Archive for the ‘research’ Category

IPM Tick Academy in September

Tick IPM Working Group Presenting Second Annual Tick Academy

IPM tick academyThe Tick IPM Working Group is presenting the second annual Tick Academy, September 13-15, 2021 from 10 AM until 2 PM each day.

The Tick Academy is the premier event for educators, students, researchers, pest control professionals, public health professionals, public-space managers, and citizen scientists, who want to learn more about what they can do to stop the spread of ticks and tickborne diseases in their respective communities.

The event will take place virtually and will feature twelve presentations over three, four-hour sessions during which the presenters will share the latest information about:

  • tick management
  • tickborne disease prevention
  • recent discoveries of emerging pathogens
  • public perceptions of risk, diversity, identification of ticks
  • ongoing research on control and vaccine developments

For more details, please view the Tick Academy Announcement Flyer.

To register for this virtual event, click the registration link at the bottom of the flyer or visit tickacademy.brownpapertickets.com.

For more IPM information: IPM Pest Alert-Asian longhorned tick

Doctors Warn CDC, “It’s Not All COVID” And Anchoring Bias is Causing Doctors To Miss Tick-Borne Infections

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/8/21-1107_article

Volume 27, Number 8—August 2021
Research Letter

COVID-19 and the Consequences of Anchoring Bias

Harold W. HorowitzComments to Author , Caren Behar, and Jeffrey Greene
Author affiliations: Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA (H.W. Horowitz)New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital, Brooklyn, New York, USA (H.W. Horowitz)New York University Langone School of Medicine, New York (C. Behar, J. Greene)

Abstract

Suspicion of coronavirus disease in febrile patients might lead to anchoring bias, causing misdiagnosis of other infections for which epidemiologic risks are present. This bias has potentially severe consequences, illustrated by cases of human granulocytic anaplasmosis and Lyme disease in a pregnant woman and human granulocytic anaplasmosis in another person.

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) took the United States by force during the first quarter of 2020, affecting the economy, societal norms, and the delivery of medical care (1,2). As fear of COVID-19 has spread, diagnosing COVID-19 in febrile persons has been prioritized, and patients may be presumed to have COVID-19 pending results of testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This mindset has had unintended consequences, including delaying of evaluations for other infectious diseases, potentially leading to adverse outcomes. We describe 2 cases that illustrate this point.

In the first case, a 35-year-old man left New York, New York, USA, to go hiking in Maryland during June 5–June 7, 2020. He experienced fever, body aches, and fatigue during June 10–13 that resolved but left him fatigued and weak. He was seen on June 19; laboratory results were unremarkable, but lymphopenia was detected. He tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 on June 19 and June 25 by PCR. On June 25, ELISA for Lyme disease was positive, and reflex to Western blot revealed IgM 41-kD, 39-kD, and 23-kD bands but no IgG bands. Fever up to 38°C recurred on June 22 and lasted until June 29; he also experienced persistent fatigue and myalgia. Further testing on July 6 revealed serologic results for Lyme similar to results from June 25 and Anaplasma phagocytophilum titers of IgM 1:320 and IgG 1:1260. Anaplasma PCR was negative on that date. He was treated with doxycycline for 10 days and recovered.

In the second case, a 31-year-old woman who was 6 months pregnant left New York at the end of May 2020 to rent a house in Ulster County, New York. On June 3, she removed a tick from her neck. On June 9, she experienced severe headaches and the next day had low-grade fever, chills, and body aches. She had no cough, shortness of breath, or sore throat. On June 10, she tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR. She continued to have extreme fatigue, myalgia, and low-grade fever. She was prescribed oseltamivir by her obstetrician on June 11. On June 14, she felt better. Repeat PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 on June 15 was negative. She continued to improve until June 23, when she experienced recurrent fever up to 38.9°C, chills, and lethargy. She contacted her obstetrician and was told she had a presumptive diagnosis of COVID-19. On June 30, she saw her internist and underwent laboratory testing for tickborne illnesses; she was treated empirically with amoxicillin because of her risks for Lyme disease. PCR for A. phagocytophilum was positive, as was a second test on July 8. Serologic results for Lyme were positive for 41-kD, 39-kD, and 23-kD bands with no IgG bands. Platelets were 140,000 (previously 336,000), aspartate aminotransferase was 95, and alanine aminotransferase was 81. Several weeks later, studies revealed anaplasma IgM 1:256 and IgG 1:1,280. Lyme disease C6 antibody was positive. After discussion, the patient and her physicians chose not to treat for anaplasmosis because she was clinically improving. The patient has remained well, and the child was born healthy by normal spontaneous vaginal delivery.

