Molecular diagnosis of Borrelia bacteria for the diagnosis of Lyme disease

Discrepancy between IDSA and ESGBOR in Lyme disease: Individual participant meta-analysis in Türkiye

BACKGROUND

The evidence on the prevalence of Lyme borreliosis (LB) is limited, but there is a suspicion of overdiagnosis of LB in recent years. We reviewed the LB diagnosis and treatment-related data in Türkiye, based on the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) 2020 and European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Study Group for Lyme Borreliosis (ESGBOR) 2018 guidelines. By detecting the disagreements between these two, we outlined the areas to be improved for future guidelines.

METHODS

We performed a literature search according to the PRISMA guidelines in PubMed, Ovid-Medline, Web of Science, Turkish Medline, Scopus, CINAHL, ULAKBIM TR Index, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library databases. We included the published cases in a database and evaluated according to IDSA and ESGBOR guidelines. We outlined the reasons for misdiagnoses and inappropriate uses of antibiotics.

RESULTS

We included 42 relevant studies with 84 LB cases reported from Türkiye between 1990 and December 2022. Among 84 cases, the most common clinical findings were nervous system findings (n = 37, 44.0%), erythema migrans (n = 29, 34.5%) and ophthalmologic findings (n = 15, 17.9%). The IDSA 2020 and ESGBOR 2018 guidelines agreed on the diagnosis of 71 (84.5%) cases; there was an agreement that 31 cases (36.9%) were misdiagnosed and 40 cases (47.6%) were correctly diagnosed, and there was disagreement for 13 cases (15.5%). Serum immunoglobulin M (IgM), IgG measurements by ELISA and western blot were widely performed, and they were effective in definitive diagnosis merely when used according to guidelines. Inappropriate use of antibiotics was detected in 42 (50.0%) of cases which were classified in the following categories: incorrect LB diagnosis, inappropriate choice of antibiotic, inappropriate route of drug administration and prolonged antibiotic treatment.

CONCLUSION

Overdiagnosis and non-adherence to guidelines is a common problem. The discordance between seroprevalence and clinical studies necessitates a consensus over the best clinical approach.

Direct Detection of Lyme Borrelia: Recent Advancement and Use of Aptamer Technology

Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato (B. burgdorferi s.l.), which is predominantly spread by ticks, is the cause of Lyme disease (LD), also known as Lyme borreliosis, one of the zoonotic diseases affecting people. In recent years, LD has become more prevalent worldwide, even in countries with no prior records. Currently, Lyme Borrelia detection is achieved through nucleic acid amplification, antigen detection, microscopy, and in vitro culture. Nevertheless, these methods lack sensitivity in the early phase of the disease and, thus, are unable to confirm active infection. This review briefly discusses the existing direct detection methods of LD. Furthermore, this review also introduces the use of aptamer technology integrated with biosensor platforms to detect the Borrelia antigen. This aptamer technology could be explored using other biosensor platforms targeting whole Borrelia cells or specific molecules to enhance Borrelia detection in the future.

Antibody Cross-Reactivity in Serodiagnosis of Lyme Disease

Lyme disease is a tick-borne disease caused by spirochetes belonging to the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato complex. The disease is characterized by a varied course; therefore, the basis for diagnosis is laboratory methods. Currently, a two-tiered serological test is recommended, using an ELISA as a screening test and a Western blot as a confirmatory test. This approach was introduced due to the relatively high number of false-positive results obtained when using an ELISA alone. However, even this approach has not entirely solved the problem of false-positive results caused by cross-reactive antibodies. Many highly immunogenic B. burgdorferi s.l. proteins are recognized nonspecifically by antibodies directed against other pathogens. This also applies to antigens, such as OspC, BmpA, VlsE, and FlaB, i.e., those commonly used in serodiagnostic assays. Cross-reactions can be caused by both bacterial (relapsing fever Borrelia, Treponema pallidum) and viral (Epstein-Baar virus, Cytomegalovirus) infections. Additionally, a rheumatoid factor has also been shown to nonspecifically recognize B. burgdorferi s.l. proteins, resulting in false-positive results. Therefore, it is necessary to carefully interpret the results of serodiagnostic tests so as to avoid overdiagnosis of Lyme disease, which causes unnecessary implementations of strong antibiotic therapies and delays in the correct diagnosis.

