Official annual Lyme disease incidence figures for England are based on the number of laboratory-confirmed cases reported by the national reference laboratory. In the analysis covering 2013–2024, no substantial change was observed in the count of laboratory-confirmed Lyme cases over the study period. The national reference laboratory data therefore show relative stability in laboratory-detected infections across these years.
When primary care diagnoses were examined using a linked primary care data source, cases diagnosed in general practice increased significantly between 2013 and 2024. The analysis estimated an average annual increase of 498 additional primary care–diagnosed Lyme disease cases per year. This rise in clinically diagnosed cases contrasts with the stable laboratory-confirmed trend and indicates greater clinical diagnosis recorded in primary care settings during the study period.
The study combined two data sources: national reference laboratory records of laboratory-confirmed cases and primary care data extracted from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Seasonal time series models were fitted to both datasets to characterise temporal trends. The presence of any structural breaks in the time series was investigated using the PELT (Pruned Exact Linear Time) method or the BinSeg (Binary Segmentation) method as appropriate. Annual multiplication factors converting laboratory-confirmed case counts to estimated total symptomatic cases were derived using Poisson regression modelling.
The approach updated an existing practice of applying a multiplication factor to laboratory-confirmed counts to estimate the total number of acute symptomatic Lyme disease cases, including those diagnosed clinically without laboratory testing. The previously used multiplication factor was based on data from 1998–2016 and had been reported as 2.35 (95% confidence interval 1.81–2.88). Using the 2013–2024 datasets and the described modelling approach, the authors estimated year-specific factors and reported the average factor for 2020–2024.
No substantial change in the number of laboratory-confirmed Lyme disease cases from 2013 to 2024.
A significant and sustained increase in primary care diagnoses over the same period, averaging an additional 498 cases per year.
The updated best estimate of the multiplication factor rose from 2.35 (95% CI 1.81–2.88) to 6.20. The reported 6.20 is the average multiplication factor for the years 2020–2024, with a narrow interval reported as 6.17–6.24 for that period.
These findings indicate a larger gap between laboratory-confirmed counts and estimated total symptomatic cases in recent years compared with earlier estimates.
Because official incidence figures rely on laboratory-confirmed case counts, applying an accurate multiplication factor is necessary to approximate the total burden of symptomatic Lyme disease, including clinically diagnosed cases not referred for laboratory confirmation. The increase in the estimated multiplication factor implies that prior estimates based on the older factor may have substantially undercounted total symptomatic cases in recent years. The authors recommend using the updated multiplication factor (average 2020–2024 = 6.20) to improve the accuracy of annual symptomatic Lyme disease case estimates for England.
The authors note the relevance of changes in clinical guidance: the earlier multiplier was derived from data covering 1998–2016 and may be outdated following the 2018 national Lyme disease management guidance, which could have altered clinical testing and diagnosis practices.
Primary care data used in the analysis were extracted from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and cannot be shared publicly because of licensing restrictions. Applications for anonymised laboratory-confirmed and referral data should be made to the UKHSA Office for Data Release. The CPRD provided ethical approval for the work under protocol number 24_004190. The authors declared no competing interests and stated that all relevant ethical guidelines and reporting standards were followed.
Limitations noted in the source include the constraints on sharing primary care data and the dependence of multiplication factor estimates on the completeness and characteristics of the two data sources. The source did not report additional sensitivity analyses or external validation details beyond the described modelling framework.
In summary, combining national reference laboratory data with CPRD primary care data for 2013–2024 produced an updated estimate of the multiplication factor used to infer total symptomatic Lyme disease cases in England. Laboratory-confirmed case counts remained stable, while primary care diagnoses rose markedly, increasing the calculated multiplication factor to an average of 6.20 for 2020–2024. Applying this updated factor should yield more accurate annual symptomatic case estimates for England.