COVID-19 has had devastating effects on the medical system and led to widespread changes in the practice of medicine. We believe that the imperative to rule out COVID-19 led to diagnostic anchoring bias in these cases. Such biases are among the most common in the heuristic decision-making process (3,4). Of note, in these 2 cases (case 1, human granulocytic anaplasmosis [HGA]; case 2, co-infection with Lyme disease and HGA), COVID-19 was ruled out without considering other diagnoses, even though the patients were visiting areas to which tickborne diseases are endemic. Given the incidence of such diseases in these areas and widespread attempts to educate healthcare providers about these diseases, failure to evaluate for tickborne infections would be difficult to imagine before COVID-19. Although both of these patients have done well, serious consequences to the fetus could have occurred if Lyme disease had gone undiagnosed and untreated (5). Although transmission of A. phagocytophilum during pregnancy has been reported (6) and treatment during pregnancy in a limited number of cases has possibly prevented transmission (7), in this instance the patient cleared the anaplasma without treatment, and the child was born disease-free. Clearance of infection without treatment has been reported in other studies, but we are unaware of cases describing the outcome of pregnancy in untreated women with acute HGA (8).

We appreciate the devastating effects that a missed COVID-19 diagnosis can have on a person, as well as the epidemiologic implications thereof. However, failing to diagnose tickborne illnesses and other infections also can have serious consequences. Healthcare providers must keep an open mind to diagnoses other than COVID-19 in febrile patients and not fall prey to misdiagnosis because of current pressures to evaluate for COVID-19.

Dr. Horowitz is clinical professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine and chief of infectious diseases at New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital. He has been involved in clinical practice for the past 38 years, and his research has focused on immune-suppressed patients, tickborne diseases, and, more recently, antimicrobial stewardship and hospital-acquired infections.

References

  1. CDC. COVID-19 Response Team. Severe outcomes among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)—United States, February 12–March 16, 2020. MMWR Morb Wkly Rep. 2020;69:343–6.
  2. Hollander  JECarr  BGVirtually Perfect? Telemedicine for Covid-19. N Engl J Med2020;382:167981DOIExternal LinkPubMedExternal Link
  3. Sapersnik  GRedelmeier  DRuff  CC, et a. Cognitive biases associated with medical decisions: a systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak2016;16:138DOIExternal LinkPubMedExternal Link
  4. Ogdie  ARReilly  JBPang  WGKeddem  SBarg  FKVon Feldt  JMet al. Seen through their eyes: residents’ reflections on the cognitive and contextual components of diagnostic errors in medicine. Acad Med2012;87:13617DOIExternal LinkPubMedExternal Link
  5. Waddell  LAGreig  JLindsay  LRHinckley  AFOgden  NHA systematic review on the impact of gestational Lyme disease in humans on the fetus and newborn. PLoS One2018;13:e0207067. DOIExternal LinkPubMedExternal Link
  6. Horowitz  HWKilchevski  EHaber  Set al. Brief report: Perinatal transmission of the human granulocytic ehrlichiosis agent. N Engl J Med1998;339:3758DOIExternal LinkPubMedExternal Link
  7. Dhand  ANadelman  RBAguero-Rosenfeld  MEHaddad  FStokes  DHorowitz  HWHuman granulocytic anaplasmosis in pregnancy: case series and review of literature. Clin Infect Dis2007;45:58993DOIExternal LinkPubMedExternal Link
  8. Bakken  JSHaller  IRiddell  DWalls  JJDumler  JSThe serological response of patients infected with the agent of human granulocytic ehrlichiosis. Clin Infect Dis2002;34:227DOIExternal LinkPubMedExternal Link

DOI: 10.3201/eid2708.211107

Original Publication Date: July 01, 2021

Lyme Borreliosis & Associations With Mental Disorders & Suicidal Behavior: A Nationwide Danish Cohort Study

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2021.20091347

Lyme Borreliosis and Associations With Mental Disorders and Suicidal Behavior: A Nationwide Danish Cohort Study

Objective:

Lyme borreliosis is a tick-borne infectious disease that may confer an increased risk of mental disorders, but previous studies have been hampered by methodological limitations, including small sample sizes. The authors used a nationwide retrospective cohort study design to examine rates of mental disorders following Lyme borreliosis.

Methods:

Using Denmark’s National Patient Register and the Psychiatric Central Research Register, and including all persons living in Denmark from 1994 through 2016 (N=6,945,837), the authors assessed the risk of mental disorders and suicidal behaviors among all individuals diagnosed with Lyme borreliosis in inpatient and outpatient hospital contacts (N=12,156). Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated by Poisson regression analyses.

