BACKGROUND: ticks can carry species as well as other pathogens that cause human disease. The frequency of tick-borne infections and coinfections in children with suspected Lyme disease is unknown, creating clinical uncertainty about the optimal approach to diagnosis.

METHODS: We enrolled children aged 1-21 years presenting to 1 of 8 Pedi Lyme Net emergency departments for evaluation of Lyme disease. We selected cases with serologically or clinically diagnosed Lyme disease (erythema migrans or early neurologic disease) matched by symptoms, age, gender, and center to control subjects without Lyme disease. We tested whole blood samples collected at the time of diagnosis using a multiplex high-definition polymerase chain reaction (HDPCR) panel to identify 9 bacterial or protozoan pathogens associated with human disease. We compared the frequency of tick-borne coinfections in children with Lyme disease to matched controls.

RESULTS: Of the 612 selected samples, 594 (97.1%) had an interpretable multiplex HDPCR result. We identified the following non- tick-borne infections: (2), (1), and (12). Children with Lyme disease were more likely to have another tick-borne pathogen identified than matched controls (15/297 [5.1%] Lyme cases vs 0/297 [0%]; difference, 5.1% [95% confidence interval, 2.7%-8.2%]).

CONCLUSIONS: Although a substantial minority of children with Lyme disease had another tick-borne pathogen identified, either first-line Lyme disease antibiotics provided adequate treatment or the coinfection was subclinical and did not require specific treatment. Further studies are needed to establish the optimal approach to testing for tick-borne coinfections in children.

<p>A history of Lyme disease can complicate the interpretation of Lyme disease serology in acutely symptomatic patients. We prospectively enrolled children undergoing evaluation for Lyme disease in the emergency department of one of eight participating Pedi Lyme Net centers. We selected symptomatic children with a Lyme disease history (definite, probable, or none) as well as an available research biosample. We defined a Lyme disease case with either an erythema migrans (EM) lesion or positive two-tier serology with compatible symptoms. Using a generalized estimating equation, we examined the relationship between time from previous Lyme disease diagnosis and current Lyme disease after adjustment for patient demographics and symptoms as well as clustering by center. Of 2501 prospectively enrolled study patients, 126 (5.0%) reported a history of definite or probable Lyme disease. Of these children with previous Lyme disease, 47 met diagnostic criteria for Lyme disease at the time of enrollment (37.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 29.1-45.7%); 2 had an EM lesion, and 45 had positive two-tier Lyme disease serology. Over time from the previous Lyme disease diagnosis, the less likely the patient met diagnostic criteria for Lyme disease (adjusted odds ratio 0.62 per time period; 95% CI 0.46-0.84). For children with a history of Lyme disease before enrollment, one-third met the diagnostic criteria for acute Lyme disease with a declining rate over time from previous Lyme disease diagnosis. Novel Lyme disease diagnostics are needed to help distinguish acute from previous Lyme disease.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><strong>OBJECTIVES: </strong>In Lyme disease endemic areas, initial management of children with arthritis can be challenging because diagnostic tests take several days to return results, leading to potentially unnecessary invasive procedures. Our objective was to examine the role of the C6 peptide enzyme immunoassay (EIA) test to guide initial management.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>We enrolled children with acute arthritis undergoing evaluation for Lyme disease presenting to a participating Pedi Lyme Net emergency department (2015-2019) and performed a C6 EIA test. We defined Lyme arthritis with a positive or equivocal C6 EIA test result followed by a positive supplemental immunoblot result and defined septic arthritis as a positive synovial fluid culture result or a positive blood culture result with synovial fluid pleocytosis. Otherwise, children were considered to have inflammatory arthritis. We report the sensitivity and specificity of the C6 EIA for the diagnosis of Lyme arthritis.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>Of the 911 study patients, 211 children (23.2%) had Lyme arthritis, 11 (1.2%) had septic arthritis, and 689 (75.6%) had other inflammatory arthritis. A positive or equivocal C6 EIA result had a sensitivity of 100% (211 out of 211; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 98.2%-100%) and specificity of 94.2% (661 out of 700; 95% CI: 92.5%-95.9%) for Lyme arthritis. None of the 250 children with a positive or equivocal C6 EIA result had septic arthritis (0%; 95% CI: 0%-1.5%), although 75 children underwent diagnostic arthrocentesis and 27 underwent operative joint washout.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>In Lyme disease endemic areas, a C6 EIA result could be used to guide initial clinical decision-making, without misclassifying children with septic arthritis.</p>

<p>The correlation between the Food and Drug Administration-cleared C6 enzyme immunoassay (EIA) C6 index values and a diagnosis of Lyme disease has not been examined. We used pooled patient-level data from 5 studies of adults and children with Lyme disease and control subjects who were tested with the C6 EIA. We constructed a receiver operating characteristic curve using regression clustered by study and measured the area under the curve (AUC) to examine the accuracy of the C6 index values in differentiating between patients with noncutaneous Lyme disease and control subjects. In the 4821 included patients, the C6 index value had excellent ability to distinguish between patients with noncutaneous Lyme disease and control subjects [AUC 0.99; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.00]. An index value cut point of ≥3.0 had a sensitivity of 90.9% (95% CI, 87.8-93.3) and specificity of 99.0% (95% CI, 98.6-99.2%) for Lyme disease.</p>

<p><strong>BACKGROUND: </strong>Variability in 2-tier Lyme disease test results according to the specific first-tier enzyme immunoassay (EIA) in children has not been examined rigorously. In this study, we compared paired results of clinical 2-tier Lyme disease tests to those of the C6 peptide EIA followed by supplemental immunoblotting (C6 2-tier test).</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>We performed a prospective cohort study of children aged ≥1 to ≤21 years who were undergoing evaluation for Lyme disease in the emergency department at 1 of 6 centers located in regions in which Lyme disease is endemic. The clinical first-tier test and a C6 EIA were performed on the same serum sample with supplemental immunoblotting if the first-tier test result was either positive or equivocal. We compared the results of the paired clinical and C6 2-tier Lyme disease test results using the McNemar test.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>Of the 1714 children enrolled, we collected a research serum sample from 1584 (92.4%). The clinical 2-tier EIA result was positive in 316 (19.9%) children, and the C6 2-tier test result was positive or equivocal in 295 (18.6%) children. The clinical and C6 2-tier test results disagreed more often than they would have by chance alone (P = .002). Of the 39 children with either a positive clinical or C6 2-tier test result alone, 2 children had an erythema migrans (EM) lesion, and 29 had symptoms compatible with early disseminated Lyme disease.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>Two-tier Lyme disease test results differed for a substantial number of children on the basis of the specific first-tier test used. In children for whom there is a high clinical suspicion for Lyme disease and who have an initially negative test result, clinicians should consider retesting for Lyme disease.</p>