Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

To test or not to test? Laboratory support for the diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis: a position paper of ESGBOR, the ESCMID study group for Lyme borreliosis

  • Ram B Dessau
  • , Alje P van Dam
  • , Volker Fingerle
  • , Jeremy Gray
  • , Joppe Hovius
  • , Klaus-Peter Hunfeld
  • , Benoit Jaulhac
  • , Olaf Kahl
  • , Wolfgang Kristoferitsch
  • , Per-Eric Lindgren
  • , Mateusz Markowicz
  • , Sally Mavin
  • , Katharina Ornstein
  • , Tobias Rupprecht
  • , Gerold Stanek
  • , Franc Strle
  • OLVG General Hospital and Public Health Laboratory, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
  • National Reference Centre for Borrelia, Munich, Oberschleissheim, Germany.
  • University College Dublin
  • University of Amsterdam
  • Goethe University Frankfurt
  • University Hospitals of Strasbourg
  • Free University of Berlin
  • Karl Landsteiner Institute for Neuroimmunological and Neurodegenerative Disorders, Vienna, Austria.
  • Linköping University Hospital
  • Medical University of Vienna
  • National Lyme Borreliosis Testing Laboratory, Raigmore Hospital, Inverness, UK.
  • Skånevård Kryh
  • Department of Neurology, HELIOS Klinikum München West, Munich, Germany.
  • University Medical Center Ljubljana

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Abstract

Background: Lyme borreliosis (LB) is a tick-borne infection caused by Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato. The most frequent clinical manifestations are erythema migrans and Lyme neuroborreliosis. Currently, a large volume of diagnostic testing for LB is reported, whereas the incidence of clinically relevant disease manifestations is low. This indicates overuse of diagnostic testing for LB with implications for patient care and cost-effective health management. Aim: The recommendations provided in this review are intended to support both the clinical diagnosis and initiatives for a more rational use of laboratory testing in patients with clinically suspected LB. Sources: This is a narrative review combining various aspects of the clinical and laboratory diagnosis with an educational purpose. The literature search was based on existing systematic reviews, national and international guidelines and supplemented with specific citations. Implications: The main recommendations according to current European case definitions for LB are as follows. Typical erythema migrans should be diagnosed clinically and does not require laboratory testing. The diagnosis of Lyme neuroborreliosis requires laboratory investigation of the spinal fluid including intrathecal antibody production, and the remaining disease manifestations require testing for serum antibodies to B. burgdorferi. Testing individuals with non-specific subjective symptoms is not recommended, because of a low positive predictive value.

Translated title of the contributionLaboratorie diagnostik af Lyme borreliosis.: Hvornår skal der tages en test
Original languageEnglish
JournalClinical Microbiology and Infection
Volume24
Issue number2
Pages (from-to)118-124
ISSN1198-743X
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Keywords

  • Journal Article
  • Review
  • Lyme borreliosis
  • Polymerase chain reaction
  • Borrelia burgdorferi
  • Laboratory diagnosis
  • Antibody testing
  • Serology
  • Immunoglobulin M/blood
  • Lyme Disease/diagnosis
  • Antibodies, Bacterial/blood
  • Humans
  • Clinical Laboratory Techniques/standards
  • Borrelia burgdorferi/immunology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'To test or not to test? Laboratory support for the diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis: a position paper of ESGBOR, the ESCMID study group for Lyme borreliosis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this