Diagnostic parameters of cellular tests for Lyme borreliosis in Europe (VICTORY study): a case-control study

BACKGROUND

Cellular tests for Lyme borreliosis might be able to overcome major shortcomings of serological testing, such as its low sensitivity in early stages of infection. Therefore, we aimed to assess the sensitivity and specificity of three cellular tests.

METHODS

This was a nationwide, prospective, multiple-gate case-control study done in the Netherlands. Patients with physician-confirmed Lyme borreliosis, either early localised or disseminated, were consecutively included as cases at the start of antibiotic treatment. Controls were those without Lyme borreliosis from the general population (healthy controls) and those with potentially cross-reactive conditions (eg, autoimmune disease). We used three cellular tests for Lyme borreliosis (Spirofind Revised, iSpot Lyme, and LTT-MELISA) as index tests, and standard two-tier serological testing (STTT) as a comparator. Clinical data from Lyme borreliosis patients were collected at baseline and at 12 weeks after inclusion, and blood samples were obtained at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks. Control participants underwent clinical and laboratory assessments at baseline only.

FINDINGS

Cases comprised 271 patients with Lyme borreliosis (of whom 245 had early-localised Lyme borreliosis and 26 had disseminated disease) and controls comprised 228 participants without Lyme borreliosis from the general population and 41 participants with potentially cross-reactive conditions. Recruitment occurred between May 14, 2018, and March 16, 2020. The specificity of STTT in healthy controls (216 of 228 samples [94·7%, 95% CI 91·5-97·7]) was higher than that of the cellular tests: Spirofind (140 of 171 [81·9%, 76·1-87·2]), iSpot Lyme (32 of 103 [31·1%, 21·5-40·3]) and LTT-MELISA (100 of 190 [52·6%, 44·9-60·3]). Cellular tests had varying sensitivities: Spirofind (88 of 204 [43·1%, 36·4-50·4]), iSpot Lyme (51 of 94 [54·3%, 44·5-63·7]), and LTT-MELISA (66 of 218 [30·3%, 23·8-36·7]). The Spirofind and iSpot Lyme outperformed STTT for sensitivity, but were similar to the C6-ELISA (C6-ELISA: 135 of 270 [50·0%, 44·5-55·5]; STTT: 76 of 270 [28·1%, 23·0-33·6]).

INTERPRETATION

The cellular tests for Lyme borreliosis used in this study have a low specificity compared with serological tests, which leads to a high number of false-positive test results. We conclude that these cellular tests are unfit for clinical use at this stage.

FUNDING

Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, AMC Foundation (Amsterdam UMC), and Ministry of Health of the Netherlands.

Diagnosis of Lyme Borreliosis With a Novel, Seminested Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Targeting the 5S-23S Intergenic Spacer Region: Clinical Features, Histopathology, and Immunophenotype in 44 Patients

ABSTRACT

Lyme borreliosis (LB) is the most common tick-borne infection in Europe and North America. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is an important tool to confirm the diagnosis, but not always successful, especially when organisms are sparse. We developed a novel, seminested real-time PCR assay [target: 5S-23S intergenic spacer region (IGS)] and compared it with 3 well-established conventional PCR assays (IGS/OspA/real-time IGS) on 596 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded routine skin biopsies. The seminested real-time assay identified 46 cases of borreliosis while 25, 27, and 38 were identified by the 3 other assays, respectively (P 0.01, P 0.02, and P 0.42; significance P < 0.05). Clinicopathologic and immunophenotypic analysis of PCR-positive cases revealed 38 erythema migrans (EM), 6 Borrelia lymphocytomas, and 2 acrodermatitis chronica atrophicans (ACA). In the 44 PCR-confirmed cases, plasma cells were present in only a third of EM cases. By contrast, CD123-positive plasmacytoid dendritic cells were common (74%) and therefore are unlikely to be helpful in the differential diagnosis between EM and tumid lupus erythematosus. A loss of CD34 in a third of all LB specimens limits its diagnostic value in the differential diagnosis with morphea. Interstitial macrophages were common in cutaneous LB (42/43) forming interstitial granulomas in a third of all cases, and 3/38 EM, 3/6 Borrelia lymphocytomas, and 1/2 ACA were only identified by the new seminested real-time assay, suggesting that it is especially helpful in confirming the diagnosis of Borrelia lymphocytoma.

