Skip to main content
Download PDF

Incidence of symptomatic Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato infection in Romania, 2018−2023

Parasites & Vectors volume 17, Article number: 378 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Lyme borreliosis (LB), caused by Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato (Bbsl), is the most common tick-borne disease in Europe. Although public health surveillance for LB has been conducted in Romania since 2007, the extent of under-detection of Bbsl infections by LB surveillance has not been estimated. We therefore estimated the under-detection of symptomatic Bbsl infections by LB surveillance to better understand the LB burden in Romania.

Methods

The number of incident symptomatic Bbsl infections were estimated from a seroprevalence study conducted in six counties (population 2.3 M) and estimates of the symptomatic proportion and duration of persistence of anti-Bbsl immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies. The number of incident symptomatic Bbsl infections were compared with the number of surveillance-reported LB cases to derive an under-detection multiplier, and then the under-detection multiplier was applied to LB surveillance data to estimate the incidence of symptomatic Bbsl infection from 2018 to 2023.

Results

We estimate that there were 1968 individuals with incident symptomatic Bbsl infection in the six counties where the seroprevalence study was conducted in 2020, compared with the 187 surveillance-reported LB cases, resulting in an under-detection multiplier of 10.5 (i.e., for every surveillance-reported LB case, there were 10.5 symptomatic incident Bbsl infections). The incidence of symptomatic Bbsl infection in the six counties was 86.9/100,000 population in 2023, similar to the incidence in 2018−2020 (86.0) and higher than in 2021−2022 (40.3).

Conclusions

There is a higher incidence of symptomatic Bbsl infection than is reported through public health surveillance for LB in Romania. Additional efforts are needed to strengthen disease prevention and address the important public health problem of LB.

Graphic Abstract

Background

Lyme borreliosis (LB), the most common tick-borne disease in Europe, is caused by the spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato (Bbsl), which is transmitted to humans predominately by the bite of an Ixodes tick [1]. Patients with LB most commonly present for medical care with a localized skin disease in the form of erythema migrans (EM). However, Bbsl infections can also disseminate and result in disseminated LB including Lyme neuroborreliosis, arthritis, and carditis. LB is endemic in parts of Romania, and elsewhere in Europe [2, 3]. Many European countries conduct public health surveillance for LB, but differences in case definitions, diagnostic practices, and laboratory methods complicate efforts to estimate LB disease burden using surveillance data [2, 3].

Public health surveillance for LB in Romania began in 2007 with statutory reporting of LB cases by physicians to county health officers, who then report LB cases to the National Institute of Public Health (NIPH). Surveillance-reported LB cases include clinician-diagnosed cases with a laboratory confirmation (i.e., confirmed cases) and clinician-diagnosed cases without a laboratory confirmation (i.e., probable cases). NIPH publishes annual LB surveillance reports, with data available at the county level. The incidence of surveillance-reported LB per 100,000 population per year (PPY) was 2.3/100,000 from 2010 to 2023; the lowest incidence per 100,000 PPY was in 2021, which coincided with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic [4].

Surveillance-reported LB cases represent only a portion of symptomatic Bbsl infections (Fig. 1). There are several reasons why an individual with a symptomatic Bbsl infection may not be detected by public health surveillance [5]. The extent of under-detection of symptomatic infections by public health surveillance can be estimated through the derivation of an under-detection multiplier, which is obtained by comparing the estimated number of incident symptomatic infections derived from a seroprevalence study with the number of surveillance-reported cases [6,7,8]. Studies have indicated that there is under-detection of LB cases by public health surveillance in Romania, but the extent of this under-detection has not previously been estimated [9, 10]. The objective of this study was to quantify the under-detection of Bbsl infection by LB surveillance and thereby estimate the incidence of symptomatic Bbsl infection in Romania.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Pyramid of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato infections

Full size image

Methods

We estimated the incidence of symptomatic Bbsl infection in Romania using a seroprevalence-based approach. We utilized a systematic literature review of studies published from 2005 to 2020 [11] and conducted a PubMed literature search of articles published from 2021 to 2023 to identify seroprevalence studies conducted in Romania that measured the prevalence of anti-Bbsl IgG antibodies in the general population. Public health LB surveillance data, nationally and by county, were retrieved from NIPH annual reports (https://www.insp.gov.ro). The population of Romania was 19 million in 2020. The country is divided into 41 counties and the municipality of Bucharest.

