Occurrence and potential implications of the hook effect in a Borrelia burgdorferi IgG antibody chemiluminescence immunoassay

2Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: Lyme borreliosis is diagnosed based on clinical symptoms and serological analysis, with high IgG antibody levels associated with late manifestations. Immunoassays with a broad detection range can exhibit a hook effect, leading to false-low results and potential misdiagnosis. This study aimed to investigate the occurrence of the high-dose hook effect and determine a dilution threshold to detect the hook effect and avoid overdilutions for the Liaison Borrelia IgG immunoassay. Methods: In a two-year period, 5639 patient samples analysed for Borrelia antibodies were screened at Karlstad Hospital, Sweden. Samples with IgG ≥ 75 AU/mL and < 75 AU/mL with detectable IgM underwent 1:10 dilution, with a further 1:50 dilution for samples with IgG > 240 AU/mL. A Gaussian Mixture Model was used to group samples with and without hook effect. Results: Of 389 samples eligible for dilution, 262 with IgG < 240 AU/mL were analysed. Of these, 70 (26.7%) showed hook effect, corresponding to 18% of included and 1.2% of all screened samples. Overdilution occurred in 58 (22.1%) diluted samples. Dilution thresholds of 98.7 and 96 AU/mL detected 95% of hook effect and overdilution samples, respectively. Conclusion: A substantial number of samples showed hook effect, which could lead to missed late Lyme borreliosis manifestations and inaccurate intrathecal index calculations. A dilution threshold of 98.7 AU/mL in the Liaison Borrelia IgG immunoassay effectively identified 95% of hook effect and avoided more than 95% of overdilutions.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Westerholt, M., Kjerstadius, T., & Ocias, L. F. (2025). Occurrence and potential implications of the hook effect in a Borrelia burgdorferi IgG antibody chemiluminescence immunoassay. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 44(8), 1953–1958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-025-05172-y

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free