Skip to main content
Download PDF

Regional seropositivity for Borrelia burgdorferi and associated risk factors: findings from the Rhineland Study, Germany

Parasites & Vectors volume 15, Article number: 241 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Lyme borreliosis is the most prevalent vector-borne disease in Europe, and numbers might increase due to climate change. However, borreliosis is not notifiable in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), Germany. Hence, little is known about the current human seroprevalence in NRW. However, the proportion of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato-infected ticks has increased in a NRW nature reserve. The literature suggests increasing age and male sex as risk factors for seropositivity, whereas the influence of socioeconomic status is controversial. Thus, we aimed to determine regional seropositivity for Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato (B. burgdorferi s.l.) and its risk factors in the Rhineland Study population in Bonn, NRW, and to compare it with previous surveys to evaluate potential effects of climate change.

Methods

We assessed seropositivity in 2865 Rhineland Study participants by determining immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies for B. burgdorferi s.l. using a two-step algorithm combining enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay tests and line immunoblots. We calculated the odds of being classified as IgG or IgM positive as a function of age, sex, and educational level using binomial logistic regression models. We applied varying seropositivity classifications and weights considering age, sex and education to compensate for differences between the sample and regional population characteristics.

Results

IgG antibodies for B. burgdorferi s.l. were present in 2.4% and IgM antibodies in 0.6% of the participants (weighted: 2.2% [IgG], 0.6% [IgM]). The likelihood of IgG seropositivity increased by 3.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5–5.2%) per 1 year increase in age. Men had 1.65 times the odds for IgG seropositivity as women (95% CI 1.01–2.73), and highly educated participants had 1.83 times the odds (95% CI 1.10–3.14) as participants with an intermediate level of education. We found no statistically significant link between age, sex, or education and IgM seropositivity. Our weighted and age-standardized IgG seroprevalence was comparable to the preceding serosurvey German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (DEGS) for NRW.

Conclusions

We confirmed that increasing age and male sex are associated with increased odds for IgG seropositivity and provide evidence for increased seropositivity in the highly educated group. B. burgdorferi s.l. seropositivity remained constant over the past decade in this regional German population.

Graphical abstract

Background

Lyme borreliosis is the most prevalent tick-borne disease in Europe [1]. From 2013 to 2017, yearly reported incidence for Lyme borreliosis in German states with disease notification ranged from 26 to 41 reported cases per 100,000 inhabitants [2]. However, incidence data from German health insurance funds for 2019 indicate 429 diagnoses per 100,000 insured persons for Germany [3]. For North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), the insurer Nordrhein reported 99 diagnoses per 100,000 insured persons and the insurer Westfalen-Lippe reported 135 diagnoses per 100,000 insured persons [3]. In addition, yearly incidence between certain regions varies enormously; for example, in 2017 and within Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, over 160 cases per 100,000 persons were reported in the west, and less than 40 cases per 100,000 persons were reported in the east. Moreover, changes over time have also been observed recently; Lyme borreliosis incidence in Bavaria, for instance, increased from 23.2 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2015 to 47.4 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2020 [4]. In all, the picture is highly heterogeneous regarding information from different data sources, regions and time.

Spirochaetes of the genospecies complex Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato (B. burgdorferi s.l.), the causal agent of Lyme borreliosis [5], are detectable in about 3–35% of ticks in Germany [6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. Of at least 18 unique known genospecies of B. burgdorferi s.l., B. afzelii, B. burgdorferi and B. garinii are the three major genospecies in Europe [13], transmitted to humans by ticks (Ixodes ricinus) [14]. Ticks are only active if the weekly mean temperature exceeds 7 °C [15]. Additionally, the time people spend outdoors, i.e. potential tick exposure, generally increases with rising air temperature, except for poor or extreme weather conditions [16]. Therefore, reported infections with the Borrelia complex occur in Europe mainly between March and October, peaking from June to August [2]. Since climate change is leading to higher mean temperatures [17, 18], tick season will potentially be prolonged [19] and could continue throughout the winter in Germany if temperatures are mild [20]. An increase in annual air temperature by 1 °C was observed for NRW (1961–1990 compared to 1991–2020) [21]. At the same time, the number of days with ice and frost decreased. The warmer winters with less snow may promote an earlier food supply for wild boars and other potential hosts for ticks (Ixodes ricinus) [22], and may potentially increase tick activity throughout the winter season [20]. Thus, climate change is evident in our region of interest, and its potential consequences should be investigated. However, since there is a complex interplay between environmental factors (e.g. climate), ticks, available hosts, Borrelia genospecies distributions and anthropogenic factors (e.g. recreational activities) [23], it is difficult to predict whether or to what extent climate change will change the infection risk with B. burgdorferi s.l. [19, 24, 25]. Tick density was found to increase in a nature reserve, Siebengebirge, near Bonn, from 1987/1989 until 2008 [26]. Also, rising tick infection proportions have been reported for this area, where the number of ticks carrying spirochaetes increased 2.5-fold within a decade [27]. However, the Borrelia genospecies distribution also changed over this time period. In 2001, B. valaisiana, a non-pathogenic species for humans [28], was the dominant species, whereas in 2007 B. garinii and B. afzelii were the dominant species in the Siebengebirge. Thus, the distribution of Borrelia genospecies has to be taken into account when looking at changes in tick infection proportions. Further, there were considerable differences in Borrelia genospecies distributions among the three different tick collection sites in the nature reserve. In other areas such as Hannover, more ticks were found to carry B. burgdorferi s.l. than in the Siebengebirge. However, here, the tick infection proportion was constant over a decade, and B. valaisiana accounted for only a small proportion of infected ticks during the measurement times [9]. Hence, the current and future development of case numbers may vary considerably between regions, rendering area-specific monitoring necessary, especially since there exists no vaccine against Lyme borreliosis [5].

