Literature DB >> 33219811

Pediatric Lyme Disease Biobank, United States, 2015-2020.

Lise E Nigrovic, Desire N Neville, Fran Balamuth, Michael N Levas, Jonathan E Bennett, Anupam B Kharbanda, Amy D Thompson, John A Branda, Aris C Garro.   

Abstract

In 2015, we founded Pedi Lyme Net, a pediatric Lyme disease research network comprising 8 emergency departments in the United States. Of 2,497 children evaluated at 1 of these sites for Lyme disease, 515 (20.6%) were infected. This network is a unique resource for evaluating new approaches for diagnosing Lyme disease in children.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Borrelia burgdorferi; Lyme disease; United States; bacteria; bacterial zoonoses; biobank; diagnosis; pediatrics; tick-borne infections; vector-borne infections; zoonoses

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33219811      PMCID: PMC7706969          DOI: 10.3201/eid2612.200920

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis        ISSN: 1080-6040            Impact factor:   6.883


Children are disproportionally affected by Lyme disease, which is diagnosed in »300,000 persons in the United States each year (). Clinicians diagnose Lyme disease using a 2-tier examination of enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and immunoblot results. Current Lyme disease diagnostic tests have well-described limitations that include false negatives early in disease () and inability to distinguish between resolved, active, and recurrent infections (). Clinicians must also wait several days for Lyme disease serologic results, a delay that might contribute to late or unnecessary treatment with antimicrobial drugs. The increased incidence of Lyme disease, limitations of current tests, and lack of studies in children demonstrate the need for a systematic approach to Lyme disease diagnosis in children. Developing improved diagnostic techniques relies on biobanks of samples collected from patients with Lyme disease and clinical mimics (i.e., patients with similar signs and symptoms caused by non-Lyme illnesses). The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Atlanta, GA, USA) curated the first Lyme disease biobank with samples from 86 adults with Lyme disease, 144 clinical mimics, and 203 healthy controls from 11 collection sites (). The Study of Lyme Disease Immunology and Clinical Events (http://www.slicestudies.org) at the Johns Hopkins Lyme Disease Research Center (Baltimore, MD, USA) enrolled 40 adults with an erythema migrans (EM) lesion and followed up with patients for 1 year. The Lyme Disease Biobank, supported by the Bay Area Lyme Foundation, has enrolled 550 adults with Lyme disease evaluated at 7 primary-care collection sites (). To date, none of these biobanks have included children or used emergency departments for enrollment. In 2015, we founded Pedi Lyme Net, a pediatric Lyme disease research network comprising 8 emergency departments in a diverse range of areas to which Lyme disease is endemic. We conducted a prospective cohort study of children evaluated for Lyme at 1 of of these emergency departments (Appendix Figure 1). The Pediatric Lyme Disease Biobank, housed at Boston Children’s Hospital (Boston, MA, USA), stores and distributes the biosamples collected from enrolled children (). We describe enrolled children 1–21 years of age who underwent emergency department evaluation for Lyme disease during June 1, 2015–January 31, 2020 (Table). We obtained informed consent from parents/guardians for study participation and child assent for those >8 years of age. Informed consent documents were available in English and Spanish. We defined disease stage on the basis of signs and symptoms: early (i.e., single EM lesion), early disseminated (i.e., multiple EM lesions, cranial neuritis, meningitis, or carditis) or late (i.e., arthritis or arthralgia). In addition, as asymptomatic controls, we enrolled children undergoing intravenous cannulation for procedural sedation for fracture reduction or laceration repair without acute infectious symptoms. We implemented standard operating procedures at each of the participating sites (Appendix Table). All deidentified data were collected electronically with Research Electronic Data Capture housed at Harvard University (https://catalyst.harvard.edu/services/redcap).
Table

Characteristics of enrolled children with Lyme disease and clinical mimics, United States, 2015–2020*

Characteristics
Lyme disease
Clinical mimics
p value
Total
515
1,982

Demographics
Median age, y (IQR)8 (6–11)9 (5–14)0.02
Sex
M345 (67.0)1,048 (52.9)<0.01
F170 (33.0)934 (47.1)
Race
White438 (85.0)1,482 (74.8)<0.01
Black42 (8.2)255 (12.9)
Asian8 (1.6)53 (2.7)
Pacific Islander03 (0.1)
Native American02 (0.1)
Other22 (4.3)156 (7.9)
Missing data5 (1.0)31 (1.6)
Ethnicity
Hispanic33 (6.4)234 (11.8)<0.01
Non-Hispanic480 (93.2)1,734 (87.5)
Missing data2 (0.4)14 (0.7)

*Values are no. (%) except as indicated. NA, not applicable.
†June–October.