Results:

  • Individuals with Lyme borreliosis had higher rates of any mental disorder (IRR=1.28, 95% CI=1.20, 1.37)
  • of affective disorders (IRR=1.42, 95% CI=1.27, 1.59)
  • of suicide attempts (IRR=2.01, 95% CI=1.58, 2.55)
  • and of death by suicide (IRR=1.75, 95% CI=1.18, 2.58) compared with those without Lyme borreliosis

The 6-month interval after diagnosis was associated with the highest rate of any mental disorder (IRR=1.96, 95% CI=1.53, 2.52), and the first 3 years after diagnosis was associated with the highest rate of suicide (IRR=2.41, 95% CI=1.25, 4.62). Having more than one episode of Lyme borreliosis was associated with increased incidence rate ratios for mental disorders, affective disorders, and suicide attempts, but not for death by suicide.

Conclusions:

Individuals diagnosed with Lyme borreliosis in the hospital setting had an increased risk of mental disorders, affective disorders, suicide attempts, and suicide. Although the absolute population risk is low, clinicians should be aware of potential psychiatric sequelae of this global disease.

___________________

For more:

Assessing the Need for Multiplex & Multifunctiounal Tick-borne Disease Test in Routine Clinical Lab Samples From Lyme Disease & Febrile Patients With History of Tick Bite

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33803065/

Assessing the Need for Multiplex and Multifunctional Tick-Borne Disease Test in Routine Clinical Laboratory Samples from Lyme Disease and Febrile Patients with a History of a Tick Bite

Affiliations expand

Free PMC article

Abstract

Human polymicrobial infections in tick-borne disease (TBD) patients is an emerging public health theme. However, the requirement for holistic TBD tests in routine clinical laboratories is ambiguous. TICKPLEX® PLUS is a holistic TBD test utilized herein to assess the need for multiplex and multifunctional diagnostic tools in a routine clinical laboratory. The study involved 150 specimens categorized into Lyme disease (LD)-positive (n = 48), LD-negative (n = 30), and febrile patients from whom borrelia serology was requested (n = 72, later “febrile patients”) based on reference test results from United Medix, Finland. Reference tests from DiaSorin, Immunetics, and Mikrogen Diagnostik followed the two-tier LD testing system.

  • A comparison between the reference tests and TICKPLEX® PLUS produced 86%, 88%, and 87% positive, negative, and overall agreement, respectively.
  • Additionally, up to 15% of LD and 11% of febrile patients responded to TBD related coinfections and opportunistic microbes.

The results demonstrated that one (TICKPLEX® PLUS) test can aid in a LD diagnosis instead of four tests. Moreover, TBD is not limited to just LD, as the specimens produced immune responses to several TBD microbes. Lastly, the study indicated that the screening of febrile patients for TBDs could be a missed opportunity at reducing unreported patient cases.

Conflict of interest statement

K.G and L.G. have a financial and business interest in Tezted Ltd. Further, S.J and S.F do not have commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as potential conflicts of interest. The funding source mentioned in the Funding and Acknowledgements section and Tezted Ltd. had no role in the experimental design, reporting of the results, or the decision to publish.

__________________
For more:

How to Protect Yourself From Ticks With Permethrin-Treated Clothing

https://danielcameronmd.com/permethrin-treated-clothing-causes-hot-foot-effect-ticks/

HOW TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM TICKS WITH PERMETHRIN-TREATED CLOTHING

how-to-protect-yourself-from-ticks
Several studies have found that wearing permethrin-treated clothing can reduce the risk of tick bites. But very few studies have looked at the behavior of a tick when it comes in contact with permethrin-treated clothing. Does it climb onto the insecticide-soaked textile or avoid it entirely? Does permethrin actually kill ticks?

As more individuals begin to venture outside with warmer weather, there are often concerns over how to protect yourself from ticks. Researchers have examined not only the effectiveness of various repellents and protective clothing but also the behavior of individuals who are more likely to encounter ticks.

Researchers in Indiana looked at the protective measures used by recreational hikers in their state. Surprisingly, they found that only 9.5% of hikers used a tick repellent, even fewer (3.4%) wore protective clothing and only 2 individuals “indicated that they took a shower post-recreation and used that activity to search for tick bites.” [1]

Ultrasonic device

Meanwhile, investigators in Australia recently studied the efficacy of ultrasonic pest repellent devices against the Australian paralysis tick, Ixodes holocyclus. “As more than 80% of the ticks were not repelled within the confined area, this level of repellency is clearly insufficient to provide adequate protection from a potential tick bite,” they conclude. [2]

Permethrin-treated clothing

Several studies have looked at Permethrin-treated clothing in repelling ticks.  Sullivan et al. recruited state and county park employees from North Carolina to wear long-lasting Permethrin-impregnated (LLPI) clothing. The authors found that the clothing “retained Permethrin and bioactivity against ticks after three months of use in real-world conditions.” [3]