Lyme borreliosis is notifiable in nine of 16 German states, excluding NRW. For regions without notification systems, serosurveys can provide area-specific estimates on infection risk. Here, the presence of immunoglobulin M (IgM) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies points towards an infection with Lyme borreliosis, with IgM antibody levels generally detectable sooner and dropping more frequently after a shorter period of time than IgG antibodies [29,30,31]. One study with 79 Lyme disease patients reported that 10 to 20 years after infection, IgM antibodies still persisted in 10% of the patients with early Lyme disease and 15% of the patients with Lyme arthritis, whereas 25% of the patients with early Lyme disease and 62% of the patients with Lyme arthritis still had IgG antibodies [31]. The most recent serosurvey for B. burgdorferi antibodies in Germany was conducted in the study population of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (DEGS) from 2008 to 2011 [30, 32]. Out of 6965 adults aged between 18 and 79 years, 9.4% were classified as seropositive [32]. The reported seroprevalence for NRW was 5.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.8–6.3%) for the years 1997–1999 (German National Health Interview and Examination Survey 1998, BGS98) and 5.3% (95% CI 3.7–7.0%) for the years 2008 to 2011 (DEGS) [30]. However, the serosurvey was limited to IgG antibodies, and seropositivity may have changed in the past decade. Thus, updated numbers on seropositivity are necessary to detect potential trends in infection risk.

Further, studies that use a two-step antibody testing procedure may differ from current guidelines, for example, MIQ 12 [33]. According to the MIQ 12 guideline, the final result for IgG or IgM serostatus is classified as seropositive in the case of a positive or borderline enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and a subsequent positive immunoblot. Woudenberg et al. [30] and Wilking et al. [32] used a more sensitive classification for their serosurvey results, as they additionally classified borderline line blot results with prior positive ELISA as positive. On the contrary, Kalmár et al. [34] applied a classification of seropositive samples corresponding to MIQ 12. Moreover, some studies have additionally reported serological results that have been corrected for sample deviations from the general population [32]. These differences in classification and testing procedures, such as utilizing different test kits, make it difficult to compare the results between studies [30, 32, 34].

Besides known age effects on seropositivity [32], higher seropositivity in men than women has been reported [32], although analyses of clinical cases, such as on the basis of disease notification data, report higher incidence in women [2]. Other potential risk factors remain under discussion, namely the role of socioeconomic status (SES) [30, 35,36,37,38,39].

Since the risk of acquiring Lyme borreliosis may be increasing as a consequence of a complex interplay between climate change, anthropogenic factors and number of infected ticks, the primary aim of our investigation was to obtain current estimates of IgG and IgM seropositivity for B. burgdorferi s.l. in the Rhineland Study population in Bonn, Germany, and to compare them to previous estimates from other studies with data from NRW, the federal state in which Bonn is situated. Secondly, we assessed risk factors for seropositivity including the controversially discussed SES. Lastly, we investigated both IgG and IgM for a full picture on Borrelia serology, and applied different algorithms for classification of samples as positive to assess the extent to which this resulted in differences in seropositivity and its risk factors and to achieve comparability between studies to assess potential effects of climate change [17].

Methods

We used data from 2888 participants of the Rhineland Study who provided blood samples between February 2018 and February 2020. The Rhineland Study is a community-based cohort study in Bonn, Germany. All inhabitants of two geographically defined areas in Bonn who are at least 30 years old and have sufficient command of the German language to provide written informed consent can participate upon invitation. Eligibility is irrespective of health status. We did not offer any financial incentives for participation. Participants of the Rhineland Study underwent 8 h of examinations. We obtained sociodemographic information on age, sex and education using standardized interviews and questionnaires.

