Appropriate laboratory testing in Lyme disease
Release date: November 1, 2019
Expiration date: October 31, 2020
Estimated time of completion: 1 hour
Click here to start this CME/MOC activity.
ABSTRACT
Testing for Lyme disease is challenging and if done incorrectly can lead to unnecessary treatment. To interpret serologic test results, first assess the patient’s pretest probability of infection based on the probability of exposure and clinical findings. Two-tiered testing remains the gold standard in diagnosing Lyme disease, although new guidelines may be published soon.
KEY POINTS
- Lyme disease, the most common tick-borne infection in North America, is a complex multisystem bacterial disease caused by Borrelia burgdorferi.
- Lyme disease preferably affects the skin, joints, and nervous system and presents with typical and atypical features. Certain clinical features are diagnostic. Its diagnosis is mainly clinical and epidemiologic and, when doubtful, is supported by serologic testing.
- Standard 2-tiered testing is the diagnostic testing method of choice—enzyme-linked immunoassay followed by Western blot. Interpretation of the bands depends on the duration of infection.
- When interpreting the test results, be aware of false-positives and the reasons for them.
INTERPRET LABORATORY RESULTS BASED ON PRETEST PROBABILITY
The usefulness of a laboratory test depends on the individual patient’s pretest probability of infection, which in turn depends on the patient’s epidemiologic risk of exposure and clinical features of Lyme disease. Patients with a high pretest probability—eg, a history of a tick bite followed by the classic erythema migrans rash—do not need testing and can start antimicrobial therapy right away.11
Serologic tests are the gold standard
Prompt diagnosis is important, as early Lyme disease is easily treatable without any future sequelae.11
Tests for Lyme disease can be divided into direct methods, which detect the spirochete itself by culture or by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and indirect methods, which detect antibodies (Table 2). Direct tests lack sensitivity for Lyme disease; hence, serologic tests remain the gold standard. Currently recommended is a standard 2-tier testing strategy using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) followed by Western blot for confirmation.
DIRECT METHODS
Culture lacks sensitivity
A number of factors limit the sensitivity of direct culture for diagnosing Lyme disease. B burgdorferi does not grow easily in culture, requiring special media, low temperatures, and long periods of incubation. Only a relatively few spirochetes are present in human tissues and body fluids to begin with, and bacterial counts are further reduced with duration and dissemination of infection.5 All of these limit the possibility of detecting this organism.
Polymerase chain reaction may help in some situations
Molecular assays are not part of the standard evaluation and should be used only in conjunction with serologic testing.7 These tests have high specificity but lack consistent sensitivity.
That said, PCR testing may be useful:
- In early infection, before antibody responses develop
- In reinfection, when serologic tests are not reliable because the antibodies persist for many years after an infection in many patients
- In endemic areas where serologic testing has high false-positive rates due to high baseline population seropositivity for anti-Borrelia antibodies caused by subclinical infection.3
PCR assays that target plasmid-borne genes encoding outer surface proteins A and C (OspA and OspC) and VisE (variable major protein-like sequence, expressed) are more sensitive than those that detect chromosomal 16s ribosomal ribonucleic acid (rRNA) genes, as plasmid-rich “blebs” are shed in larger concentrations than chromosomal DNA during active infection.7 However, these plasmid-contained genes persist in body tissues and fluids even after the infection is cleared, and their detection may not necessarily correlate with ongoing disease.8 Detection of chromosomal 16s rRNA genes is a better predictor of true organism viability.
The sensitivity of PCR for borrelial DNA depends on the type of sample. If a skin biopsy sample is taken of the leading edge of an erythema migrans lesion, the sensitivity is 69% and the specificity is 100%. In patients with Lyme arthritis, PCR of the synovial fluid has a sensitivity of up to 80%. However, the sensitivity of PCR of the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with neurologic manifestations of Lyme disease is only 19%.7 PCR of other clinical samples, including blood and urine, is not recommended, as spirochetes are primarily confined to tissues, and very few are present in these body fluids.3,12
The disadvantage of PCR is that a positive result does not always mean active infection, as the DNA of the dead microbe persists for several months even after successful treatment.8
INDIRECT METHODS
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
ELISAs detect anti-Borrelia antibodies. Early-generation ELISAs, still used in many laboratories, use whole-cell extracts of B burgdorferi. Examples are the Vidas Lyme screen (Biomérieux, biomerieux-usa.com) and the Wampole B burgdorferi IgG/M EIA II assay (Alere, www.alere.com). Newer ELISAs use recombinant proteins.13
Three major targets for ELISA antibodies are flagellin (Fla), outer surface protein C (OspC), and VisE, especially the invariable region 6 (IR6). Among these, VisE-IR6 is the most conserved region in B burgdorferi.
Early-generation assays have a sensitivity of 89% and specificity of 72%.11 However, the patient’s serum may have antibodies that cross-react with unrelated bacterial antigens, leading to false-positive results (Table 3). Whole-cell sonicate assays are not recommended as an independent test and must be confirmed with Western blot testing when assay results are indeterminate or positive.11
Newer-generation ELISAs detect antibodies targeting recombinant proteins of VisE, especially a synthetic peptide C6, within IR6.13 VisE-IR6 is the most conserved region of the B burgdorferi complex, and its detection is a highly specific finding, supporting the diagnosis of Lyme disease. Antibodies against VisE-IR6 antigen are the earliest to develop.5 An example of a newer-generation serologic test is the VisE C6 Lyme EIA kit, approved as a first-tier test by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2001. This test has a specificity of 99%,14,15 and its specificity is further increased when used in conjunction with Western blot (99.5%).15 The advantage of the C6 antibody test is that it is more sensitive than 2-tier testing during early infection (sensitivity 29%–74% vs 17%–40% in early localized infection, and 56%–90% vs 27%–78% in early disseminated infection).6
During early infection, older and newer ELISAs are less sensitive because of the limited number of antigens expressed at this stage.13 All patients suspected of having early Lyme disease who are seronegative at initial testing should have follow-up testing to look for seroconversion.13
Western blot
Western blot (immunoblot) testing identifies IgM and IgG antibodies against specific B burgdorferi antigens. It is considered positive if it detects at least 2 of a possible 3 specific IgM bands in the first 4 weeks of disease or at least 5 of 10 specific IgG bands after 4 weeks of disease (Table 4 and Figure 2).16
The nature of the bands indicates the duration of infection: Western blot bands against 23-kD OspC and 41-kD FlaB are seen in early localized infection, whereas bands against all 3 B burgdorferi proteins will be seen after several weeks of disease.17 The IgM result should be interpreted carefully, as only 2 bands are required for the test to be positive, and IgM binds to antigen less specifically than IgG.12