Assessment of new culture method for detection of Borrelia species from serum of lyme disease patients

Persistent Symptoms After Treatment of Lyme Disease

Most patients with Lyme disease will fully recover with recommended antibiotic therapy. However, some patients report persisting nonspecific symptoms after treatment, referred to as posttreatment Lyme disease symptoms (PTLDs) or syndrome (PTLDS), depending on the degree to which the individual's symptoms impact their quality of life. PTLDs occur in a portion of patients diagnosed with chronic Lyme disease (CLD), a controversial term describing different patient populations, diagnosed based on unvalidated tests and criteria. Practitioners should review the evidence for the Lyme disease diagnosis and not overlook unrelated conditions. Current evidence shows that prolonged antibiotic therapy provides little benefit and carries significant risk. Further research to elucidate the mechanisms underlying persistent symptoms after Lyme disease and to understand CLD is needed.

Lyme neuroborreliosis: known knowns, known unknowns

Lyme borreliosis affects the nervous system in three principal ways-mononuclear cell meningitis, cranial neuropathies and radiculoneuropathies-the last a broad term encompassing painful radiculopathy, unifocal and multifocal peripheral nerve involvement. Diagnostic tools have been significantly refined-including improved peripheral blood and CSF serodiagnostics-and much has been learned about the interactions between the causative pathogen and the nervous system. Despite these advances in our understanding of this disease, a broad range of other disorders continue to be misattributed to nervous system Lyme borreliosis, supported by, at best, limited evidence. These misattributions often reflect limited understanding not only of Lyme neuroborreliosis but also of what constitutes nervous system disease generally. Fortunately, a large body of evidence now exists to clarify many of these issues, establishing a clear basis for diagnosing nervous system involvement in this infection and, based on well performed studies, clarifying which clinical disorders are associated with Lyme neuroborreliosis, which with non-neurologic Lyme borreliosis, and which with neither.

Laboratory Diagnosis of Lyme Borreliosis

Lyme borreliosis is caused by a growing list of related, yet distinct, spirochetes with complex biology and sophisticated immune evasion mechanisms. It may result in a range of clinical manifestations involving different organ systems, and can lead to persistent sequelae in a subset of cases. The pathogenesis of Lyme borreliosis is incompletely understood, and laboratory diagnosis, the focus of this review, requires considerable understanding to interpret the results correctly. Direct detection of the infectious agent is usually not possible or practical, necessitating a continued reliance on serologic testing. Still, some important advances have been made in the area of diagnostics, and there are many promising ideas for future assay development. This review summarizes the state of the art in laboratory diagnostics for Lyme borreliosis, provides guidance in test selection and interpretation, and highlights future directions.

Spatial and Temporal Comparison of Perceived Risks and Confirmed Cases of Lyme Disease: An Exploratory Study of Google Trends

Non-specific symptoms in later stages of Lyme disease (LD) may mimic a variety of autoimmune, viral, or complex diseases. Patients lacking erythema migrans or who test negative under CDC guidelines, but suspect LD may search online symptoms in vein. As a result, patients with lingering and undiagnosed symptoms turn to alternative lab tests. This study addresses patient's perceived illness in relation to CDC surveillance data. Extending the literature beyond basic searches for symptoms or disease terms, this study examines spatiotemporal dynamics among symptom, disease, and unconventional lab test searches on Google Trends, in compared with CDC confirmed cases of LD. The search terms used for the Google Trends analysis between 2011 and 2015 include: (1) "lyme" and "lyme disease" for disease, (2) "tick bite," "bone pain," "stiff neck," "circular rash," and "brain fog" for symptoms, and (3) "IGENEX" for the alternative lab test. Spatial and temporal analyses illustrate noticeable similar patterns between the search frequency and the actual LD incidence. Beyond basic searches for symptoms or disease terms, we demonstrate the improved utility of Google Trends analysis in discovering spatial and temporal patterns of perceived LD and comparing with the reported LD cases. The public health and medical communities benefit from this research through improved knowledge of undiagnosed patients who are searching for alternative labs to explain lingering symptoms. This study validates the need for further research into Google Trends data and surveillance protocols of diseases characterized by non-specific symptoms, prompting patients to "self-diagnose."