A DIN EN ISO [German Institute for Standardization/European standard/International Organization for Standardization] 15189-accredited medical laboratory conducted the antibody analysis on the sera with a two-step algorithm according to MIQ 12 (microbiologic-infectiologic quality standard) [33]. The commissioned laboratory is ISO 9001-certified with expertise in the medical-serological routine diagnostics of Lyme borreliosis. Firstly, the sero-samples underwent ELISA to test for IgG and IgM antibodies with > 99% sensitivity for both IgG and IgM and 97% specificity for IgG and 98.8% for IgM [B. afzelii + VlsE IgG Europe ELISA, and B. afzelii IgM ELISA; Virotech Diagnostics GmbH]. The antigens used in the ELISA are a mixture of the B. afzelii strain Pko, the B. garinii strain PBr and the B. burgdorferi strain ZS7. The ELISA testing procedure was fully automated [DSX® ELISA Processors; Dynex Technologies]. Secondly, the presence of detected antibodies in positive and borderline samples was verified [ProfiBlot® Automated Systems; Dynex Technologies] by line immunoblots with a test sensitivity of > 99.9% and specificity of 98% [WE225 Borrelia Europe plus TpN17 LINE IgG and WE224 Borrelia Europe LINE IgM; Virotech Diagnostics GmbH]. The line immunoblots considered the antigens OpsC (p23) from B. afzelii, VlsE recombinant from B. burgdorferi B31, p39 (BmpA) recombinant from B. afzelii PKo, DbpA (Pko) and DbpA (PBi, PBr, A14 S) from B. bavariensis PBi and B. garinii PBr, p58 (OppA-2) recombinant from B. bavariensis PBi, p83/100 recombinant from B. afzelii PKo, and EBV VCA-gp125 (affinity-purified) for exclusion diagnostics. The classification of IgG and IgM antibodies considered Virotech units (VU), an arbitrary antibody quantification scale for ELISA, as follows: negative: VU < 9, borderline: VU >  = 9 and VU <  = 11, positive: VU > 11. Finally, all generated data were imported to LabImage® LA Software [Kapelan Bio-Imaging Solutions] to detect, combine and interpret the immunoblots. A medical-technical assistant conducted the technical verification, and a medical doctor for microbiology, virology and infectious disease epidemiology validated the results. In our primary analysis, we classified all subjects with either positive or borderline ELISA and subsequent positive line immunoblot as seropositive and all other combinations as non-seropositive. We performed two binomial logistic regression models to calculate the odds of being classified as IgG-positive or IgM-positive as a function of age, sex and educational level.

We classified educational level according to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011 as low (completed lower secondary education or below), middle (completed upper secondary education up to completed bachelor’s degree or equivalent) and high (completed master’s degree or equivalent up to completed doctoral or equivalent) as a proxy for SES.

In sensitivity analyses, we investigated whether age, sex and educational level were associated with IgG and IgM VU, the original ELISA quantification scales without modification and regardless of serostatus, running two linear regression models with age, sex and education as predictors. For this analysis, we present unstandardized regression coefficients. Furthermore, we ran two ordinal logistic regression models with negative, borderline and positive IgG and IgM serostatus as ordinal outcome and age, sex and education as predictors.

Finally, to compare our seroprevalence results with previous studies from approximately the same region, such as the DEGS serosurvey [30], we applied an alternative seropositivity classification and classified the following combinations as seropositive: positive ELISA and positive or borderline immunoblot, borderline ELISA and positive immunoblot [30]. We additionally report the seropositivity results based on ELISA only. Furthermore, to correct for sample deviations from the general population in NRW, we also calibrated the crude seroprevalence results with regard to age and sex distributions that were reported in the latest census in 2011 for the individuals aged 30 years and above from NRW, and with regard to the distribution of educational status that was reported in the last micro-census survey in 2020 for the total German population (www.destatis.de [40]). To compare our seroprevalence with the seroprevalence reported for BGS98 and DEGS [30], we weighted our study population by sex and education as stated above, and age-standardized by the respective age distribution of the studies we compared our results with [41, 42].

We carried out all analyses in RStudio (version 1.3.959, R-base version 4.0.3). We used the glm function of the stats package with a logit-link for the logistic regression models and the lm function of the stats package for the linear regression models [43]. For the ordinal regression, we utilized the polr() function within the MASS package [44]. The variance inflation factor (VIF), as test for multicollinearity, remained below 2 for all models (using the car package) [45]. To calculate the calibration weights, we used the survey package [46] and trimmed the weights to fit into the interval of 0.3 to 3.

Results

Of the 2888 participants, serostatus could be determined for all but one participant, and information on educational level was available for all but 22 participants, resulting in 2865 participants for analysis (Table 1). The participants’ median age was 55 years (interquartile range: 45 to 65 years, min–max: 30 to 94 years), 55.8% were women, and 52.6% had high, 45.7% medium and 1.7% low educational levels, respectively.

Table 1 Population characteristics and stratified crude seroprevalence of IgG/IgM antibodies for B. burgdorferi s.l. and odds ratios from logistic regression analysis
Full size table

Figure 1 presents the flowcharts from our IgG/IgM testing procedure, including the test results from ELISA and line immunoblot.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Results for ELISA and line immunoblot. A Flowchart for IgG antibodies; B Flowchart for IgM antibodies