Diagnostic Performance of the Novel BioPlex Lyme Serological Assays in European Patients with Lyme Disease

Serodiagnosis of Lyme borreliosis (LB) comes with several drawbacks, among which is limited sensitivity in early disease. This study assesses the sensitivity and specificity of the novel BioPlex 2200 Lyme IgG and Lyme IgM assays. It also assesses potential improvements to the assays through receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. The BioPlex assays were performed on sera of 158 Dutch patients with physician-confirmed LB (both early localized and disseminated), 800 healthy blood donors from the Netherlands, and 90 cross-reactive controls. The BioPlex (Biopl) assays were compared with two commercial enzyme immunoassays (Euroimmun [Eur]/C6-ELISA) and one immunoblot (recomLine). The highest sensitivity in early LB was achieved with the BioPlex assays, which outperformed the Euroimmun and C6-ELISA (Biopl: 81/88, 92.1%; Eur: 64/88, 72.7%; C6: 72/88, 81.8%). Sensitivity of all assays was comparable in patients with disseminated LB. The BioPlex assays were outperformed in terms of specificity (all healthy blood donors, Biopl: 571/800, 71.4%; Eur: 711/800, 88.9%; C6: 727/800, 90.9%), but further analyses showed promising avenues following cutoff optimization. ROC analysis showed that 2/6 antigens of the combined BioPlex IgG and IgM assays had significantly higher areas under the curve (AUCs) than those of the other analyses. Potential modified versions of the assays based on these antigens largely outperformed the Euroimmun and C6-ELISA in EM patients (Biopl: 81/80, 92.1%) while maintaining a comparable or even higher specificity (Biopl: 714/800, 89.3%). The BioPlex 2200 Lyme IgG and Lyme IgM assays are promising tools for the serodiagnosis of early LB, with the potential to be used as a standalone test. Further research is necessary to validate the findings of this discovery cohort.

A Practical Approach to the Diagnosis of Lyme Borreliosis: From Clinical Heterogeneity to Laboratory Methods

Clinical evaluation of Lyme Borreliosis (LB) is the starting point for its diagnosis. The patient's medical history and clinical symptoms are fundamental for disease recognition. The heterogeneity in clinical manifestations of LB can be related to different causes, including the different strains of Borrelia, possible co-infection with other tick transmitted pathogens, and its interactions with the human host. This review aims at describing the heterogeneous symptoms of Lyme Borreliosis, as well as offering a practical approach for recognition of the disease, both in terms of clinical features and diagnostic/research tools.

Prospective comparison of two enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assays for the diagnosis of Lyme neuroborreliosis

Commercial cellular tests are used to diagnose Lyme borreliosis (LB), but studies on their clinical validation are lacking. This study evaluated the utility of an in‐house and a commercial enzyme‐linked immunosorbent spot (ELISpot) assay for the diagnosis of Lyme neuroborreliosis (LNB). Prospectively, peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were isolated from patients and controls and analysed using an in‐house Borrelia ELISpot assay and the commercial LymeSpot assay. B. burgdorferi B31 whole cell lysate and a mixture of outer surface proteins were used to stimulate the PBMCs and the numbers of interferon‐gamma‐secreting T cells were measured. Results were evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Eighteen active and 12 treated LNB patients, 10 healthy individuals treated for an early (mostly cutaneous) manifestation of LB in the past and 47 untreated healthy individuals were included. Both assays showed a poor diagnostic performance with sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative predictive values ranging from 44.4–66.7%, 42.0–72.5%, 21.8–33.3% and 80.5–87.0%, respectively. The LymeSpot assay performed equally poorly when the calculation method of the manufacturer was used. Both the in‐house and the LymeSpot assay are unable to diagnose active LNB or to monitor antibiotic treatment success.

