No abstract

BackgroundInterpretation of serological assays in Lyme borreliosis requires an understanding of the clinical indications and the limitations of the currently available tests. We therefore systematically reviewed the accuracy of serological tests for the diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis in Europe.MethodsWe searched EMBASE en MEDLINE and contacted experts. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of serological assays for Lyme borreliosis in Europe were eligible. Study selection and data-extraction were done by two authors independently. We assessed study quality using the QUADAS-2 checklist. We used a hierarchical summary ROC meta-regression method for the meta-analyses. Potential sources of heterogeneity were test-type, commercial or in-house, Ig-type, antigen type and study quality. These were added as covariates to the model, to assess their effect on test accuracy.ResultsSeventy-eight studies evaluating an Enzyme-Linked ImmunoSorbent assay (ELISA) or an immunoblot assay against a reference standard of clinical criteria were included. None of the studies had low risk of bias for all QUADAS-2 domains. Sensitivity was highly heterogeneous, with summary estimates: erythema migrans 50 % (95 % CI 40 % to 61 %); neuroborreliosis 77 % (95 % CI 67 % to 85 %); acrodermatitis chronica atrophicans 97 % (95 % CI 94 % to 99 %); unspecified Lyme borreliosis 73 % (95 % CI 53 % to 87 %). Specificity was around 95 % in studies with healthy controls, but around 80 % in cross-sectional studies. Two-tiered algorithms or antibody indices did not outperform single test approaches.ConclusionsThe observed heterogeneity and risk of bias complicate the extrapolation of our results to clinical practice. The usefulness of the serological tests for Lyme disease depends on the pre-test probability and subsequent predictive values in the setting where the tests are being used. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should be prospectively planned cross-sectional studies, done in settings where the test will be used in practice.

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.

Serological SARS-CoV-2 assays are needed to support clinical diagnosis and epidemiological investigations. Recently, assays for large-scale detection of total antibodies (total-Ab) and immunoglobulin (Ig) G and M against SARS-CoV-2 antigens have been developed, but there are limited data on the diagnostic accuracy of these assays. This study was a Danish national collaboration and evaluated fifteen commercial and one in-house anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays in sixteen laboratories. Sensitivity was evaluated using 150 samples from individuals with asymptomatic, mild or moderate COVID-19; nonhospitalized or hospitalized, confirmed by nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT), collected 13-73 days either from symptom onset or from positive NAAT (patients without symptoms). Specificity and cross reactivity were evaluated in samples collected prior to the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic from >586 blood donors and patients with autoimmune diseases, cytomegalovirus or Epstein-Barr virus infections and acute viral infections. A specificity of ≥99% was achieved by all total-Ab and IgG assays except one, Diasorin/LiaisonXL-IgG (97.2%). Sensitivities in descending order were: Wantai/ELISA total-Ab (96.7%), CUH-NOVO/in-house ELISA total-Ab (96.0%), Ortho/Vitros total-Ab (95.3%), YHLO/iFlash-IgG (94.0%), Ortho/Vitros-IgG (93.3%), Siemens/Atellica total-Ab (93.2%), Roche/Elecsys total-Ab (92.7%), Abbott/Architect-IgG (90.0%), Abbott/Alinity-IgG (median 88.0%), Diasorin/LiaisonXL-IgG (median 84.6%), Siemens/Vista total-Ab (81.0%), Euroimmun/ELISA-IgG (78.0%), and Snibe/Maglumi-IgG (median 78.0%). However, confidence intervals overlapped for several assays. The IgM results were variable, with the Wantai/ELISA-IgM showing the highest sensitivity (82.7%) and specificity (99%). The rate of seropositivity increased with time from symptom onset and symptom severity.