Song Jieqin, Dong Yan, Zhang Yu, Zhou Guozhong, Wu Xinya, Gao Li, Wu Hanxin, Peng Li, Yang Jiaru, Ji Zhenhua, Li Bingxue, Fan Yuxin, Chen Jingjing, Liu Meixiao, Kong Jing, Ma Weijie, Zhong Lei, Ma Weijiang, Liu Aihua, Bao Fukai
Evidence-Based Medicine, School of Basic Medicine , Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China.
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2025 Jul;25(7):444-453. doi: 10.1089/vbz.2024.0092. Epub 2025 May 23.
Lyme disease (LD, also known as Lyme borreliosis) is the most frequent tick-transmitted disease caused by the spirochete in Europe and the United States. LD is distributed in the Northern Hemisphere, but the seroprevalence of LD in Asian human populations is unclear. To investigate the seroprevalence of LD in Asian human populations. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and other sources were searched for relevant studies with MeSH terms from their inception up to 20 June 2022. Cross-sectional studies with no language restrictions. Healthy people, at-risk people, and patients with suspected LD. Moreover, the seroprevalence of LD was diagnosed by laboratory diagnosis (nzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA)/Immunofluorescence assays (IFA) or/and two-tier testing) in human populations. Risk of bias was rated using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) standardized critical appraisal instrument for prevalence studies (Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies). Seroprevalence and proportion of LD in human populations in Asia were obtained from the included studies. Two authors independently screened and selected studies according to our predefined criteria (PROSPERO CRD42022362029) and assessed their risk of bias. A third author was available for arbitrating discrepancies. A random-effects model meta-analysis was conducted to determine the proportions of LD and related information, and further subgroup analyses of some studies were conducted, such as methods for diagnosing LD, gender, and human populations with and without tick bites. There are 18 studies included after full-text screening and 11,498 people in the meta-analysis. These studies encompassed countries such as China, Japan, Korea, Türkiye, Singapore, and Indonesia. Regarding the risk of bias and the JBI checklist, 2 studies scored 7 points and 16 studies scored 8 points. All studies were rated as high quality (≥5 points). In the meta-analysis, the seroprevalences of LD were 12.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.081-0.168) by ELISA/IFA and 5.7% (95% CI 0.034-0.085) for two-tier seropositivity testing in Asia. In subgroup analyses, the proportion of those diagnosed with LD by ELISA/IFA (14.7%, 95% CI 0.094-0.208) was significantly higher than the proportion diagnosed by two-tier testing (5.9%, 95% CI 0.032-0.095) ( < 0.01). The proportion of LD (two-tier testing) was slightly higher in women (7.4%, 95% CI 0.036-0.123) than in men (6.2%, 95% CI 0.026-0.111), but the difference was not significant ( = 0.70). In the study population, 47% (95% CI 0.159-0.795) were bitten by ticks (people with confirmed tick bites). The difference in the proportion of LD (two-tier testing) in people who suffered tick bites (7.9%, 95% CI 0.019-0.166) and those who did not (people not found to have confirmed tick bites) (2.7%, 95% CI 0.013-0.089) was not significant ( = 0.09). The meta-analysis reveals a high seroprevalence of LD in Asia, indicating that it has become a significant public health concern in the region. Relevant government departments and health organizations in Asia should enhance their surveillance and education efforts regarding LD. This study highlights the importance of a reliable and accurate standard serological diagnostic procedure for confirming a diagnosis of LD. The strict implementation of two-tier testing is especially crucial in diagnosing LD. If only ELISA/IFA is used, it may cause false positive results. Its findings on the prevalence of LD can serve as a foundation for future research on surveillance and the prevalence of LD in the region. In addition, these findings may be useful for clinicians in their work.
莱姆病(LD,也称为莱姆疏螺旋体病)是欧美地区由螺旋体引起的最常见的蜱传疾病。LD分布于北半球,但亚洲人群中LD的血清阳性率尚不清楚。为了调查亚洲人群中LD的血清阳性率,检索了PubMed、Embase、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)以及其他来源,以查找从数据库建立至2022年6月20日期间使用医学主题词的相关研究。纳入无语言限制的横断面研究。研究对象为健康人群、高危人群以及疑似LD患者。此外,通过实验室诊断(酶联免疫吸附测定(ELISA)/免疫荧光测定(IFA)或/和两层检测)来诊断人群中LD的血清阳性率。使用乔安娜·布里格斯研究所(JBI)针对患病率研究的标准化批判性评价工具(分析性横断面研究的批判性评价清单)对偏倚风险进行评级。从纳入的研究中获取亚洲人群中LD的血清阳性率和比例。两位作者根据我们预先设定的标准(PROSPERO CRD42022362029)独立筛选和选择研究,并评估其偏倚风险。如有分歧,由第三位作者进行仲裁。进行随机效应模型荟萃分析以确定LD的比例及相关信息,并对部分研究进行进一步的亚组分析,如LD的诊断方法、性别以及有无蜱叮咬的人群。经过全文筛选后纳入18项研究,荟萃分析涉及11498人。这些研究涵盖了中国、日本、韩国、土耳其、新加坡和印度尼西亚等国家。关于偏倚风险和JBI清单,2项研究得7分,16项研究得8分。所有研究均被评为高质量(≥5分)。在荟萃分析中,亚洲通过ELISA/IFA检测的LD血清阳性率为12.1%(95%置信区间[CI]0.081 - 0.168),两层血清学阳性检测的LD血清阳性率为5.7%(95%CI 0.034 - 0.085)。在亚组分析中,通过ELISA/IFA诊断为LD的比例(14.7%,95%CI 0.094 - 0.208)显著高于两层检测诊断的比例(5.9%,95%CI 0.032 - 0.095)(P<0.01)。女性中LD(两层检测)的比例(7.4%,95%CI 0.036 - 0.123)略高于男性(6.2%,95%CI 0.026 - 0.111),但差异不显著(P = 0.70)。在研究人群中,47%(95%CI 0.159 - 0.795)被蜱叮咬(有确诊蜱叮咬的人)。有蜱叮咬的人群(7.9%,95%CI 0.019 - 0.166)和无蜱叮咬的人群(未发现有确诊蜱叮咬的人)(2.7%,95%CI 0.013 - 0.089)中LD(两层检测)的比例差异不显著(P = 0.09)。荟萃分析显示亚洲LD的血清阳性率较高,表明它已成为该地区一个重要的公共卫生问题。亚洲相关政府部门和卫生组织应加强对LD的监测和教育工作。本研究强调了可靠准确的标准血清学诊断程序对于确诊LD的重要性。严格实施两层检测在诊断LD时尤为关键。如果仅使用ELISA/IFA,可能会导致假阳性结果。其关于LD患病率的研究结果可为该地区未来LD监测和患病率研究奠定基础。此外,这些发现可能对临床医生的工作有用。