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.

Accuracy of Diagnosis of Human Granulocytic Anaplasmosis in China

In 2008, human granulocytic anaplasmosis (HGA) was reported from China. However, the clinical and laboratory findings, including reports of nosocomial transmission, were inconsistent with those reported for HGA in the United States. In 2012, it was demonstrated that the patients described in the 2008 report had all been infected with a newly discovered bunyavirus, severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome virus, which causes an illness with the same clinical features described for the patients in the 2008 report. This finding raises the question of HGA misdiagnosis in China and establishes the need for further studies to determine whether HGA occurs there.

Current Guidelines, Common Clinical Pitfalls, and Future Directions for Laboratory Diagnosis of Lyme Disease, United States

In the United States, Lyme disease is caused by Borrelia burgdorferi and transmitted to humans by blacklegged ticks. Patients with an erythema migrans lesion and epidemiologic risk can receive a diagnosis without laboratory testing. For all other patients, laboratory testing is necessary to confirm the diagnosis, but proper interpretation depends on symptoms and timing of illness. The recommended laboratory test in the United States is 2-tiered serologic analysis consisting of an enzyme-linked immunoassay or immunofluorescence assay, followed by reflexive immunoblotting. Sensitivity of 2-tiered testing is low (30%-40%) during early infection while the antibody response is developing (window period). For disseminated Lyme disease, sensitivity is 70%-100%. Specificity is high (>95%) during all stages of disease. Use of other diagnostic tests for Lyme disease is limited. We review the rationale behind current US testing guidelines, appropriate use and interpretation of tests, and recent developments in Lyme disease diagnostics.

Studies that report unexpected positive blood cultures for Lyme borrelia - are they valid?

Positive blood cultures for Lyme borrelia have been well documented in untreated patients with early Lyme disease. In this report we review the validity of three studies that reported the recovery of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato from the blood of a high proportion of patients for whom no evidence was presented, and no claim was made, that the patients had untreated early Lyme disease. In two of the studies the patients had been treated extensively with antibiotics for Lyme disease before the cultures were obtained. Critical evaluation of the three reports suggests that they are invalid. Indeed, two subsequently published studies could not reproduce the results of one of the reports. In a published analysis of another of the reports, investigators from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that the cultures were likely to have been contaminated. When the biologic plausibility of recovering borrelia from blood is extremely low, the level of scientific rigor required of a study that claims a positive result should be particularly high.

The Accuracy of Diagnostic Tests for Lyme Disease in Humans, A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of North American Research

There has been an increasing incidence of Lyme disease (LD) in Canada and the United States corresponding to the expanding range of the Ixodes tick vector and Lyme disease agent (Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto). There are many diagnostic tests for LD available in North America, all of which have some performance issues, and physicians are concerned about the appropriate use and interpretation of these tests. The objective of this systematic review is to summarize the North American evidence on the accuracy of diagnostic tests and test regimes at various stages of LD. Included in the review are 48 studies on diagnostic tests used in North America published since 1995. Thirteen studies examined a two-tier serological test protocol vs. clinical diagnosis, 24 studies examined single assays vs. clinical diagnosis, 9 studies examined single immunoblot vs. clinical diagnosis, 7 studies compared culture or PCR direct detection methods vs. clinical diagnosis, 22 studies compared two or more tests with each other and 8 studies compared a two-tiered serological test protocol to another test. Recent studies examining the sensitivity and specificity of various test protocols noted that the Immunetics® C6 B. burgdorferi ELISA™ and the two tier approach have superior specificity compared to proposed replacements, and the CDC recommended western blot algorithm has equivalent or superior specificity over other proposed test algorithms. There is a dramatic increase in test sensitivity with progression of B. burgdorferi infection from early to late LD. Direct detection methods, culture and PCR of tissue or blood samples were not as sensitive or timely compared to serological testing. It was also noted that there are a large number of both commercial (n = 42) and in-house developed tests used by private laboratories which have not been evaluated in the primary literature.

