This page is for health professionals only.

NO
I AM NOT
A HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL.
A Case of Lyme Disease Accompanied by Uveitis and White Dot Syndrome
PDF
Cite
Share
Request
Case Report
VOLUME: 46 ISSUE: 5
P: 241 - 243
October 2016

A Case of Lyme Disease Accompanied by Uveitis and White Dot Syndrome

Turk J Ophthalmol 2016;46(5):241-243
1. Istanbul Training And Research Hospital, Ophthalmology Clinic, Istanbul, Turkey
2. Bayindir Kavaklidere Hospital, Ophthalmology Clinic, Ankara, Turkey
3. Baskent University Faculty Of Medicine, Department Of Ophthalmology, Ankara, Turkey
No information available.
No information available
Received Date: 07.05.2014
Accepted Date: 17.12.2014
PDF
Cite
Share
Request

ABSTRACT

In this case report we aimed to present a case of Lyme disease presenting as peripheral retinal vasculitis, intermediate uveitis and multifocal white dots in the posterior pole. The patient exhibited vitritis and snowball opacities in both eyes. A diagnosis of Lyme disease was made based on clinical, angiographic and laboratory findings. Fundus fluorescein angiography revealed optic nerve and retinal venous leakage as well as multiple hyperfluorescent foci in both eyes. The patient’s symptoms and ocular findings significant improved after treatment with a combination of systemic antibiotics and steroids. Ophthalmologists should bear in mind that conditions presenting with uveitis and multifocal white dots may be related to Lyme disease.

Keywords:
Lyme disease, white dot syndromes, retinal vasculitis, uveitis

Introduction

Lyme disease is the most common arthropod-related infectious disease caused by a spirochete known as Borrelia burgdorferi.1Ocular involvement of Lyme disease is characterized by conjunctivitis, episcleritis, keratitis, uveitis, neuroretinitis, retinal vasculitis and cranial nerve palsies.2It is probably underdiagnosed by ophthalmologists due to difficulty in the serologic diagnosis of the disease, as well as its nonspecific symptoms.

In this case report, we present a case of Lyme borreliosis and aim to point out a possible association between Lyme disease and white dot syndromes.

Discussion

The clinical features and course of Lyme borreliosis in various systems are well described in the literature, but there has been little attention paid to its ocular involvement. Ocular presentations of Lyme disease include conjunctivitis, episcleritis, keratitis, uveitis, neuroretinitis, retinal vasculitis and cranial nerve palsies.2,3In 1991, Smith et al.4published the first report of retinal vasculitis in patients with seroreactivity to Lyme borreliosis. Their two patients’ ocular findings resolved with a combination of systemic antibiotic and corticosteroid therapy. Recently, Mikkila et al.5reported the largest case series of 20 patients with ocular Lyme disease; eight patients had retinal vasculitis, while the other cases developed ocular adnexa inflammation and neuro-ophthalmological disorder in addition to branch central retinal vein occlusion. Two of these cases were accompanied by intermediate uveitis and one of two presented with multiple hypofluorescent foci at the level of the retinal pigment epithelium.5Our patient also had intermediate uveitis and multiple foci around the posterior pole.

Ocular Lyme disease may affect either retinal arteries or veins to different degrees. Arterial involvement includes sheathing, cotton wool spots and obstruction, while venous involvement includes sheathing, retinal hemorrhage, edema and branch retinal vein occlusion.6Retinal vasculitis may occur around the macula as well as peripheral retina associated with anterior and/or posterior segment ocular inflammation. In our patient, we observed leakage from retinal veins only, which extended from mid-periphery to the far-periphery of the fundus with anterior chamber reaction in addition to snowball opacities in the inferior peripheral area.

Serologic tests are often used for the diagnosis of Lyme disease. The recommended protocol includes a 2-test approach: Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and Western blot (WB).7In this method, specimens are first tested by ELISA and then WB assay is used to confirm positive ELISA results. Because of limited sensitivity and specificity, these tests may be insufficient to diagnose current infection. Therefore the clinician should use both clinical findings and laboratory tests in order to diagnose Lyme disease, as in our case.

White dot syndromes have been associated with various diseases that are characterized by delayed hypersensitivity reaction such as sarcoidosis, tuberculosis, schistosomiasis and also Lyme disease.8,9,10,11Despite these reports, in a study with 18 patients who showed all characteristic fundus and angiographic signs of white dot syndromes and had elevated serum levels of Borrelia burgdorferi-specific antibodies, no patient demonstrated evidence of Borrelia using immunoblotting methods.11

Although the exact pathogenesis in white dot syndromes is controversial, we thought that the relationship between these two conditions may be a result of the common pathology, vasculitis, which is also responsible for complications in the late phase of Lyme disease.

We treated our patient with systemic antibiotics in combination with oral and topical steroids. Although some manifestations of Lyme disease may resolve without antibiotic treatment; there is an increased risk of recurrence and progression to serious complications in the absence of antibiotic therapy.12No recurrence was observed in our case. Therefore, the recommended treatment is antibiotics therapy combined with systemic steroids in severe cases.6

In our study, we report a patient with retinal vasculitis, snowball opacities and multifocal dots. Lyme disease, although rarely encountered, should be considered in the differential diagnosis of white dot syndromes.

Ethics

Informed Consent: It was taken.
Peer-review: Externally and internally peer-reviewed.

Authorship Contributions

Surgical and Medical Practices: Yonca Aydın Akova, Concept: Yonca Aydın Akova, Design: İlkay Kılıç Müftüoğlu, Yonca Aydın Akova, Sirel Gür Güngör, Data Collection or Processing: Yonca Aydın Akova, İlkay Kılıç Müftüoğlu, Analysis or Interpretation: Yonca Aydın Akova, İlkay Kılıç Müftüoğlu, Literature Search: İlkay Kılıç Müftüoğlu, Sirel Gür Güngör, Writing: İlkay Kılıç Müftüoğlu.
Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest was declared by the authors.
Financial Disclosure: The authors declared that this study received no financial support.