ACA, PCR I was positive for two of five patients and PCR II was positive for four of five patients. B. burgdorferi was cultured from 79% of the erythema migrans specimens but not from any of the ACA lesions. Elevated B. burgdorferi antibodies were detected in sera of 74% of erythema migrans patients and 100% of ACA patients. All urine samples were negative by PCR II, whereas PCR I was positive for 27%. However, hybridization of these amplicons was negative. Sequencing of three amplicons identified nonborrelial DNA. In conclusion, urine PCR is not suitable for the diagnosis of skin borreliosis. A combination of two different primer sets achieves high sensitivity with skin biopsies. In early erythema migrans infection, culture and PCR are more sensitive than serology.

Lyme borreliosis--an overdiagnosed disease?

Ninety-nine patients who were referred to a clinic for infectious diseases on suspicion of Lyme borreliosis and whose major symptoms were fatigue, headache, myalgia and arthralgia were studied retrospectively to find out if there was any difference in symptomatology between patients who were seropositive or seronegative to Borrelia burgdorferi. 64/82 (78%) patients remembered one or more tick bites during previous years and 32/74 (43%) patients had a history of erythema migrans. Fatigue, headache, myalgia and arthralgia occurred in 84%, 72%, 54%, and 63% of the patients, respectively. 62/99 (63%) patients had an elevated IgM and/or IgG antibody titer to B. burgdorferi. There was no difference in frequency of symptoms between seropositive and seronegative individuals. 48/99 (49%) patients were treated with antibiotics, mostly oral doxycycline. Only 50% were improved after treatment. On follow-up 2 to 4 years after the first visit, 40% of the patients had recovered completely, 31% were improved, 24% reported unaltered symptoms and four patients were impaired. There was no difference in symptoms on follow-up between seropositive or seronegative patients. It is concluded that there probably is an overdiagnosis of Lyme borreliosis and that better microbiological methods are needed to confirm active disease.