Laboratory diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis: Current state of the art and future perspectives

This review is directed at physicians and laboratory personnel in private practice and clinics who treat and diagnose Lyme borreliosis (LB) in patients as part of their daily work. A major objective of this paper is to bring together background information on Borrelia (B.) burgdorferi sensu lato (s.l.) and basic clinical knowledge of LB, which is one of the most frequently reported vector-borne diseases in the Northern Hemisphere. The goal is to provide practical guidance for clinicians and for laboratory physicians, and scientists for a better understanding of current achievements and ongoing obstacles in the laboratory diagnosis of LB, an infectious disease that still remains one of the diagnostic chameleons of modern clinical medicine. Moreover, in bringing together current scientific information from guidelines, reviews, and original papers, this review provides recommendations for selecting the appropriate tests in relation to the patient's stage of disease to achieve effective, stage-related application of current direct and indirect laboratory methods for the detection of B. burgdorferi s.l. Additionally, the review aims to discuss the current state of the art concerning the diagnostic potential and limitations of the assays and test methods currently in use to optimize LB patient management and provide insight into the possible future prospects of this rapidly changing area of laboratory medicine.

To test or not to test? Laboratory support for the diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis: a position paper of ESGBOR, the ESCMID study group for Lyme borreliosis

BACKGROUND

Lyme borreliosis (LB) is a tick-borne infection caused by Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato. The most frequent clinical manifestations are erythema migrans and Lyme neuroborreliosis. Currently, a large volume of diagnostic testing for LB is reported, whereas the incidence of clinically relevant disease manifestations is low. This indicates overuse of diagnostic testing for LB with implications for patient care and cost-effective health management.

AIM

The recommendations provided in this review are intended to support both the clinical diagnosis and initiatives for a more rational use of laboratory testing in patients with clinically suspected LB.

SOURCES

This is a narrative review combining various aspects of the clinical and laboratory diagnosis with an educational purpose. The literature search was based on existing systematic reviews, national and international guidelines and supplemented with specific citations.

IMPLICATIONS

The main recommendations according to current European case definitions for LB are as follows. Typical erythema migrans should be diagnosed clinically and does not require laboratory testing. The diagnosis of Lyme neuroborreliosis requires laboratory investigation of the spinal fluid including intrathecal antibody production, and the remaining disease manifestations require testing for serum antibodies to B. burgdorferi. Testing individuals with non-specific subjective symptoms is not recommended, because of a low positive predictive value.

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.

Serological and molecular evidence for spotted fever group Rickettsia and Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato co-infections in The Netherlands

Only a few reported cases indicate that Rickettsia helvetica and Rickettsia monacensis can cause disease in humans. Exposure to these two spotted fever group (SFG) rickettsiae occurs through bites of Ixodes ricinus, also the primary vector of Lyme borreliosis in Europe. To date, it is unclear how often exposure to these two microorganisms results in infection or disease. We show that of all the Borrelia burgdorferi s.l.-positive ticks, 25% were co-infected with rickettsiae. Predominantly R. helvetica was detected while R. monacensis was only found in approximately 2% of the ticks. In addition, exposure to tick-borne pathogens was compared by serology in healthy blood donors, erythema migrans (EM)-patients, and patients suspected of Lyme neuroborreliosis (LNB). As could be expected, seroreactivity against B. burgdorferi sensu lato was lower in blood donors (6%) compared to EM patients (34%) and suspected LNB cases (64%). Interestingly, seroreactivity against SFG Rickettsia antigens was not detected in serum samples from blood donors (0%), but 6% of the EM patients and 21% of the LNB suspects showed anti-rickettsial antibodies. Finally, the presence of B. burgdorferi s.l. and Rickettsia spp. in cerebrospinal fluid samples of a large cohort of patients suspected of LNB (n=208) was investigated by PCR. DNA of B. burgdorferi s.l., R. helvetica and R. monacensis was detected in seventeen, four and one patient, respectively. In conclusion, our data show that B. burgdorferi s.l. and SFG rickettsiae co-infection occurs in Dutch I. ricinus and that Lyme borreliosis patients, or patients suspected of Lyme borreliosis, are indeed exposed to both tick-borne pathogens. Whether SFG rickettsiae actually cause disease, and whether co-infections alter the clinical course of Lyme borreliosis, is not clear from our data, and warrants further investigation.

Evaluation of Borrelia real time PCR DNA targeting OspA, FlaB and 5S-23S IGS and Borrelia 16S rRNA RT-qPCR

Borrelia burgdorferi non-sensu lato (s.l.) strains occurred in the Netherlands. A multiplex OspA, FlaB, IGS real time PCR was compared to 16S rRNA/rDNA RT-qPCR with lower average Cycle threshold (Ct) and LOD on strain dilutions. Multiplexing increased sensitivity on CSF samples (n=74), distinguishing B. burgdorferi s.l. from non-s.l. strains.