The U.S. Culture Collection Network Lays the Foundation for Progress in Preservation of Valuable Microbial Resources

The U.S. Culture Collection Network was formed in 2012 by a group of culture collection scientists and stakeholders in order to continue the progress established previously through efforts of an ad hoc group. The network is supported by a Research Coordination Network grant from the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) and has the goals of promoting interaction among collections, encouraging the adoption of best practices, and protecting endangered or orphaned collections. After prior meetings to discuss best practices, shared data, and synergy with genome programs, the network held a meeting at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-Agricultural Research Service (ARS) National Center for Genetic Resources Preservation (NCGRP) in Fort Collins, Colorado in October 2015 specifically to discuss collections that are vulnerable because of changes in funding programs, or are at risk of loss because of retirement or lack of funding. The meeting allowed collection curators who had already backed up their resources at the USDA NCGRP to visit the site, and brought collection owners, managers, and stakeholders together. Eight formal collections have established off-site backups with the USDA-ARS, ensuring that key material will be preserved for future research. All of the collections with backup at the NCGRP are public distributing collections including U.S. NSF-supported genetic stock centers, USDA-ARS collections, and university-supported collections. Facing the retirement of several pioneering researchers, the community discussed the value of preserving personal research collections and agreed that a mechanism to preserve these valuable collections was essential to any future national culture collection system. Additional input from curators of plant and animal collections emphasized that collections of every kind face similar challenges in developing long-range plans for sustainability.

Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention of Lyme Disease, Human Granulocytic Anaplasmosis, and Babesiosis: A Review

IMPORTANCE

Lyme disease, human granulocytic anaplasmosis (HGA), and babesiosis are emerging tick-borne infections.

OBJECTIVE

To provide an update on diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of tick-borne infections.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Search of PubMed and Scopus for articles on diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of tick-borne infections published in English from January 2005 through December 2015.

FINDINGS

The search yielded 3550 articles for diagnosis and treatment and 752 articles for prevention. Of these articles, 361 were reviewed in depth. Evidence supports the use of US Food and Drug Administration-approved serologic tests, such as an enzyme immunoassay (EIA), followed by Western blot testing, to diagnose extracutaneous manifestations of Lyme disease. Microscopy and polymerase chain reaction assay of blood specimens are used to diagnose active HGA and babesiosis. The efficacy of oral doxycycline, amoxicillin, and cefuroxime axetil for treating Lyme disease has been established in multiple trials. Ceftriaxone is recommended when parenteral antibiotic therapy is recommended. Multiple trials have shown efficacy for a 10-day course of oral doxycycline for treatment of erythema migrans and for a 14-day course for treatment of early neurologic Lyme disease in ambulatory patients. Evidence indicates that a 10-day course of oral doxycycline is effective for HGA and that a 7- to 10-day course of azithromycin plus atovaquone is effective for mild babesiosis. Based on multiple case reports, a 7- to 10-day course of clindamycin plus quinine is often used to treat severe babesiosis. A recent study supports a minimum of 6 weeks of antibiotics for highly immunocompromised patients with babesiosis, with no parasites detected on blood smear for at least the final 2 weeks of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Evidence is evolving regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of Lyme disease, HGA, and babesiosis. Recent evidence supports treating patients with erythema migrans for no longer than 10 days when doxycycline is used and prescription of a 14-day course of oral doxycycline for early neurologic Lyme disease in ambulatory patients. The duration of antimicrobial therapy for babesiosis in severely immunocompromised patients should be extended to 6 weeks or longer.

Chronic Lyme disease

Chronic Lyme disease is a poorly defined diagnosis that is usually given to patients with prolonged, unexplained symptoms or with alternative medical diagnoses. Data do not support the proposition that chronic, treatment-refractory infection with Borrelia burgdorferi is responsible for the many conditions that get labeled as chronic Lyme disease. Prolonged symptoms after successful treatment of Lyme disease are uncommon, but in rare cases may be severe. Prolonged courses of antibiotics neither prevent nor ameliorate these symptoms and are associated with considerable harm.

Laboratory diagnosis of Lyme disease: advances and challenges

The majority of laboratory tests performed for the diagnosis of Lyme disease are based on detection of the antibody responses against B burgdorferi in serum. The sensitivity of antibody-based tests increases with the duration of the infection. Patients early in their illness are more likely to have a negative result. There is a need to simplify the testing algorithm for Lyme disease, improving sensitivity in early disease while still maintaining high specificity and providing information about the stage of infection. The development of a point of care assay and biomarkers for active infection would be major advances for the field.