Full size image

Table 2 presents the crude, weighted and additionally age-standardized proportions for seropositivity for our study sample, differentiated by varying classifications. Based on the ELISA results with immunoblot confirmation, 2.4% (n = 69) were classified as IgG-positive, 0.6% (n = 18) as IgM-positive and 0.1% (n = 3) as both IgG- and IgM-positive. Thus, we detected antibodies for B. burgdorferi s.l. in 2.9% of the participants. The relative frequencies for IgG seropositivity were higher in men than in women (3.2% of men versus 1.8% of women) and frequencies were comparable between the sexes for IgM seropositivity (0.7% of women and 0.6% of men). When considering the relative frequencies of ELISA-seropositive samples without immunoblot confirmation, seropositivity was higher for both IgG (6.8% in ELISA-only classification versus 2.4%) and IgM (1.0% versus 0.6%). When we applied the algorithm used in DEGS and BGS98 [30], 4.8% were IgG-positive, 0.7% were IgM-positive and 0.2% were both IgG- and IgM-positive (crude data). The weighted seropositivity results with the more stringent classification algorithm for IgG were 2.2% (95% CI: 1.6–2.7%) compared to 2.4% in the crude analysis. The weighted seropositivity result for IgM resulted in the same point estimate of 0.6% (95% CI: 0.3–0.9%). When we applied the algorithm used in the DEGS and BGS98 serosurvey and additionally age-standardized our weighted sample to make it comparable to the DEGS and BGS98 populations, respectively, the estimated IgG proportions were 4.7% (95% CI: 3.9–5.4%, DEGS age standardization) and 4.2% (95% CI: 3.4–4.9%, BGS98 age standardization) compared to 5.3% (95% CI 3.68–6.97, DEGS) and 5.1% (95% CI 3.83–6.28 BGS98) previously estimated for NRW.

Table 2 Crude, weighted, and weighted and age-standardized seroprevalence based on varying seropositivity classification algorithms
Full size table

The median of the VU for the entire sample was 4.3 (interquartile range (IQR): 4.1) for IgG and 1.6 (IQR:1.9) for IgM. For the seropositive participants, the median was 29.1 (IQR: 14.56) for IgG and 13.85 for IgM (IQR: 6.6).

The odds of being classified as IgG-positive increased by 3% (95% CI 1.5–5.2%) per 1 year increase in age (Table 1). In addition, men were 1.65 (95% CI 1.01–2.73) times as likely to be classified IgG-positive as women. Further, a high level of education was associated with 1.83 higher odds (95% CI 1.10–.14) of IgG seropositivity compared with an intermediate level of education. We observed no significantly increased or decreased odds for IgG and IgM seropositivity in the low education group compared with intermediate education. Regarding IgM serostatus, age, sex and educational level were not significantly associated with seropositivity.

When considering VU instead of qualitative classification, IgG units increased and IgM units decreased by 0.02 units per 1 year increase in age (95% CI for IgG units: 0.01–0.03; IgM units: −0.02 to −0.01) (Table 3). Men had on average 0.35 lower IgM units than women (95% CI −0.52 to −0.18), but did not differ statistically significantly from women in IgG units. Educational level was not significantly associated with IgG and IgM units. In our ordinal regression for negative, borderline or positive IgG serostatus (Table 4), we found that men had 1.58 times the odds for borderline or positive versus negative serostatus compared to women (95% CI 1.13–2.22). Also, 1 year higher age was associated with higher odds for borderline or positive versus negative serostatus (95% CI 1.01–1.04). The ordinal model for IgM serostatus (Table 4) yielded no significant results. In both ordinal models, we found no association between education and serostatus. When we reclassified all samples with either a positive ELISA and positive or borderline immunoblot, or a borderline ELISA and positive immunoblot as seropositive according to Woudenberg et al. [30], we found that subjects had 1.02 times the odds of being classified as IgG-positive per 1 year increase in age (95% CI 1.01–1.04) (Table 5). Further, men were 1.82 times as likely (95% CI 1.28–2.60) to be classified as IgG-positive as women, and participants with high or low educational levels did not have increased odds of IgG seropositivity compared with intermediate educational level. We found no significant odds ratios between age, sex or education and IgM seropositivity.

Table 3 Associations between age, sex, education and IgG-/IgM virotech units
Full size table
Table 4 Odds ratios from ordinal logistic regression for IgG/IgM seropositivity
Full size table
Table 5 Associations between age, sex, education and seropositivity as defined by either positive ELISA and positive or borderline immunoblot or borderline ELISA and positive immunoblot result
Full size table

Discussion

The weighted seroprevalence values for antibodies for B. burgdorferi s.l., applying a stringent classification scheme, were 2.4% for IgG, 0.6% for IgM, and 0.1% for both IgG and IgM antibodies. We demonstrated that varying classification algorithms found in the literature for seropositivity led to differences in seroprevalence. However, using identical classification as BGS98 and DEGS, our weighted and additionally age-standardized seroprevalence values were within the confidence intervals of the seroprevalence values previously reported for NRW [30]. Hence, we found no evidence for increased IgG antibody seroprevalence for B. burgdorferi s.l. in light of climate change, despite reported changes in tick distribution and proportion of infection with Borrelia in one region in NRW [26, 27].

For IgG seropositivity, we found a statistically significant impact of age, sex and educational level, while for IgM, we found no statistical link between age, sex or education and seropositivity, the latter possibly due to the small proportion of IgM-positive individuals.

As a use case, this study provides, therefore, valuable and detailed information for a region for which data on ticks are worrying from a public health perspective and data on Lyme borreliosis are largely missing. Further, our results highlight the essential requirement for comparable classifications, as they evidently influence seropositivity results and, therefore, must be identical if seropositivity results are to be compared across studies. Large differences between different ELISA systems have already been demonstrated [47] and emphasize that classification algorithms also strongly influence seroprevalence estimates. Furthermore, we recognize that the choice of serology test kit may impact antibody detection. The studies discussed in our work apply different test kits due to availability, which might influence comparability.