A study in Rhode Island aimed to provide insight as to how to protect yourself from ticks by examining Permethrin-treated footwear. The authors found that people wearing sneakers and socks treated with Permethrin were 73.6 times less likely to have a tick bite than those wearing untreated footwear. [4]

Meanwhile, another study explored the behavior of ticks when they encounter Permethrin-treated clothing. How do ticks react? Using a model that mimicked a pant leg or the arm of a long-sleeved shirt, scientists studied the behavior and fate of ticks when exposed to Permethrin-treated clothing. [5]

“Ticks approaching a textile impregnated with a strong non-contact spatial repellent (DEET) very rarely made physical contact with the treated textile,” according to Eisen and colleagues from the Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [4]

Tick behavior when exposed to Permethrin

However, Permethrin-treated textiles did not repel ticks without contact, as seen with DEET. In fact, the majority (88%) of nymphal ticks chose to move onto Permethrin-treated textile versus DEET-treated textile.

After coming in contact with the treated clothing, the ticks dislodged through a “hot-foot” effect.

“Ticks readily walked onto a Permethrin-treated textile…. but laboratory-reared ticks became visibly agitated, displaying a hot-foot effect, and escaped contact with the Permethrin-treated textile by tumbling downwards until they dislodged themselves completely from a textile-covered assay card.”

Unfortunately, field-collected ticks were hardier than laboratory-reared ticks and able to sustain longer contact with the treated textile. The authors postulated that field-collected ticks have been exposed to highly variable temperatures and humidity conditions which may result in slower absorption of Permethrin.

“However, by 1 and 24 hours post-exposure very few ticks displayed normal movement, thus presenting minimal risk to bite, regardless of whether they were reared in the laboratory or collected in the field.”

“Contact with Permethrin-treated textiles negatively impacts the vigor and behavior of nymphal ticks for >24 hours,” according to Eisen, “with outcomes ranging from complete lack of movement to impaired movement and unwillingness of ticks displaying normal movement to ascend onto a human finger.”

One day after exposure, a majority of ticks were completely motionless. The remaining ticks were able to recover.

“Ticks having recovered normal movement 1 day after exposure in our study most often ascended onto a finger when given the opportunity (and presumably also were capable of biting),” Eisen points out.

“In a real-life scenario, prolonged periods of time where ticks having fallen off a human host after contact with Permethrin-treated textile are unable to move will undoubtedly increase the risk of mortality due to desiccation or predation.”

“A scenario more difficult to address in a bioassay is when a tick makes initial contact with bare skin and subsequently approaches loose-fitting summer-weight Permethrin treated garments, such as shorts or a T-shirt,” states Eisen.

“In this case, the tick may walk underneath the treated textile and be contacted primarily from the dorsal side as the person moves and the clothing comes in and out of contact with the tick and the person’s skin.”

Permethrin is acutely toxic in high doses. The authors did not address the potential toxicity of Permethrin to humans. “Acute signs of toxicity to the central nervous system include incoordination, ataxia, hyperactivity, convulsions, and finally prostration, paralysis, and death,” according to a review by the National Research Council (US) Subcommittee to Review Permethrin Toxicity from Military Uniforms. [6]

Note: Users have been advised not to inhale Permethrin when treating clothes and not to apply Permethrin to the skin.

Article Updated: June 1, 2021

References:
  1. Anderson KR, Blekking J, Omodior O. Tick trails: the role of online recreational trail reviews in identifying risk factors and behavioral recommendations associated with tick encounters in Indiana. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):908. Published 2021 May 13. doi:10.1186/s12889-021-10940-4
  2. Panthawong A, Doggett SL, Chareonviriyaphap T. The Efficacy of Ultrasonic Pest Repellent Devices against the Australian Paralysis Tick, Ixodes holocyclus (Acari: Ixodidae). Insects. 2021;12(5):400. Published 2021 Apr 30. doi:10.3390/insects12050400
  3. Sullivan KM, Poffley A, Funkhouser S, et al. Bioabsorption and effectiveness of long-lasting permethrin-treated uniforms over three months among North Carolina outdoor workers. Parasit Vectors. 2019;12(1):52. Published 2019 Jan 23. doi:10.1186/s13071-019-3314-1
  4. Tick Encounter. https://www.tickencounter.org/prevention/permethrin
  5. Eisen L, Rose D, Prose R, et al. Bioassays to evaluate non-contact spatial repellency, contact irritancy, and acute toxicity of permethrin-treated clothing against nymphal Ixodes scapularis ticks. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2017.
  6. Health Effects of Permethrin-Impregnated Army Battle-Dress Uniforms (1994) by National Research Council. 1994. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9274. at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/9274/health-effects-of-permethrin-impregnated-army-battle-dress-uniforms. Last accessed 8/12/17.

____________________

It’s never simple, is it?

For more: