Prospective comparison of two enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assays for the diagnosis of Lyme neuroborreliosis.

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.

An Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Spot Assay Measuring Borrelia burgdorferi B31-Specific Interferon Gamma-Secreting T Cells Cannot Discriminate Active Lyme Neuroborreliosis from Past Lyme Borreliosis: a Prospective Study in the Netherlands.

Two-tier serology testing is most frequently used for the diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis (LB); however, a positive result is no proof of active disease. To establish a diagnosis of active LB, better diagnostics are needed. Tests investigating the cellular immune system are available, but studies evaluating the utility of these tests on well-defined patient populations are lacking. Therefore, we investigated the utility of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot (ELISpot) assay to diagnose active Lyme neuroborreliosis. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) of various study groups were stimulated by using Borrelia burgdorferi strain B31 and various recombinant antigens, and subsequently, the number of Borrelia-specific interferon gamma (IFN-γ)-secreting T cells was measured. We included 33 active and 37 treated Lyme neuroborreliosis patients, 28 healthy individuals treated for an early manifestation of LB in the past, and 145 untreated healthy individuals. The median numbers of B. burgdorferi B31-specific IFN-γ-secreting T cells/2.5 × 105 PBMCs did not differ between active Lyme neuroborreliosis patients (6.0; interquartile range [IQR], 0.5 to 14.0), treated Lyme neuroborreliosis patients (4.5; IQR, 2.0 to 18.6), and treated healthy individuals (7.4; IQR, 2.3 to 14.9) (P = 1.000); however, the median number of B. burgdorferi B31-specific IFN-γ-secreting T cells/2.5 × 105 PBMCs among untreated healthy individuals was lower (2.0; IQR, 0.5 to 3.9) (P ≤ 0.016). We conclude that the Borrelia ELISpot assay, measuring the number of B. burgdorferi B31-specific IFN-γ-secreting T cells/2.5 × 105 PBMCs, correlates with exposure to the Borrelia bacterium but cannot be used for the diagnosis of active Lyme neuroborreliosis.

Disagreement between the results from three commercial tests for the detection of Borrelia-specific serum antibodies in the Netherlands associated with antibiotic treatment for Lyme borreliosis: a retrospective study.

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.