Lyme borreliosis (LB) and other Ixodes ricinus-borne diseases (TBDs) are diseases that emerge from interactions of humans and domestic animals with infected ticks in nature. Nature, environmental and health policies at (inter)national and local levels affect the risk, disease burden and costs of TBDs. Knowledge on ticks, their pathogens and the diseases they cause have been increasing, and resulted in the discovery of a diversity of control options, which often are not highly effective on their own. Control strategies involving concerted actions from human and animal health sectors as well as from nature managers have not been formulated, let alone implemented. Control of TBDs asks for a “health in all policies” approach, both at the (inter)national level, but also at local levels. For example, wildlife protection and creating urban green spaces are important for animal and human well-being, but may increase the risk of TBDs. In contrast, culling or fencing out deer decreases the risk for TBDs under specific conditions, but may have adverse effects on biodiversity or may be societally unacceptable. Therefore, in the end, nature and health workers together must carry out tailor-made control options for the control of TBDs for humans and animals, with minimal effects on the environment. In that regard, multidisciplinary approaches in environmental, but also medical settings are needed. To facilitate this, communication and collaboration between experts from different fields, which may include patient representatives, should be promoted.

Background Lyme borreliosis (LB) is a tick-borne disease caused by spirochetes belonging to the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato species. Due to a variety of clinical manifestations, diagnosing LB can be challenging, and laboratory work-up is usually required in case of disseminated LB. However, the current standard of diagnostics is serology, which comes with several shortcomings. Antibody formation may be absent in the early phase of the disease, and once IgG-seroconversion has occurred, it can be difficult to distinguish between a past (cured or self-cleared) LB and an active infection. It has been postulated that novel cellular tests for LB may have both higher sensitivity earlier in the course of the disease, and may be able to discriminate between a past and active infection. Methods VICTORY is a prospective two-gate case-control study. We strive to include 150 patients who meet the European case definitions for either localized or disseminated LB. In addition, we aim to include 225 healthy controls without current LB and 60 controls with potentially cross-reactive conditions. We will perform four different cellular tests in all of these participants, which will allow us to determine sensitivity and specificity. In LB patients, we will repeat cellular tests at 6 weeks and 12 weeks after start of antibiotic treatment to assess the usefulness as ‘test-of-cure’. Furthermore, we will investigate the performance of the different cellular tests in a cohort of patients with persistent symptoms attributed to LB. Discussion This article describes the background and design of the VICTORY study protocol. The findings of our study will help to better appreciate the utility of cellular tests in the diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis. Trial registration NL7732 (Netherlands Trial Register, trialregister.nl). Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12879-019-4323-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Modified two-tier testing (MTTT) for Lyme borreliosis (i.e. confirmation with an EIA instead of an immunoblot) has been shown to have improved sensitivity compared with standard two-tier testing (STTT) in samples from American patients, without losing specificity. The current study assesses the sensitivity and specificity of various algorithms of MTTT in European patients with erythema migrans (EM) as a model disease for early Lyme borreliosis, and in appropriate controls. Four different immunoassays were used in the first tier, followed by either an immunoblot or the C6-EIA, or were used as standalone single-tier test. These tests were performed on consecutively collected sera of 228 Dutch patients with physician-diagnosed EM in the setting of general practice, 231 controls from the general population, and 50 controls with potentially cross-reactive antibodies. All the variants of MTTT that were studied had significantly higher sensitivity compared with their equivalent STTT, while retaining comparable specificity. Within the MTTT algorithms, classifying equivocal results as positive yielded better diagnostic parameters than classifying equivocal results as negative. The best diagnostic parameters were found using the Enzygnost-2 assay in the first tier, followed by a C6-ELISA in the second tier (sensitivity 77.6%, 95% CI 71.7–82.9; specificity 96.1%, 95% CI 92.7–98.2). This algorithm performed significantly better than the equivalent STTT algorithm in terms of sensitivity (p < 0.001), while maintaining comparable specificity (population controls p = 0.617). Our results show that MTTT can be a useful tool for the serodiagnosis of European patients with early Lyme borreliosis.