In our main analysis, we confirmed the general effect of age for IgG seropositivity that has been reported in previous studies [32, 48]. IgG seropositivity may increase with age due to cumulative lifetime exposure [32, 48]. In line with previous serosurveys, we also found that men had higher odds of having IgG antibodies than women [32]. This stands in contrast to findings on higher incidence of Lyme borreliosis as a clinical manifestation in women compared to men [2, 49, 50]. One reason may be that men are less likely to go to the doctor [51] and might, therefore, less often be diagnosed with Lyme borreliosis than women. However, men and women did not differ in IgM seropositivity. Since only 0.6% of our sample was IgM-seropositive, it could also be that the statistical power was too low to detect statistically significant effects.

From the IgG unit data, we find that IgG units were on average higher in older participants, which fits to the above-discussed explanation of cumulative lifetime exposure to B. burgdorferi s.l. The negative association between age and IgM units could suggest that the IgM-related immune response decreases with age [52]. However, data on the timing of infection would be required to further clarify this finding, as it is possible that younger adults had more recent infections than older adults. An alternative explanation for lower IgM units in older participants may be related to decreased tick exposure, as physical outdoor activity may decline with age [53].

Previous studies discussed a potential interplay between SES, time spent outside (i.e., tick exposure) and Borrelia seropositivity [35,36,37,38,39]; in the latest German serosurvey, no influence of SES was found [30]. We are aware of one other study that also used educational level as proxy for SES but grouped it into four different educational levels [37]. This study reported no association between education and seropositivity. However, given that they had a smaller sample size than our study (N = 1213), the lower number of participants per category may have limited the statistical power to detect an existing association. We found participants with a higher level of education to have higher odds for IgG seropositivity than individuals with an intermediate level of education. A potential explanation for our finding is differing life circumstances, including the living environment, leisure activities and access to green spaces and nature, resulting in differences in tick exposure [35, 38]. In contrast, we found no significant effect for low educational level compared to intermediate level of education. However, we only had a few persons with a low educational level, and their number may have been too small to find meaningfully interpretable results, supported by a comparably wide confidence interval for the odds ratio. Our sensitivity analyses considering IgG and IgM VU, negative, borderline and positive samples, and the DEGS classification algorithm also found no significant effect for any level of education. Thus, we demonstrate that different classifications affect the detection of risk factors for seropositivity and the seroprevalence.

Our study has limitations. First, we conducted a serosurvey for IgG and IgM antibodies for B. burgdorferi s.l., meaning that we did not examine study subjects for clinical disease. Despite high specificity in both the screening and confirmatory tests, we cannot fully exclude the very small chance that cross-reactions may have led to false-positive results among samples, for example, caused by present immune reactions to syphilis [54], relapsing fever [55] or herpes diseases (cytomegalovirus or parvoviruses [56, 57]). Furthermore, our cohort consisted of a local sample from two city districts in Bonn, Germany. Therefore, our study does not represent the whole of NRW; hence, our comparison with the only available previous seroprevalence data of our study region relies on estimates for NRW provided by Woudenberg et al. [30], rendering caution advisable. Furthermore, only subjects aged 30 and older were invited to the study. Thus, we cannot assess the serostatus in the age cohort younger than 30 years, which are potentially prone to exposure during leisure or work activities by design, as discussed elsewhere [32]. In our statistical analysis, we were limited to investigating the risk factors of age, sex and education due to data restrictions and could not include further risk factors for seropositivity evaluated in existing studies, such as migration background, pets within the household or time spent outside [32, 37, 48].

In conclusion, this study provides an important update of IgG antibody seropositivity estimates for B. burgdorferi s.l. in Bonn and additionally provides seropositivity estimates for IgM antibodies. Although we hypothesized an increase in seroprevalence due to reports of increased tick density and tick infection proportions in this region over the past few decades [26, 27], we did not detect such increase in seropositivity in our sample compared with the findings from the most recent German serosurveys conducted during 2008–2011 (DEGS) and 1997–1999 (BGS98). We also demonstrated how important the choice of classification is for the comparability of seropositivity results across studies. Spatial variation in tick activity and exposure highlight the need for future studies to investigate IgG and IgM seropositivity in other regions to map trends and enable early action (e.g. tick awareness campaigns) in the face of potential increases in seropositivity in the population.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets for this manuscript are not publicly available because of data protection regulations. Access to data can, however, be provided to scientists in accordance with the Rhineland Study’s Data Use and Access Policy. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to Dr Monique Breteler, RS-DUAC@dzne.de.