We derived two additional estimates to calculate the incidence of symptomatic Bbsl infection from seroprevalence data: an estimate of the symptomatic proportion among individuals with an incident Bbsl infection and an estimate of the duration of persistence of anti-Bbsl IgG antibodies in Bbsl-infected persons. To derive these estimates, we conducted a PubMed literature search to identify follow-up studies conducted in Europe of Bbsl-infected individuals published from 1990 to 2023. To estimate the symptomatic proportion, an individual with an incident Bbsl infection was defined as an individual who sero-converted from anti-Bbsl IgG-negative to IgG-positive. To estimate the duration of persistence of anti-Bbsl IgG antibodies, the duration was defined as the time from Bbsl infection to sero-reversion from anti-Bbsl IgG-positive to IgG-negative.

The prevalence of anti-Bbsl IgG antibodies (P) reported in identified seroprevalence studies was used to estimate the number of individuals with an incident Bbsl infection (I) using an estimate of the duration of persistence of anti-Bbsl IgG antibodies (D) and the formula I = P/D. The incidence of symptomatic Bbsl infection (per 100,000 PPY) was then calculated using mid-year population estimates and an estimate of the symptomatic proportion. The incidence of symptomatic Bbsl infection was compared with the incidence of surveillance-reported LB cases in the same year that the specimens were collected in the seroprevalence studies to derive the under-detection multiplier for symptomatic Bbsl infections by public health surveillance. The under-detection multiplier was then applied to the incidence of surveillance-reported LB cases in 2018−2023 to derive an estimate of the incidence of symptomatic Bbsl infection in 2018−2023.

Results

We identified one general population LB seroprevalence study conducted in Romania [12]. The study, by Kalmár et al., collected serum samples from November 2019 to September 2020 from 1200 adult blood donors in six counties in northwestern and central Romania: Alba, Bistrița-Năsăud, Cluj, Maramureș, Sălaj, and Satu-Mare. The population in the six counties was 2,312,385 in 2020, which was 12.2% of the population in Romania. Samples were tested for anti-Bbsl IgG antibodies using the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test recomWell Borrelia kit (Mikrogen Diagnostik, Germany), with ELISA-positive or equivocal samples further tested using the recomLine Borrelia kit (Mikrogen Diagnostik, Germany). Samples positive using the recomLine test were considered positive for anti-Bbsl IgG antibodies. The prevalence of anti-Bbsl IgG antibodies in the six counties in 2019–2020 was 2.3% (95% CI 1.6%−3.4%); stratified by county, the prevalence ranged from 0.5% to 3.0% (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Seroprevalence of anti-Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato IgG antibodies from the 2019–2020 seroprevalence study in six counties in Romania

Full size image

The literature search identified five follow-up studies that involved individuals with an incident Bbsl infection who were interviewed about symptoms [13,14,15,16,17]. All were cohort studies; four studies enrolled individuals bitten by a tick and one study enrolled individuals at high risk of being bitten by a tick. The studies identified 110 individuals with an incident Bbsl infection. The pooled estimate of the symptomatic proportion in the five studies was 37% (95% CI 28%−46%). The search also identified eight follow-up studies that reported on the duration of persistence of anti-Bbsl IgG antibodies [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. Six were follow-up studies of individuals with anti-Bbsl IgG antibodies identified when they sought medical care and two were follow-up studies of individuals with anti-Bbsl IgG antibodies identified by general population seroprevalence studies. The studies included 3352 individuals with anti-Bbsl IgG antibodies. The range in the estimated time for 50% of the individuals with anti-Bbsl IgG antibodies to serorevert to IgG-negative was 0.4−33.3 years. Given the range in median time of the duration of persistence of IgG antibodies in Bbsl-infected individuals in the eight studies, we used a 10-year duration of persistence of anti-Bbsl IgG antibodies.

