Laboratory Methods for Detection of Infectious Agents and Serological Response in Humans With Tick-Borne Infections: A Systematic Review of Evaluations Based on Clinical Patient Samples

Background: For the most important and well-known infections spread by Ixodes ticks, Lyme borreliosis (LB) and tick-borne encephalitis (TBE), there are recommendations for diagnosis and management available from several health authorities and professional medical networks. However, other tick-borne microorganisms with potential to cause human disease are less known and clear recommendations on diagnosis and management are scarce. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of published studies and reviews focusing on evaluation of laboratory methods for clinical diagnosis of human tick-borne diseases (TBDs), other than acute LB and TBE. The specific aim was to evaluate the scientific support for laboratory diagnosis of human granulocytic anaplasmosis, rickettsiosis, neoehrlichiosis, babesiosis, hard tick relapsing fever, tularemia and bartonellosis, as well as tick-borne co-infections and persistent LB in spite of recommended standard antibiotic treatment.

Methods: We performed a systematic literature search in 11 databases for research published from 2007 through 2017, and categorized potentially relevant references according to the predefined infections and study design. An expert group assessed the relevance and eligibility and reviewed the articles according to the QUADAS (diagnostic studies) or AMSTAR (systematic reviews) protocols, respectively. Clinical evaluations of one or several diagnostic tests and systematic reviews were included. Case reports, non-human studies and articles published in other languages than English were excluded.

Results: A total of 48 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for evaluation. The majority of these studies were based on small sample sizes. There were no eligible studies for evaluation of tick-borne co-infections or for persistent LB after antibiotic treatment.

Conclusions: Our findings highlight the need for larger evaluations of laboratory tests using clinical samples from well-defined cases taken at different time-points during the course of the diseases. Since the diseases occur at a relatively low frequency, single-center cross-sectional studies are practically not feasible, but multi-center case control studies could be a way forward.

Clinical/serological outcome in humans bitten by Babesia species positive Ixodes ricinus ticks in Sweden and on the Åland Islands

The risk of contracting babesiosis after a tick bite in Sweden and on the Åland Islands, Finland, is unknown. We investigated clinical and serological outcomes in people bitten by Ixodes ricinus ticks positive for Babesia species. Ticks, blood and questionnaires were obtained from study participants in Sweden and on the Åland Islands. Sixty-five of 2098 (3.1 %) ticks were positive by real-time PCR. Three Babesia species were detected, Babesia microti (n = 33), B. venatorum (n = 27) and B. capreoli (n = 5), the latter species not known to cause human infection. Half (46 %) of the Babesia PCR-positive ticks also contained Borrelia spp. Fifty-three participants bitten by a Babesia PCR-positive tick and a control group bitten by a Babesia PCR-negative tick were tested for B. microti IgG antibodies by IFA. The overall seroprevalence was 4.4 %, but there was no significant difference between the groups. None of the participants seroconverted and no participant with a Babesia PCR-positive tick sought medical care or reported symptoms suggestive of babesiosis. Given the prevalence of Babesia in I. ricinus ticks in southern Sweden and on the Åland Islands, babesiosis should be considered a possible diagnosis in symptomatic residents who seek medical care following tick exposure.