Oral Doxycycline Compared to Intravenous Ceftriaxone in the Treatment of Lyme Neuroborreliosis: A Multicenter, Equivalence, Randomized, Open-label Trial.

BACKGROUND: Lyme neuroborreliosis (LNB) is often treated with intravenous ceftriaxone even if doxycycline is suggested to be noninferior to ceftriaxone. We evaluated the efficacy of oral doxycycline in comparison to ceftriaxone in the treatment of LNB. METHODS: Patients with neurological symptoms suggestive of LNB without other obvious reasons were recruited. The inclusion criteria were (1) production of Borrelia burgdorferi-specific antibodies in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) or serum; (2) B. burgdorferi DNA in the CSF; or (3) an erythema migrans during the past 3 months. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 4 weeks, or intravenous ceftriaxone 2 g daily for 3 weeks. The participants described their subjective condition with a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 10 (0 = normal; 10 = worst) before the treatment, and 4 and 12 months after the treatment. The primary outcome was the change in the VAS score at 12 months. RESULTS: Between 14 September 2012 and 28 December 2017, 210 adults with suspected LNB were assigned to receive doxycycline (n = 104) or ceftriaxone (n = 106). The per-protocol analysis comprised 82 patients with doxycycline and 84 patients with ceftriaxone. The mean change in the VAS score was -3.9 in the doxycycline group and -3.8 in the ceftriaxone group (mean difference, 0.17 [95% confidence interval, -.59 to .92], which is within the prespecified equivalence margins of -1 to 1 units). Participants in both groups improved equally. CONCLUSIONS: Oral doxycycline is equally effective as intravenous ceftriaxone in the treatment of LNB. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01635530 and EudraCT 2012-000313-37.

Consumption of healthcare services and antibiotics in patients with presumed disseminated Lyme borreliosis before and after evaluation of an infectious disease specialist.

Our objective was to study the consumption of healthcare services and antibiotics in patients with suspicion of disseminated Lyme borreliosis (LB) before and after consultation of an infectious disease specialist. We evaluated retrospectively all presumed disseminated LB patients (n = 256) with a referral to the Department of Infectious Diseases (DID) in Helsinki University Hospital in 2013. Medical records from all healthcare providers in the area were reviewed and the number of physician contacts because of symptoms leading to LB suspicion and antimicrobial purchases were calculated 1 year before and after consultation or treatment at the DID. Patients were divided into three groups according to certainty of LB: unlikely, possible or probable/definite LB. The number of healthcare contacts 1 year before referral was higher among 121 patients with unlikely LB (6; interquartile range [IQR] 3-10), than 65 possible (4; IQR 2.5-7; p = 0.018) or 66 probable/definite LB patients (4; IQR 2.8-7; p = 0.010). The median number of contacts to healthcare during one year after consultation or treatment was 3 (IQR 0.5-7), 1 (IQR 0-3) and 0.5 (IQR 0-2.3), respectively, with a statistically significant difference between the groups (p<0.001). Antibiotics were purchased by 151 (60%) patients one year before referral and by 127 (50%) patients year after consultation or treatment at DID without statistically significant difference between groups with different LB certainty. These antibiotic purchases do not include the treatments prescribed by infectious disease specialists. In the case of 27 patients, an antimicrobial treatment was recommended in the consultation reply. In conclusion, patients with unlikely LB used more healthcare services than patients with possible or probable/definite LB. Antimicrobial consumption was similar between groups of different LB certainty.

C6 peptide enzyme immunoassay in Lyme borreliosis serology.

The cut-off values used in C6 peptide-based enzyme immunoassay (EIA), a widely used test in Lyme borreliosis (LB) serology, have not been thoroughly analysed. The objective of the study was to examine the performance of the C6 EIA, and to determine optimal cut-off values for the test. The analysed data contained results of 1368 serum samples. C6 EIA index values were compared statistically with the immunoblot (IB) test results. The identified cut-off values were further tested in a well-defined LB patient cohort. Cut-off value 1.6 appeared to be optimal when C6 EIA was used as a stand-alone test. When using C6 EIA as the first-tier test, the optimal cut-off values were 0.9 and 2.4 for negative and positive results. When C6 EIA was used as a second-tier test, samples yielding C6 index values ≥3.0 could be considered positive. The identified cut-off values had also a high sensitivity to identify seropositivity among definite LB patients. The identified cut-off values refine the role of C6 EIA in LB serology. Importantly, the use of C6 EIA leads to a reduction in the number of samples that need to be analysed using an IB, thus also reducing the costs. Two alternative workflows for LB serology including the C6 EIA are suggested.