Using the anti-Bbsl IgG prevalence of 2.3% from the seroprevalence study conducted in Romania, a symptomatic proportion of 37%, and persistence of anti-Bbsl IgG antibodies of 10 years, there were an estimated 1968 individuals with symptomatic Bbsl infection in the six counties in Romania in 2020 and an incidence of symptomatic Bbsl infection of 85.1/100,000 PPY (Table 1). There were 187 surveillanc-reported LB cases in the six counties in 2020 (an incidence of surveillance-reported LB of 8.1/100,000 PPY). Therefore, the under-detection multiplier of symptomatic Bbsl infections by public health surveillance was 10.5 (i.e., for each surveillance-reported LB case, there were 10.5 symptomatic Bbsl infections) in the six counties in 2020.

Table 1 Estimates of the number of incident symptomatic Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato infections and incidence (per 100,000 population per year) of symptomatic Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato infection in six counties (Alba, Bistriţa-Năsăud, Cluj, Maramureş, Sălaj, and Satu-Mare) in Romania, 2020
Full size table

From 2010 to 2023, there were 6089 surveillance-reported LB cases nationwide and 1763 surveillance-reported LB in the six counties where the seroprevalence study was conducted (Fig. 3); the six counties accounted for 28.9% of the surveillance-reported LB cases in Romania. From 2018 to 2023, the incidence (per 100,000 PPY) of symptomatic Bbsl infection in the six countries after adjusting for under-detection was 83.3 in 2018, 89.7 in 2019, 85.1 in 2020, 13.7 in 2021, 66.9 in 2022, and 86.9 in 2023 (Table 2); the incidence was 86.0 in 2018−2020, and 40.3 in 2021−2022.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Number of surveillance-reported Lyme borreliosis cases, Romania, 2010–2023

Full size image
Table 2 Estimates of the incidence (per 100,000 population per year) of symptomatic Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato infection in six counties (Alba, Bistriţa-Năsăud, Cluj, Maramureş, Sălaj, and Satu-Mare) in Romania, 2018−2022
Full size table

Discussion

In this analysis, we estimated the incidence of symptomatic Bbsl infection in the counties of Alba, Bistrița-Năsăud, Cluj, Maramureș, Sălaj, and Satu-Mare in north-western and central Romania. The incidence of symptomatic Bbsl infection is notably higher than the incidence of surveillance-reported LB cases. Since estimates of the population-based incidence are essential data for estimating LB burden, the results of this study further our understanding of the LB burden in Romania.

Several other studies have suggested that LB cases are under-detected by the public health surveillance in Romania, but this is the first study to estimate the extent of under-detection [9, 10]. We found that for every surveillance-reported LB case, there were more than 10 cases of symptomatic Bbsl infection. After applying the estimated under-detection multiplier to the public health surveillance data, the highest incidence of symptomatic Bbsl infection in 2018−2023 was 89.7/100,000 population in 2019. The lowest incidence of symptomatic Bbsl infection (13.7/100,000 PPY) was in 2021, which coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic. Impacts of the pandemic may have persisted into 2022 as the incidence in 2022 (66.9/100,000 PPY) was lower than previous years and the incidence in 2023 (86.9/100,000 PPY) was similar to the incidence observed from 2018 to 2020 (86.0/100,000 PPY).

