Journal Information
Vol. 28. Issue S3.
IX Congresso de Infectologia do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
(November 2024)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Vol. 28. Issue S3.
IX Congresso de Infectologia do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
(November 2024)
Full text access
LYME'S DISEASE, AN IMPORTED ZOONOSIS. CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF PRESENCE IN ARGENTINA
Visits
117
Rita Armitanoa, Gisela Martineza, Pablo Borrasb, Sofia Echazarretac, Tomas Ordunac, Monica Prietoa
a Servicio Bacteriología Especial, Departamento de Bacteriología, INEI-ANLIS “Carlos G. Mabrán”, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina
b CENDIE-ANLIS “Carlos G. Mabrán”, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina
c Hospital de Enfermedades Infecciosas “Francisco Javier Muñiz”, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina
This item has received
Article information
Special issue
This article is part of special issue:
Vol. 28. Issue S3

IX Congresso de Infectologia do Estado do Rio de Janeiro

More info
Introduction

Lyme disease (LD) is caused by bacteria of the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato complex and transmitted by the bite of ticks of the Ixodes ricinus complex. To date, no autochthonous cases have been reported in Argentina. Its diagnosis involves serological tests included in a two-step algorithm. The study proposes to report the results of laboratory tests, describe the clinical-epidemiological characteristics of consultations received due to suspected LD, and critically evaluate the scientific evidence on alleged autochthonous cases of Lyme in Argentina.

Materials and methods

From 09/2014-05/2022, a study was carried out that included 53 individuals who consulted due to suspected LD at a reference laboratory. Serum samples were obtained and referred to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for determination of IgM and IgG antibodies. The samples met one or both inclusion criteria: -Travel to an area where the transmitting vector circulates; -Positive diagnostic tests reported by national and international laboratories.

Results

According to the data collected from the epidemiological form, it was evident: 36% of the patients presented non-specific neurological symptoms and 64% reported rheumatological symptoms; 57% of the patients did not report traveling to the area of circulation of the transmitting vector; 46% reported having suffered multiple bites. According to the aforementioned selection criteria, 43% (n = 23) of the patients met both criteria, which would suggest 23 possible imported cases of LD. The remaining 57% only showed positive results in at least one diagnostic technique for EL, which represented 30 “autochthonous” cases. Only 5 cases (9%), with positive results issued by national and international laboratories, were confirmed as positive by the CDC. These individuals had an epidemiological history of traveling to the tick vector circulation area. The remainder of the cases were reported as negative by the CDC and were ruled out as possible indigenous Lyme cases. The comparison of the results sent by private laboratories and those obtained by the CDC showed 91% (n = 48) false positives.

Conclusions

The diagnosis of LD should only be considered based on the presence of typical symptoms of infection in patients with a history of exposure to the vector. Always use FDA-approved assays and recommended interpretation criteria.

Keywords

Argentina, Lyme, Diagnostico.

Conflicts of interest

There was no conflicts of interest.

Ethics and financing

Declarations of interest: None.

Full text is only aviable in PDF
Download PDF
The Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases
Article options
Tools