Abbreviations

B. burgdorferi  s.l.:

Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato

BGS98:

German National Health Interview and Examination Survey 1998

DEGS:

German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults from 2008 to 2011

ELISA:

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

IgG:

Immunoglobulin G

IgM:

Immunoglobulin M

ICH-GCP:

International Council for Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice standards

ISCED:

International Standard Classification of Education

MIQ 12:

Microbiologic-infectiologic quality standard

NRW:

North Rhine-Westphalia

VU:

Virotech units

SES:

Socioeconomic status

References

  1. Robert Koch Institut. RKI-Ratgeber Lyme-Borreliose. Epidemiol Bull. 2019;17.

  2. Enkelmann J, Böhmer M, Fingerle V, Siffczyk C, Werber D, Littmann M, et al. Incidence of notified Lyme borreliosis in Germany, 2013–2017. Sci Rep. 2018;8:2013–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Akmatov MK, Holstiege J, Dammertz L, Kohring C, Heuer J, Bätzing J. Nationwide and small-area morbidity of Lyme borreliosis in Germany based on ambulatory claims data, 2010 – 2019. In: Central Research Institute of Ambulatory Health Care in Germany (Zi). Versorgungsatlas-Report Nr. 21/06, Berlin. 2021. https://doi.org/10.20364/VA-21.06

  4. Böhmer MM, Ens K, Böhm S, Heinzinger S, Fingerle V. Epidemiological surveillance of Lyme borreliosis in Bavaria, Germany, 2013–2020. Microorganisms. 2021;9:2013–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Stanek G, Wormser GP, Gray J, Strle F. Lyme borreliosis. Lancet. 2012;379:461–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tappe J, Jordan D, Janecek E, Fingerle V, Strube C. Revisited: Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato infections in hard ticks (Ixodes ricinus) in the city of Hanover (Germany). Parasit Vectors. 2014;7:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bingsohn L, Beckert A, Zehner R, Kuch U, Oehme R, Kraiczy P, et al. Prevalences of tick-borne encephalitis virus andBorrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in Ixodes ricinus populations of the Rhine-Main region Germany. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2013;4:207–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Eshoo MW, Crowder CD, Carolan HE, Rounds MA, Ecker DJ, Haag H, et al. Broad-range survey of tick-borne pathogens in southern Germany reveals a high prevalence of Babesia microti and a diversity of other tick-borne pathogens. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2014;14:584–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Blazejak K, Raulf MK, Janecek E, Jordan D, Fingerle V, Strube C. Shifts in Borrelia burgdorferi (s.l.) geno-species infections in Ixodes ricinus over a 10-year surveillance period in the city of Hanover (Germany) and Borrelia miyamotoi-specific Reverse Line Blot detection. Parasites and Vectors. 2018;11:1–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Franke J, Hildebrandt A, Meier F, Straube E, Dorn W. Prevalence of Lyme disease agents and several emerging pathogens in questing ticks from the German Baltic coast. J Med Entomol. 2011;48:441–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. May K, Jordan D, Fingerle V, Strube C. Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato and co-infections with Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Rickettsia spp. in Ixodes ricinus in Hamburg Germany. Med Vet Entomol. 2015;29:425–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Venczel R, Knoke L, Pavlovic M, Dzaferovic E, Vaculova T, Silaghi C, et al. A novel duplex real-time PCR permits simultaneous detection and differentiation of Borrelia miyamotoi and Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato. Infection. 2016;44:47–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mead PS. Epidemiology of Lyme disease. Infect Dis Clin North Am. Elsevier Inc; 2015;29:187–210.

  14. Steere AC, Strle F, Wormser GP, Hu LT, Branda JA, Hovius JWR, et al. Lyme borreliosis. Nat Rev Dis Prim. 2016;2:16090.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Perret J, Guigoz E, Rais O. Influence of saturation deficit and temperature on Ixodes ricinus tick questing activity in a Lyme borreliosis-endemic area (Switzerland). Parasitol Res. 2000;86:554–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tucker P, Gilliland J. The effect of season and weather on physical activity: a systematic review. Public Health. 2007;121:909–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Deutsches Klima-Konsortium, Deutsche Meteorologische Gesellschaft, Deutscher Wetterdienst, Extremwetterkongress Hamburg, Helmholtz-Klima-Initiative, Klimafakten.de. Was wir heute übers Klima wissen: Basisfakten zum Klimawandel, die in der Wissenschaft unumstritten sind. 2021 [cited 2021 Oct 14]. Available from: https://www.dwd.de/DE/klimaumwelt/aktuelle_meldungen/200910/dkk_faktensammlung.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2

  18. Rogelj J, Popp A, Calvin KV, Luderer G, Emmerling J, Gernaat D, et al. Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5°C. Nat Clim Chang. 2018;8:325–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Gray JS, Dautel H, Estrada-Peña A, Kahl O, Lindgren E. Effects of climate change on ticks and tick-borne diseases in Europe. Interdiscip Perspect Infect Dis. 2009;2009:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Dautel H, Dippel C, Kämmer D, Werkhausen A, Kahl O. Winter activity of Ixodes ricinus in a Berlin forest. Int J Med Microbiol. 2008;298:50–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen. Klimabericht NRW 2021. Klimawandel und seine Folgen – Ergebnisse aus dem Klimafolgen und Anpassungsmonitoring LANUV Fachbericht 120. Fachbericht, Anpassungsmonitoring. 2021. Available from: https://www.lanuv.nrw.de/fileadmin/lanuvpubl/3_fachberichte/Screen_Klimabericht_2021_211214.pdf

