- Short report
- Open Access
Sensitivity of a point of care tick-test for the development of Lyme borreliosis
https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-6-338
© Sprong et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013
- Received: 9 September 2013
- Accepted: 30 November 2013
- Published: 4 December 2013
Abstract
Background
A commercially available self-test for the detection of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in ticks was evaluated for its ability to predict erythema migrans formation.
Findings
The self-test was performed on 127 Ixodes ricinus from 122 humans that reported tick bites at enrolment and occurrence of symptoms during follow-up. The self-test gave negative results on all the 122 individuals, 14 of whom reported erythema migrans (EM) at follow-up of which 10 were confirmed by their GP. The estimated sensitivity of the self-test for prediction of EM formation is 0% (95% CI: 0%-28%).
Conclusions
This self-test is not suitable for reducing the number needed to treat in a post-exposure prophylaxis setting as it already missed all the obvious early Lyme borreliosis cases.
Keywords
- Lyme borreliosis
- Self-test
- Ixodes ricinus
- Validation
- Post-exposure prophylaxis
Findings
Lyme borreliosis is an emerging tick-borne disease, caused by spirochetes of the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato species complex[1, 2]. The most characteristic manifestation of early Lyme borreliosis is erythema migrans (EM), an expanding skin rash occurring after several days or weeks at the site of the tick bite[3]. Late and more serious Lyme borreliosis can manifest itself as a multi-system disease with several skin, neurological, cardiac and musculoskeletal manifestations[4]. Antibiotic treatment of EM commonly prevents the development of late and more severe disease stages. However, estimates indicate that around 25% of Lyme borreliosis patients do not detect or do not receive treatment for EM[5, 6]. Prevention of Lyme borreliosis is difficult as no absolute control measures are available as yet[7, 8]. Post-exposure prophylaxis after tick-attachment may be an effective way to reduce morbidity of Lyme borreliosis. In one randomized trial performed in the United States, prophylaxis was shown to prevent early Lyme borreliosis after a tick bite, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 51[9]. The NNT can be reduced if the ability of a test to predict the development of Lyme borreliosis is increased. Such a test could be based on Borrelia-infection and attachment time of the tick[10, 11]. It requires a high sensitivity to be able to treat all persons at risk for Lyme borreliosis, and moderate specificity to be able to reduce the NNT. A self-test for the detection of B. burgdorferi sensu lato in ticks, the Careplus Tick-Test (Tropicare, Almere, Netherlands), is commercially available in Europe. This Careplus Tick-Test is based on the detection of B. burgdorferi sensu lato antigens in tick lysates. We evaluated the ability of this test to predict EM formation.
Summary of epidemiological data from this study
Outcome | Criteria | Frequency | Sensitivity | Specificity |
---|---|---|---|---|
Self-reported EM | ● Self-reporting of EM between 0 and 3 months after reporting a tick bite | 25 | n/a | n/a |
Self-reported | ● Same as self-reported EM | 14 | 0% (0–22) | n/a |
EM treated with antibiotics | ● No other tick bites reported besides those due to the tested ticks | |||
● Self-reporting of GP prescribed antibiotic treatment for EM | ||||
GP-confirmed EM | ● Same criteria as self-reported EM, treated with antibiotics | 10 | 0% (0–28) | n/a |
● Written GP-confirmation of the self-reported EM diagnosis | ||||
No EM | ● No reporting of EM between t = 0 and t = 3 months after a tick bite | 45 | n/a | 100% (92–100) |
Unknown | ● Lost to follow-up after a tick bite | 52 | n/a | n/a |
The Careplus Tick-test was performed on all 127 ticks of the 122 individuals according to the manufacturer’s protocol except for a minor modification: the wooden stick was replaced by a plastic pestle in order to improve the homogenization of the tick. For the five individuals with two ticks, three times the two ticks were tested with one test, and twice the two ticks were tested separately. The self-test yielded negative results, regardless of whether the ticks were obtained from persons without EM-formation (n = 45), with EM-formation (n = 14), with uncertain EM-formation (n = 11) and with unknown outcome (n = 52). The Careplus Tick-test became positive when about 5.105 spirochetes of a B. burgdorferi senso stricto culture (B31-strain) were applied on the membrane. Remnants of the tick lysates from the 14 persons with EM were subjected to DNA extraction and a duplex QPCR to test whether B. burgdorferi sensu lato was present[12]. Borrelia DNA was detected in samples of 9 of the 14 self-reported EM-cases (64%) and 6 out of 10 (60%) of the GP-confirmed EM-cases, indicating the presence of B. burgdorferi sensu lato spirochetes in the ticks of at least 64% and 60% of these cases respectively: The DNA detection was performed under suboptimal conditions, as less than 5% of the tick lysate could be used, whereas normally the whole tick lysate is used. Using the same QPCR in other ticks enrolled through the national web-based survey, 20% (444 out of 2213) of the ticks from persons without EM-formation tested positive.