Some of the under-detection of cases of symptomatic Bbsl infection by LB surveillance in Romania is because: (1) the Bbsl infection in some individuals with a symptomatic infection is resolved by their immune system, and there are no subsequent manifestations and they do not seek medical care; or (2) some individuals with a symptomatic Bbsl infection seek medical care but are not diagnosed with LB. In both of these instances, the individuals with a symptomatic Bbsl infection would be unlikely to be reported to LB surveillance because surveillance focuses on reporting of diagnosed LB cases by clinicians (i.e., among patients who seek medical care). Additional studies estimating the incidence of medically-attended LB cases would be helpful in further understanding the LB burden in Romania.

We do not know the extent to which these six counties are representative of other counties in Romania. Although 12% of the Romanian population resided in these six counties in 2020, 29% of the surveillance-reported LB cases in 2010−2023 were from these six counties. If we apply the under-detection multiplier from the six counties to nationwide surveillance data, the estimated incidence of symptomatic Bbsl infection from 2010 to 2023 is 24.1/100,000 PPY. However, we do not know if our estimated under-detection multiplier is representative for all of Romania, or if multipliers in other parts of Romania would be higher or lower than the multiplier in the six counties. Furthermore, the extent of under-detection of symptomatic Bbsl infections by public health surveillance may vary between regions owing to several factors including care-seeking behaviors, clinical awareness of LB, sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic testing, and completeness of disease reporting.

A seroprevalence-based approach has also been used to estimate the incidence of symptomatic Bbsl infection in Finland, Germany, and Poland, but the estimate of the incidence in Romania provides an important contribution to literature as it illuminates differences between the countries [26,27,28]. The estimate of the incidence of symptomatic Bbsl infection in Romania is lower than in Finland, Germany, and Poland. Reasons for the lower symptomatic LB incidence in Romania may reflect a lower density of Ixodes ticks, a lower Bbsl prevalence in ticks, or differences in human behaviors that results in reduced exposure to ticks and infection. The under-detection multiplier in Romania (10.5) is higher than in Finland (2.7) and Poland (5.9), but lower than in Germany (12.0). Differences in under-detection multipliers can be explained by several factors including: (1) Romania only has statutory reporting of LB cases by clinicians whereas the other countries also have statutory reporting by laboratories; (2) Romania may have lower LB awareness, resulting in less care-seeking, undertesting, and underdiagnosis; and (3) Romania may have more non-endemic regions than Finland, Germany, and Poland.

Two key estimates were needed to derive an estimate incidence of symptomatic Bbsl infection: the symptomatic proportion and the duration of persistence of antibodies. On the basis of published literature, we estimated that 37% of individuals infected with Bbsl develop symptoms. As evident by the sensitivity analysis, if a higher proportion of infected individuals are symptomatic, the estimated incidence of symptomatic Bbsl infection increases. On the basis of published literature, we estimated that the duration of persistence of anti-Bbsl IgG antibodies in Bbsl-infected persons is 10 years. As evident by the sensitivity analysis, if the duration is longer, the estimated incidence of symptomatic Bbsl infection decreases. The factors that affect these parameters are not fully elucidated and may vary between countries. For example, antibody persistence may depend on care-seeking and treatment, which could vary by setting. Further research on the estimates of symptomatic proportion and duration of persistence of antibodies are needed to achieve more definitive under-detection multipliers.

Our study has several additional limitations. One limitation is that the seroprevalence study used to estimate under-detection of symptomatic Bbsl infections was conducted among adults. Ideally, we would have estimated under-detection multipliers for several age strata, including children. However, available LB surveillance data in Romania are not stratified by age groups. Thus, we derived the under-detection multiplier using surveillance data for all ages, which required an assumption that the available seroprevalence data were representative for children and adults. However, the seroprevalence of anti-Bbsl IgG antibodies in children in Romania may be lower than that in adults, similar to that reported by studies in Germany [28, 29]. If the seroprevalence is lower in children, there would be fewer incident cases, a smaller under-detection multiplier, and a lower incidence of symptomatic Bbsl infection. Further studies with age-stratified surveillance data would be helpful to better understand age-specific multipliers.