  22. Hrazdilová K, Lesiczka PM, Bardoň J, Vyroubalová Š, Šimek B, Zurek L, et al. Wild boar as a potential reservoir of zoonotic tick-borne pathogens. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2020.101558.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pfäffle M, Littwin N, Muders SV, Petney TN. The ecology of tick-borne diseases. Int J Parasitol. 2013;43:1059–77 (Australian Society for Parasitology Inc).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gilbert L. The impacts of climate change on ticks and tick-borne disease risk. Annu Rev Entomol. 2021;66:273–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lotto-Batista M, Behrens C, Castell S. Der Einfluss des Klimawandels auf die Ausbreitung von Infektionserkrankungen – am Beispiel der Lyme-Borreliose. In: Günster C, Klauber J, Robra B-P, Schmuker C, Schneider A, editors. Versorgungs-Report Klima und Gesundh. Berlin: Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft; 2021. p. 145–55.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Schwarz A, Hönig V, Vavruková Z, Grubhoffer L, Balczun C, Albring A, et al. Abundance of Ixodes ricinus and prevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi s.l. in the nature reserve Siebengebirge, Germany, in comparison to three former studies from 1978 onwards. Parasit Vectors. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-5-268.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Kampen H, Rötzel DC, Kurtenbach K, Maier WA, Seitz HM. Substantial rise in the prevalence of Lyme borreliosis spirochetes in a region of Western Germany over a 10-year period. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004;70:1576–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Margos G, Sing A, Fingerle V. Published data do not support the notion that Borrelia valaisiana is human pathogenic. Infection. 2017;45:567–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Glatz M, Golestani M, Kerl H, Müllegger RR. Clinical relevance of different IgG and IgM serum antibody responses to Borrelia burgdorferi after antibiotic therapy for erythema migrans: Long-term follow-up study of 113 patients. Arch Dermatol. 2006;142:862–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Woudenberg T, Böhm S, Böhmer M, Katz K, Willrich N, Stark K, et al. Dynamics of Borrelia burgdorferi-specific antibodies: Seroconversion and seroreversion between two population-based, cross-sectional surveys among adults in Germany. Microorganisms. 2020;8:1–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Kalish RA, McHugh G, Granquist J, Shea B, Ruthazer R, Steere AC. Persistence of immunoglobulin M or immunoglobulin G antibody responses to Borrelia burgdorferi 10–20 years after active Lyme disease. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;33:780–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wilking H, Fingerle V, Klier C, Thamm M, Stark K. Antibodies against Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato among adults, Germany, 2008–2011. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015;21:107–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hygiene und Mikrobiologie. MIQ 12: Lyme-Borreliose: Qualitätsstandards in der mikrobiologisch-infektiologischen Diagnostik. 2nd ed. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hygiene und Mikrobiologie (DGHM), Podbielski A, Fingerle V, Rüssman H, editors. Urban & Fischer Verlag/Elsevier GmbH; 2017.

  34. Kalmár Z, Briciu V, Coroian M, Flonta M, Rădulescu A-L, Topan A, et al. Seroprevalence of antibodies against Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in healthy blood donors in Romania: an update. Parasit Vectors BioMed Central. 2021;14:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-021-05099-1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Tulloch JSP, Semper AE, Brooks TJG, Russell K, Halsby KD, Christley RM, et al. The demographics and geographic distribution of laboratory-confirmed Lyme disease cases in England and Wales (2013–2016): an ecological study. BMJ Open. 2019;9:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Tulloch JSP, Christley RM, Radford AD, Warner JC, Beadsworth MBJ, Beeching NJ, et al. A descriptive epidemiological study of the incidence of newly diagnosed Lyme disease cases in a UK primary care cohort, 1998–2016. BMC Infect Dis. 2020;20:1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hjetland R, Nilsen RM, Grude N, Ulvestad E. Seroprevalence of antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in healthy adults from western Norway: Risk factors and methodological aspects. APMIS. 2014;122:1114–24.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Linard C, Lamarque P, Heyman P, Ducoffre G, Luyasu V, Tersago K, et al. Determinants of the geographic distribution of Puumala virus and Lyme borreliosis infections in Belgium. Int J Health Geogr. 2007;6:1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sočan M, Blaško-Markič M, Erčulj V, Lajovic J. Socio-economic characteristics in notified erythema migrans patients. Zdr Varst. 2015;54:267–73.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis). Datenbank Genesis-Online [Internet]. Datenlizenz by-2–0. [cited 2021 Nov 18]. Available from: www.destatis.de

  41. Kamtsiuris P, Lange M, Hoffmann R, Rosario AS, Dahm S, Kuhnert R, et al. Die erste Welle der Studie zur Gesundheit Erwachsener in Deutschland (DEGS1). Bundesgesundheitsblatt. 2013;56:620–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Thefeld W, Stolzenberg H, Bellach BM. Bundes-Gesundheitssurvey: Response, Zusammensetzung der Teilnehmer und Non-Responder—Analyse. Gesundheitswesen. 1999;61:57–61.

