Search

The diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis is challenging because of the often non-specific symptoms and persisting antibodies after infection. We investigated the diagnostic characteristics of two enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) and an immunoblot for the detection of Borrelia-specific serum antibodies using different test strategies in individuals with and without antibiotic treatment for Lyme borreliosis. This retrospective study included healthy individuals, patients with active Lyme neuroborreliosis and patients treated for Lyme neuroborreliosis. Two ELISAs were compared: the C6 ELISA and the SERION ELISA. Equivocal and positive results were confirmed by immunoblot. We included 174 healthy individuals, of whom 27 (15.5%) were treated for Lyme borreliosis in the past, 36 patients were treated for Lyme neuroborreliosis and 27 patients had active Lyme neuroborreliosis. All the active Lyme neuroborreliosis patients were reactive in both ELISAs (100% sensitivity); less reactivity was seen in the other three groups (range 17.7% to 69.4%). The concordance between the ELISA results was high in active Lyme neuroborreliosis patients (26/27; 96.3%) and healthy individuals (131/147; 89.1%), but lower in treated healthy individuals (18/27; 66.7%) and treated Lyme neuroborreliosis patients (18/36; 50.0%) (p ≤ 0.005). This study showed that antibiotic treatment against Lyme borreliosis was strongly associated with discordant ELISA and test strategy results (odds ratio: 10.52; p < 0.001 and 9.98; p = 0.014, respectively) suggesting antibiotic treatment influences the pace at which the various antibodies directed to the different antigens used in both ELISAs wane. Among treated neuroborreliosis patients, the SERION ELISA stayed positive for a longer period after infection compared to the C6 ELISA. This should be taken into consideration when requesting and/or interpreting Lyme serology.

Background: Diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis (LB) relies on clinical symptoms and detection of Borrelia-specific antibodies. Guidelines recommend a two-tier testing (TTT) strategy for disseminated LB: serological screening with a sensitive enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and confirmation with a specific immunoblot. Searching for the most sensitive and specific approach, this retrospective study evaluated standard (STTT) and modified (MTTT) strategies using a well-defined study population. Methods: Cases included patients with active Lyme neuroborreliosis (LNB; n = 29) or Lyme arthritis (LA; n = 17). Controls comprised patients treated for LNB (n = 36) or LA (n = 8), healthy individuals who were either untreated (n = 75) or treated for LB (n = 15) in the past, and patients with potentially cross-reactive diseases (n = 16). Sera were subjected to three EIAs and two immunoblots. Reactive screening results were confirmed by immunoblot (STTT) or EIA (MTTT). Solitary IgM results in the screening assay and effects of antibiotic treatment on isotype-specific seropositivity rates were also assessed. Results: Sensitivities of STTT strategies ranged from 90%–97% for LNB and were 100% for LA. MTTT strategies were 100% sensitive. Specificities ranged from 89%–95% for STTT and from 88%–93% for MTTT strategies. Differences between STTT and MTTT strategies were not statistically significant. Solitary IgM reactivity was common among controls. Antibiotic treatment significantly reduced IgM/IgG positivity for LNB patients; for LA patients, a decline was only observed for IgM. Conclusion: In conclusion, MTTT strategies showed a slightly higher sensitivity and similar specificity compared to STTT strategies. Since EIAs are more time- and cost-efficient, MTTT strategies seem more favorable for clinical use. IgG testing enhances specificity with minimal sensitivity loss. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]