Conclusions

In this study, we estimate the incidence of symptomatic Bbsl infection in six counties in Romania for which seroprevalence data are available. This seroprevalence-based approach for estimating the incidence of symptomatic Bbsl infection could be used in other countries that conduct public health surveillance for LB and have representative LB seroprevalence data available. This study represents an important contribution to the understanding of the LB burden in Romania. There is a notably higher incidence of symptomatic Bbsl infection in Romania than is reported in public health surveillance. Additional efforts are needed to strengthen disease prevention and address this important public health problem.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Abbreviations

B. burgdorferi:

Borrelia burgdorferi

Bbsl:

Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato

EM:

Erythema migrans

ELISA:

Enzyme-linked immunoassay

LB:

Lyme borreliosis

NIPH:

National Institute of Public Health

PPY:

Population per year

References

  1. Stanek G, Wormser G, Gray J, Strle F. Lyme borreliosis. Lancet. 2012;379:461–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60103-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Burn L, Tran TMP, Pilz A, Vyse A, Fletcher MA, Angulo FJ, et al. Incidence of Lyme Borreliosis in Europe from National Surveillance systems (2005–2020). Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis Larchmt N. 2023;23:156–71. https://doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2022.0071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. van den Wijngaard CC, Hofhuis A, Simões M, Rood E, van Pelt W, Zeller H, et al. Surveillance perspective on Lyme borreliosis across the European Union and European Economic Area. Euro Surveill. 2017;22:30569. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2017.22.27.30569.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Centrul Național de Supraveghere şi Control al Bolilor Transmisibile-Boala Lyme. Available online: http://www.cnscbt.ro/index.php/analiza-date-supraveghere/boala-lyme-1?limit=10&limitstart=0. Accessed 1 May 2024.