All ticks from the 122 individuals in this study tested negative in the Careplus Tick-test. Table 1 shows the sensitivity and specificity for the prediction of EM formation of the Careplus Tick-test. The sensitivity was estimated to be 0% (95% CI: 0-22%) based upon the ticks of 14 persons who had been bitten and self-reported formation of EM and subsequent GP-prescribed antibiotic treatment[13]. If only the 10 GP-confirmed EMs were included, the sensitivity was also estimated at 0%, but with a higher 95% upper boundary (28%). The specificity was estimated to be 100% (95% CI: 92-100%), based upon the 45 individuals without EM. This self-test is not suitable for reducing the NNT in post-exposure prophylaxis as it missed all the obvious early Lyme borreliosis cases.
Declarations
Authors’ Affiliations
References
- Sprong H, Hofhuis A, Gassner F, Takken W, Jacobs F, van Vliet AJ: Circumstantial evidence for an increase in the total number and activity of Borrelia-infected Ixodes ricinus in the Netherlands. Parasites Vectors. 2012, 5: 294-10.1186/1756-3305-5-294. Epub 2012/12/19PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Medlock JM, Hansford KM, Bormane A, Derdakova M, Estrada-Pena A, George JC: Driving forces for changes in geographical distribution of Ixodes ricinus ticks in Europe. Parasites Vectors. 2013, 6: 1-10.1186/1756-3305-6-1. Epub 2013/01/04PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tijsse-Klasen E, Pandak N, Hengeveld P, Takumi K, Koopmans MP, Sprong H: Ability to cause erythema migrans differs between Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato isolates. Parasites Vectors. 2013, 6: 23-10.1186/1756-3305-6-23. Epub 2013/01/24PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Stanek G, Wormser GP, Gray J, Strle F: Lyme borreliosis. Lancet. 2012, 379 (9814): 461-73. 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60103-7. Epub 2011/09/10View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Krupka M, Zachova K, Weigl E, Raska M: Prevention of lyme disease: promising research or sisyphean task?. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 2011, 59 (4): 261-75. 10.1007/s00005-011-0128-z. Epub 2011/06/03View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Berglund J, Eitrem R, Ornstein K, Lindberg A, Ringer A, Elmrud H: An epidemiologic study of Lyme disease in southern Sweden. N Engl J Med. 1995, 333 (20): 1319-27. 10.1056/NEJM199511163332004. Epub 1995/11/16View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wressnigg N, Pollabauer EM, Aichinger G, Portsmouth D, Low-Baselli A, Fritsch S: Safety and immunogenicity of a novel multivalent OspA vaccine against Lyme borreliosis in healthy adults: a double-blind, randomised, dose-escalation phase 1/2 trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013, 8: 680-689.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Braks M, van der Giessen J, Kretzschmar M, van Pelt W, Scholte EJ, Reusken C: Towards an integrated approach in surveillance of vector-borne diseases in Europe. Parasites Vectors. 2011, 4: 192-10.1186/1756-3305-4-192. Epub 2011/10/05PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nadelman RB, Nowakowski J, Fish D, Falco RC, Freeman K, McKenna D: Prophylaxis with single-dose doxycycline for the prevention of Lyme disease after an Ixodes scapularis tick bite. N Engl J Med. 2001, 345 (2): 79-84. 10.1056/NEJM200107123450201. Epub 2001/07/14View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hofhuis A, Herremans T, Notermans DW, Sprong H, Fonville M, van der Giessen JW: A prospective study among patients presenting at the general practitioner with a tick bite or erythema migrans in The Netherlands. PloS One. 2013, 8 (5): e64361-10.1371/journal.pone.0064361. Epub 2013/05/23PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tijsse-Klasen E, Jacobs JJ, Swart A, Fonville M, Reimerink JH, Brandenburg AH: Small risk of developing symptomatic tick-borne diseases following a tick bite in The Netherlands. Parasites Vectors. 2011, 4: 17-10.1186/1756-3305-4-17. Epub 2011/02/12PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Heylen D, Tijsse E, Fonville M, Matthysen E, Sprong H: Transmission dynamics of Borrelia burgdorferi s.l. in a bird tick community. Environ Microbiol. 2013, 15 (2): 663-73. 10.1111/1462-2920.12059.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Zhou XH, Li CM, Yang Z: Improving interval estimation of binomial proportions. Philos Transact A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2008, 366 (1874): 2405-18. 10.1098/rsta.2008.0037. Epub 2008/04/15View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate. Please note that comments may be removed without notice if they are flagged by another user or do not comply with our community guidelines.