Discrepancy between IDSA and ESGBOR in Lyme disease: Individual participant meta‐analysis in Türkiye

Abstract

BackgroundThe evidence on the prevalence of Lyme borreliosis (LB) is limited, but there is a suspicion of overdiagnosis of LB in recent years. We reviewed the LB diagnosis and treatment‐related data in Türkiye, based on the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) 2020 and European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Study Group for Lyme Borreliosis (ESGBOR) 2018 guidelines. By detecting the disagreements between these two, we outlined the areas to be improved for future guidelines.MethodsWe performed a literature search according to the PRISMA guidelines in PubMed, Ovid‐Medline, Web of Science, Turkish Medline, Scopus, CINAHL, ULAKBIM TR Index, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library databases. We included the published cases in a database and evaluated according to IDSA and ESGBOR guidelines. We outlined the reasons for misdiagnoses and inappropriate uses of antibiotics.ResultsWe included 42 relevant studies with 84 LB cases reported from Türkiye between 1990 and December 2022. Among 84 cases, the most common clinical findings were nervous system findings (n = 37, 44.0%), erythema migrans (n = 29, 34.5%) and ophthalmologic findings (n = 15, 17.9%). The IDSA 2020 and ESGBOR 2018 guidelines agreed on the diagnosis of 71 (84.5%) cases; there was an agreement that 31 cases (36.9%) were misdiagnosed and 40 cases (47.6%) were correctly diagnosed, and there was disagreement for 13 cases (15.5%). Serum immunoglobulin M (IgM), IgG measurements by ELISA and western blot were widely performed, and they were effective in definitive diagnosis merely when used according to guidelines. Inappropriate use of antibiotics was detected in 42 (50.0%) of cases which were classified in the following categories: incorrect LB diagnosis, inappropriate choice of antibiotic, inappropriate route of drug administration and prolonged antibiotic treatment.ConclusionOverdiagnosis and non‐adherence to guidelines is a common problem. The discordance between seroprevalence and clinical studies necessitates a consensus over the best clinical approach.