  5. Gibbons CL, Mangen MJJ, Plass D, Havelaar AH, Brooke RJ, Kramarz P, et al. Measuring underreporting and under-ascertainment in infectious disease datasets: a comparison of methods. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:147. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-147.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Reed C, Angulo FJ, Swerdlow DL, Lipsitch M, Meltzer MI, Jernigan D, et al. Estimates of the prevalence of pandemic (H1N1) 2009, United States, April-July 2009. Emerg Infect Dis. 2009;15:2004–7. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1512.091413.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Scallan E, Hoekstra RM, Angulo FJ, Tauxe RV, Widdowson MA, Roy SL, et al. Foodborne illness acquired in the United States—major pathogens. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011;17:7–15. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1701.p11101.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Angulo FJ, Finelli L, Swerdlow DL. Estimation of US SARS-CoV-2 Infections, symptomatic infections, hospitalizations, and deaths using seroprevalence surveys. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4:e2033706. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.33706.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Tilea B, Tripon G, Septimiu V, Tilea I. Serological, clinical and epidemiological aspects of Lyme borreliosis in Mures County, Romania. Rom Rev Lab Med. 2014;1:22. https://doi.org/10.2478/rrlm-2014-0020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Briciu V, Flonta M, Leucuța D, Lupșe M. The diagnostic challenges and clinical and serological outcome in patients hospitalized for suspected lyme neuroborreliosis. Microorganisms. 2022;10:1392. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10071392.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Burn L, Pilz A, Vyse A, Gutiérrez Rabá AV, Angulo FJ, Tran TMP, et al. Seroprevalence of Lyme Borreliosis in Europe: results from a systematic literature review (2005–2020). Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2023;23:195–220. https://doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2022.0069.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Kalmár Z, Briciu V, Coroian M, Flonta M, Rădulescu AL, Topan A, et al. Seroprevalence of antibodies against Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in healthy blood donors in Romania: an update. Parasit Vectors. 2021;14:596. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-021-05099-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Fryland L, Wilhelmsson P, Lindgren PE, Nyman D, Ekerfelt C, Forsberg P. Low risk of developing Borrelia burgdorferi infection in the south-east of Sweden after being bitten by a Borrelia burgdorferi-infected tick. Int J Infect Dis. 2011;15:e174–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2010.10.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wilhelmsson P, Fryland L, Lindblom P, et al. A prospective study on the incidence of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato infection after a tick bite in Sweden and on the Åland Islands, Finland (2008–2009). Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2016;7:71–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2015.08.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Markowicz M, Schötta AM, Höss D, et al. Infections with tickborne pathogens after tick bite, Austria, 2015–2018. Emerg Infect Dis. 2021;27:1048–56. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2704.203366.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Carlströmer Berthén N, Tompa E, Olausson S, et al. The AxBioTick Study: Borrelia species and tick-borne encephalitis virus in ticks, and clinical responses in tick-bitten individuals on the Aland Islands, Finland. Microorganisms. 2023;11:1100. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11051100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Faulde MK, Rutenfranz M, Hepke J, Rogge M, Görner A, Keth A. Human tick infestation pattern, tick-bite rate, and associated Borrelia burgdorferi s.l. infection risk during occupational tick exposure at the Seedorf military training area northwestern Germany. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2014;5:594–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2014.04.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hammers-Berggren S, Lebech AM, Karlsson M, Svenungsson B, Hansen K, Stiernstedt G. Serological follow-up after treatment of patients with erythema migrans and neuroborreliosis. J Clin Microbiol. 1994;32:1519–25. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.32.6.1519-1525.1994.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Hammers-Berggren S, Lebech AM, Karlsson M, Andersson U, Hansen K, Stiernstedt G. Serological follow-up after treatment of Borrelia arthritis and acrodermatitis chronica atrophicans. Scand J Infect Dis. 1994;26:339–47. https://doi.org/10.3109/00365549409011804.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lomholt H, Lebech AM, Hansen K, Brandrup F, Halkier-Sørensen L. Long-term serological follow-up of patients treated for chronic cutaneous borreliosis or culture-positive erythema migrans. Acta Derm Venereol. 2000;80:362–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/000155500459312.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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. https://doi.org/10.1001/archderm.142.7.862.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tetens MM, Dessau R, Ellermann-Eriksen S, et al. The diagnostic value of serum Borrelia burgdorferi antibodies and seroconversion after Lyme neuroborreliosis, a nationwide observational study. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2022;28:1500.e1-1500.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2022.06.001.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Westerholt M, Krogfelt KA, Dessau RB, Ocias LF. Exploring the dynamics of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato antibodies—a registry-based study on laboratory data from Sweden and Denmark. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2023;29:1561–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2023.09.017.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Woudenberg T, Böhm S, Böhmer M, et al. Dynamics of Borrelia burgdorferi-specific antibodies: seroconversion and seroreversion between two population-based, cross-sectional surveys among adults in Germany. Microorganisms. 2020;8:1859. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8121859.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Böhm S, Woudenberg T, Stark K, et al. Seroprevalence, seroconversion and seroreversion of Borrelia burgdorferi-specific IgG antibodies in two population-based studies in children and adolescents, Germany, 2003 to 2006 and 2014 to 2017. Euro Surveill. 2023;28:2200855. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2023.28.34.2200855.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Olsen J, Angulo FJ, Pilz A, Halsby K, Kelly P, Turunen J, et al. Estimated number of symptomatic Lyme Borreliosis cases in adults in Finland in 2021 using seroprevalence data to adjust the number of surveillance-reported cases: a general framework for accounting for underascertainment by public health surveillance. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis Larchmt N. 2023;23:265–72. https://doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2022.0051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Olsen J, Angulo FJ, Pilz A, Halsby K, Kelly P, Brestrich G, et al. Estimated number of symptomatic Lyme borreliosis cases in Germany in 2021 after adjusting for under-ascertainment. Public Health. 2023;17:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2023.03.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 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:e41321. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041321.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. 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. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2101.140009.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported and jointly funded by Valneva and Pfizer as part of their co-development of a Lyme Disease vaccine. We acknowledge Asees Bajwa, MPH, and Melissa Furtado, MPH, ISMPP CMPP, of Pfizer, for providing editorial assistance funded by Pfizer Inc.