    Google Scholar 

  43. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020. Available from: https://www.r-project.org/

  44. Venables WN Ripley BD. Modern Applied Statistics with S. New York: Springer; 2002. Available from: http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/pub/MASS4/

  45. Fox J Weisberg S. An {R} companion to applied regression, second edition Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2019. Available from: http://socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion

  46. Lumley T. survey: analysis of complex survey samples. 2020.

  47. Ang CW, Notermans DW, Hommes M, Simoons-Smit AM, Herremans T. Large differences between test strategies for the detection of anti-Borrelia antibodies are revealed by comparing eight ELISAs and five immunoblots. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2011;30:1027–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Dehnert M, Fingerle V, Klier C, Talaska T, Schlaud M, Krause G, et al. Seropositivity of Lyme borreliosis and associated risk factors: a population-based study in children and adolescents in Germany (KiGGS). PLoS ONE. 2012;7:4–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Wilking H, Stark K. Trends in surveillance data of human Lyme borreliosis from six federal states in eastern Germany, 2009–2012. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2014;5:219–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Binder K, Reich A, Sing A. et al. Meldepflicht für Lyme-Borreliose in Bayern – eine erste Bilanz. Epidemiol Bull. 2015;8:55–9.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Briscoe ME. Why do people go to the doctor? Sex differences in the correlates of GP consultation. Soc Sci Med. 1987;5:507–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Simon AK, Hollander GA, McMichael A. Evolution of the immune system in humans from infancy to old age. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.3085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Franco MR, Tong A, Howard K, Sherrington C, Ferreira PH, Pinto RZ, et al. Older people’s perspectives on participation in physical activity: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative literature. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49:1268–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Naesens R, Vermeiren S, Van Schaeren J, Jeurissen A. False positive Lyme serology due to syphilis: report of 6 cases and review of the literature. Acta Clin Belg. 2011;66:58–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Rath PM, Rögler G, Schönberg A, Pohle HD, Fehrenbach FJ. Relapsing fever and its serological discrimination from Lyme borreliosis. Infection. 1992;20:283–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Emery R, Eppes SC, Klein JD, Rose CD. Misdiagnosis of parvovirus B19 infection as Lyme disease: a series of patients with falsely positive Lyme serology. Infect Dis Clin Pract. 1997;6:342–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Goossens HAT, Nohlmans MKE, Van den Bogaard AEJM. Epstein-Barr virus and Cytomegalovirus infections cause false-positive results in IgM two-test protocol for early Lyme borreliosis. Infection. 1999;27:231.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all participants of the Rhineland Study, as well as the study staff and employees involved. Furthermore, we thank Sandra Wolf for her organizational efforts concerning the laboratory analysis. We value the helpful comments by two anonymous reviewers, which enabled us to improve our manuscript.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This work was supported in part by the Initiative and Networking Fund of the Helmholtz Association (No. RA-285/19). The Helmholtz-Climate-Initiative (HI-CAM) is funded by the Helmholtz Associations Initiative and Networking Fund. The authors are responsible for the content of this publication. Max Hassenstein receives a scholarship from the Life Science Foundation (LSS) to promote science and research.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Annabell Coors and Max J. Hassenstein contributed equally to this work

  2. Monique M. B. Breteler and Stefanie Castell contributed equally to this work

Authors and Affiliations

  1. German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Population Health Sciences, Venusberg-Campus 1/99, 53127, Bonn, Germany

    Annabell Coors & Monique M. B. Breteler

  2. Department of Epidemiology, Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research (HZI), Braunschweig, Germany

    Max J. Hassenstein, Gérard Krause, Manuela Harries & Stefanie Castell

  3. PhD Programme “Epidemiology”, Braunschweig-Hannover, Germany

    Max J. Hassenstein

  4. German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Braunschweig, Germany

    Gérard Krause & Stefanie Castell

  5. Hannover Medical School (MHH), Hannover, Germany

    Gérard Krause

  6. TWINCORE, Centre for Experimental and Clinical Infection Research, a Joint Venture of the Hannover Medical School, Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research, Hannover, Germany

    Gérard Krause

  7. Department of RNA-Biology of Bacterial Infections, Helmholtz Institute for RNA-Based Infection Research, Würzburg, Germany

    Tobias Kerrinnes

  8. Institute for Medical Biometry, Informatics and Epidemiology (IMBIE), Faculty of Medicine, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Monique M. B. Breteler

Authors
  1. Annabell Coors
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Max J. Hassenstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gérard Krause
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tobias Kerrinnes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Manuela Harries
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Monique M. B. Breteler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Stefanie Castell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

GK and SC secured the funding for laboratory analysis. AC, MJH, TK, MH, MB and SC conceptualized and designed the study. AC and MJH conducted data preparation and analysis and wrote the manuscript. TK, MB, MH, GK and SC reviewed and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monique M. B. Breteler.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The ethics committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Bonn reviewed and approved the study protocol for the Rhineland Study. The study followed the recommendations of the International Council for Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice standards (ICH-GCP). All participants provided written informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Coors, A., Hassenstein, M.J., Krause, G. et al. Regional seropositivity for Borrelia burgdorferi and associated risk factors: findings from the Rhineland Study, Germany. Parasites Vectors 15, 241 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-022-05354-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-022-05354-z

Keywords

Parasites & Vectors

ISSN: 1756-3305

Contact us