*Values are no. (%) except as indicated. NA, not applicable.
†June–October. We defined Lyme disease on the basis of an EM lesion diagnosed by the treating clinician or positive serologic results with compatible symptoms. We took serum samples from all enrolled patients, including asymptomatic controls, and conducted a C6 EIA on each sample. If the EIA results were positive or equivocal, we also conducted a Western immunoblot interpreted using standard criteria (). We considered a positive IgM immunoblot paired with a negative IgG immunoblot to be positive only if symptoms lasted <30 days (). We classified symptomatic children who tested negative for Lyme disease as clinical mimics. We compared characteristics of children with Lyme disease and mimics using the χ2 test for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables with SPSS Statistics 23.0 (IBM Corp., https://www.ibm.com). We enrolled and obtained samples from 2,497 symptomatic and 377 asymptomatic control patients (Appendix Figure 2). Overall, 515 (20.6% of symptomatic patients) had Lyme disease; of these children, 46 (8.9%) had an EM lesion alone, 461 (89.5%) had a positive 2-tier serology alone, and 8 (1.6%) had both. Of the asymptomatic control patients, 4 (1.1%) had positive 2-tier serology. Our Pediatric Lyme Disease Biobank is unique because it includes biosamples from pediatric patients, clinical mimics, and diverse geographic regions. The samples are linked to demographic, clinical, laboratory, and treatment data about each patient. With >2,800 children enrolled, this biobank is a unique resource for researching Lyme disease diagnosis in children. Our biobank has a few limitations. First, we enrolled a convenience sample of children depending on the availability of study staff. However, in this study, the proportion of children with Lyme disease did not differ between enrolled and unenrolled but eligible patients. Second, some children with early or early-disseminated Lyme disease might have had false negative serologic results. However, we conducted follow-up to identify children who had initially negative 2-tier Lyme serologic results but tested positive within 30 days of enrollment. Finally, because our network includes only 8 enrollment sites, we were unable to include all regions to which Lyme disease is endemic.

Appendix

Additional information on data collected for Pediatric Lyme Disease Biobank, United States, 2015–2020.
  9 in total

1.  Collection and characterization of samples for establishment of a serum repository for lyme disease diagnostic test development and evaluation.

Authors:  Claudia R Molins; Christopher Sexton; John W Young; Laura V Ashton; Ryan Pappert; Charles B Beard; Martin E Schriefer
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2014-08-13       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Positive 2-Tiered Lyme Disease Serology is Uncommon in Asymptomatic Children Living in Endemic Areas of the United States.

Authors:  Aris Garro; Jonathan Bennett; Fran Balamuth; Michael N Levas; Desiree Neville; John C Branda; Alexandra B Maulden; Paul M Lantos; Lise E Nigrovic
Journal:  Pediatr Infect Dis J       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 2.129

3.  False Positive Lyme Disease IgM Immunoblots in Children.

Authors:  Paul M Lantos; Susan C Lipsett; Lise E Nigrovic
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2016-05-04       Impact factor: 4.406

4.  The clinical assessment, treatment, and prevention of lyme disease, human granulocytic anaplasmosis, and babesiosis: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Authors:  Gary P Wormser; Raymond J Dattwyler; Eugene D Shapiro; John J Halperin; Allen C Steere; Mark S Klempner; Peter J Krause; Johan S Bakken; Franc Strle; Gerold Stanek; Linda Bockenstedt; Durland Fish; J Stephen Dumler; Robert B Nadelman
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2006-10-02       Impact factor: 9.079

5.  Recommendations for test performance and interpretation from the Second National Conference on Serologic Diagnosis of Lyme Disease.

Authors: 
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  1995-08-11       Impact factor: 17.586

6.  Advances in Serodiagnostic Testing for Lyme Disease Are at Hand.

Authors:  John A Branda; Barbara A Body; Jeff Boyle; Bernard M Branson; Raymond J Dattwyler; Erol Fikrig; Noel J Gerald; Maria Gomes-Solecki; Martin Kintrup; Michel Ledizet; Andrew E Levin; Michael Lewinski; Lance A Liotta; Adriana Marques; Paul S Mead; Emmanuel F Mongodin; Segaran Pillai; Prasad Rao; William H Robinson; Kristian M Roth; Martin E Schriefer; Thomas Slezak; Jessica Snyder; Allen C Steere; Jan Witkowski; Susan J Wong; Steven E Schutzer
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2018-03-19       Impact factor: 9.079

7.  Laboratory diagnostic techniques for patients with early Lyme disease associated with erythema migrans: a comparison of different techniques.

Authors:  J Nowakowski; I Schwartz; D Liveris; G Wang; M E Aguero-Rosenfeld; G Girao; D McKenna; R B Nadelman; L F Cavaliere; G P Wormser
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2001-11-07       Impact factor: 9.079

8.  Lyme disease testing by large commercial laboratories in the United States.

Authors:  Alison F Hinckley; Neeta P Connally; James I Meek; Barbara J Johnson; Melissa M Kemperman; Katherine A Feldman; Jennifer L White; Paul S Mead
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2014-05-30       Impact factor: 9.079

9.  The Lyme Disease Biobank: Characterization of 550 Patient and Control Samples from the East Coast and Upper Midwest of the United States.

Authors:  Elizabeth J Horn; George Dempsey; Anna M Schotthoefer; U Lena Prisco; Matthew McArdle; Stephanie S Gervasi; Marc Golightly; Cathy De Luca; Mel Evans; Bobbi S Pritt; Elitza S Theel; Radha Iyer; Dionysios Liveris; Guiqing Wang; Don Goldstein; Ira Schwartz
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2020-05-26       Impact factor: 5.948

  9 in total
  1 in total

1.  Serologic Response to Borrelia Antigens Varies with Clinical Phenotype in Children and Young Adults with Lyme Disease.

Authors:  Felix A Radtke; Nitya Ramadoss; Aris Garro; Jonathan E Bennett; Michael N Levas; William H Robinson; Peter A Nigrovic; Lise E Nigrovic
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2021-08-11       Impact factor: 5.948

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.