Funding

This study was supported and jointly funded by Valneva and Pfizer as part of their co-development of a Lyme Disease vaccine. The article processing charge was funded by Pfizer.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Julia Olsen

    Present address: Hologic, Inc, Marlborough, MA 01752, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vaccines and Antivirals Medical Affairs, Pfizer US Commercial Division, 500 Arcola Road, Collegeville, PA, 19426, USA

    Frederick J. Angulo, Julia Olsen, Emily Colby & Patrick H. Kelly

  2. Pfizer Romania SRL, Vaccines, Willbrook Platinum Business & Convention Center Sos, București–Ploiești No. 172–176, Building B, Stage 5, Sector 1, Bucharest, 013686, Romania

    Veronica Purdel

  3. Department of Infectious Diseases, “Iuliu Hatieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

    Mihaela Lupșe & Violeta Briciu

  4. University of Medicine and Pharmacy Carol Davila, Bucharest, Romania

    Adriana Hristea

  5. Pfizer Corporation Austria, Vaccines and Antivirals Medical Affairs, Floridsdorfer Hauptstraße 1, 1210, Vienna, Austria

    Andreas Pilz

  6. Vaccines and Antivirals Medical Affairs, Dorking Road, Tadworth, Surrey, KT20 7NY, UK

    Kate Halsby

  7. Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Vaccines and Antivirals Medical Affairs, Friedrichstraße, 110-10117, Berlin, Germany

    Gordon Brestrich

  8. Vaccines and Antivirals Medical Affairs, 23 Avenue du Docteur Lannelongue, 75014, Paris, France

    Jennifer C. Moïsi

  9. Vaccines and Antivirals Medical Affairs, Pfizer US Commercial Division, 1 Portland Street, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA

    James H. Stark

Authors
  1. Frederick J. Angulo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julia Olsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Veronica Purdel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mihaela Lupșe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Adriana Hristea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Violeta Briciu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Emily Colby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Andreas Pilz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Kate Halsby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Patrick H. Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Gordon Brestrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Jennifer C. Moïsi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. James H. Stark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Frederick J. Angulo, Emily Colby and Julia Olsen: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, writing (original draft), visualization; Andreas Pilz, Kate Halsby, Patrick H. Kelly, Gordon Brestrich, Veronica Purdel, Mihaela Lupșe, Adriana Hristea, and Violeta Briciu: investigation, writing (review and editing), visualization; Jennifer C. Moïsi and James H. Stark: conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, writing (review and editing), visualization, supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frederick J. Angulo.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Institutional review board (IRB) evaluation was not required because this study only involved the analysis of published data and did not involve human subject research, since only summary data and patient interviews were used.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Frederick J. Angulo, Veronica Purdel, Emily Colby, Andreas Pilz, Kate Halsby, Patrick H. Kelly, Gordon Brestrich, Jennifer C. Moïsi, and James H. Stark are employees of Pfizer and may hold stock or stock options. Violeta Briciu, Mihaela Lupșe, and Adriana Hristea have previously received honoraria for lecturing activities from Pfizer. Violeta Briciu and Mihaela Lupșe are members of the ESCMID study group for Lyme borreliosis (ESGBOR). Adriana Hristea received a research grant from Pfizer to conduct tick-borne encephalitis research.

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

Angulo, F.J., Olsen, J., Purdel, V. et al. Incidence of symptomatic Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato infection in Romania, 2018−2023. Parasites Vectors 17, 378 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-024-06449-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-024-06449-5

Keywords

Parasites & Vectors

ISSN: 1756-3305

Contact us