Evaluation and 1-year follow-up of patients presenting at a Lyme borreliosis expertise centre: a prospective cohort study with validated questionnaires.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the course of symptoms reported by patients with symptoms attributed to Lyme borreliosis (LB) without being subsequently diagnosed with LB. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study with patients presenting at the outpatient clinic of two clinical LB centres. The primary outcome was the prevalence of persistent symptoms, which were defined as clinically relevant fatigue (CIS, subscale fatigue), pain (SF-36, subscale bodily pain), and cognitive impairment (CFQ) for ≥ 6 months and onset < 6 months over the first year of follow-up. Outcomes were compared with a longitudinal cohort of confirmed LB patients and a general population cohort. Prevalences were standardised to the distribution of pre-defined confounders in the confirmed LB cohort. RESULTS: Participants (n = 123) reported mostly fatigue, arthralgia, myalgia, and paraesthesia as symptoms. The primary outcome could be determined for 74.8% (92/123) of participants. The standardised prevalence of persistent symptoms in our participants was 58.6%, which was higher than in patients with confirmed LB at baseline (27.2%, p < 0.0001) and the population cohort (21.2%, p < 0.0001). Participants reported overall improvement of fatigue (p < 0.0001) and pain (p < 0.0001) but not for cognitive impairment (p = 0.062) during the follow-up, though symptom severity at the end of follow-up remained greater compared to confirmed LB patients (various comparisons p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients with symptoms attributed to LB who present at clinical LB centres without physician-confirmed LB more often report persistent symptoms and report more severe symptoms compared to confirmed LB patients and a population cohort.

Diagnostic performance of the ZEUS Borrelia VlsE1/pepC10 assay in European LB patients: a case-control study.

This retrospective case-control study assesses the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve of the ZEUS Borrelia VlsE1/pepC10 assay in comparison with the C6-ELISA in European patients with Lyme borreliosis, healthy blood donors, and potentially cross-reactive controls. We included a convenience series of 161 sera from patients with physician-confirmed early localized or disseminated Lyme borreliosis (n = 143), 400 sera from healthy blood donors and 44 sera with potentially cross-reactive antibodies, on which we performed the aforementioned serological assays and the recomLine immunoblot. Diagnostic parameters were compared in various single-tier and two-tier algorithms. The specificities of the C6-ELISA and the ZEUS Borrelia VlsE1/pepC10 were comparable in healthy blood donors (e.g., single-tier permissive: C6: 362/400, 90.5% [87.2-93.2]; VlsE1/pepC10: 361/400, 90.3% [86.9-93.0]). The C6-ELISA had an apparently higher sensitivity in EM sera (e.g., both time points combined: C6: 61/76, 80.3% [69.5-88.5]; VlsE1/pepC10: 54/76, 71.1% [59.5-80.9]), but these differences were all not-significant. Interestingly, the VlsE1/pepC10 assay had a significantly higher specificity in sera with potentially cross-reactive antibodies (e.g., single-tier permissive: C6: 34/44, 77.3% [62.2-88.5]; VlsE1/pepC10: 40/44, 90.9% [78.3-97.5]; p = 0.031). While the areas under the curve for both assays were excellent, that of the C6-ELISA exceeded that of the VlsE1/pepC10 (C6: AUC = 0.925; VlsE1/pepC10: AUC = 0.878; p = 0.003). The novel ZEUS Borrelia VlsE1/pepC10 assay has generally comparable diagnostic parameters to the C6-ELISA with potentially improved specificity in cross-reactive sera. Thus, it is a useful tool for the serodiagnosis of Lyme borreliosis in Europe.