Update on persistent symptoms associated with Lyme disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lyme disease, caused by Borrelia burgdorferi, is the most common vector-borne illness in the United States. The pathogenesis, ecology, and epidemiology of Lyme disease have been well described, and antimicrobial treatment is very effective. There has been controversy about whether infection can persist and cause chronic symptoms despite treatment with antimicrobials. This review summarizes recent studies that have addressed this issue.

RECENT FINDINGS

The pathogenesis of persistent nonspecific symptoms in patients who were treated for Lyme disease is poorly understood, and the validity of results of attempts to demonstrate persistent infection with B. burgdorferi has not been established. One study attempted to use xenodiagnosis to detect B. burgdorferi in patients who have been treated for Lyme disease. Another study assessed whether repeated episodes of erythema migrans were due to the same or different strains of B. burgdorferi. A possible cause of persistent arthritis in some treated patients is slow clearance of nonviable organisms that may lead to prolonged inflammation. The results of all of these studies continue to provide evidence that viable B. burgdorferi do not persist in patients who receive conventional antimicrobial treatment for Lyme disease.

SUMMARY

Patients with persistent symptoms possibly associated with Lyme disease often provide a challenge for clinicians. Recent studies have provided additional evidence that viable B. burgdorferi do not persist after conventional treatment with antimicrobials, indicating that ongoing symptoms in patients who received conventional treatment for Lyme disease should not be attributed to persistent active infection.

Repeat or persistent Lyme disease: persistence, recrudescence or reinfection with Borrelia Burgdorferi?

Whether or not Borrelia burgdorferi can persist after conventional treatment with antimicrobials has been a very controversial issue. Two recent studies took different approaches to try to answer this question. In one, investigators showed that, in each of 22 instances in 17 patients with two consecutive episodes of culture-proved erythema migrans, the strains of B. burgdorferi were different based on their genotypes. This indicated that the repeat episodes were due to new infections rather than recrudescence of the original infection. In another study, in which persistence of B. burgdorferi was assessed by using xenodiagnosis, no viable B. burgdorferi were cultured from ticks fed on any of the patients. There continues to be no evidence that viable B. burgdorferi persist in humans after conventional treatment with antimicrobials.

Lyme disease: diagnostic issues and controversies

The diagnosis of Lyme disease is a controversial topic. Most practitioners and scientists recognize that Lyme disease is associated with certain objective clinical manifestations supported by laboratory evidence of infection with Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato (the etiologic agent). There are others, however, who believe that patients with Lyme disease may have a wide variety of entirely nonspecific symptoms without any objective clinical manifestation and that laboratory evidence of infection by B. burgdorferi is not required to support the diagnosis. In reality, this perspective is not evidence based and would inevitably lead to innumerable misdiagnoses, given the high frequency of medically unexplained symptoms, such as fatigue and musculoskeletal pains, in the general population. Although those espousing this viewpoint do not believe that a positive laboratory test is required, nevertheless, they often seek out and promote alternative, unapproved testing methods that frequently provide false-positive results to justify their diagnosis. Herein, we provide a brief overview of Lyme disease testing, emphasizing current usage and limitations. We also discuss the use of nonvalidated procedures and the prospects for a reduction in such testing practices in the future.

Concerns regarding a new culture method for Borrelia burgdorferi not approved for the diagnosis of Lyme disease

In 2005, CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning regarding the use of Lyme disease tests whose accuracy and clinical usefulness have not been adequately established. Often these are laboratory-developed tests (also known as "home brew" tests) that are manufactured and used within a single laboratory and have not been cleared or approved by FDA. Recently, CDC has received inquiries regarding a laboratory-developed test that uses a novel culture method to identify Borrelia burgdorferi, the spirochete that causes Lyme disease. Patient specimens reportedly are incubated using a two-step pre-enrichment process, followed by immunostaining with or without polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis. Specimens that test positive by immunostaining or PCR are deemed "culture positive". Published methods and results for this laboratory-developed test have been reviewed by CDC. The review raised serious concerns about false-positive results caused by laboratory contamination and the potential for misdiagnosis.