Widespread Babesiosis in Canada
http://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/6/2/49/htm
Healthcare 2018, 6(2), 49; doi:10.3390/healthcare6020049
http://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/6/2/49/htm
Healthcare 2018, 6(2), 49; doi:10.3390/healthcare6020049
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29716647
Parasit Vectors. 2018 May 2;11(1):277. doi: 10.1186/s13071-018-2860-2.
De Keukeleire M1,2, Robert A3, Luyasu V3, Kabamba B4, Vanwambeke SO5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
As forest is the preferred environment for ticks, forestry workers are exposed to tick bites and tick-borne diseases. We assessed the seroprevalence of anti-Borrelia burgdorferi (Bb) antibodies and investigated, using an integrated landscape approach, the individual and environmental factors associated with the seroprevalence of Bb in Belgian forestry workers, a high-risk group in Belgium.
METHODS:
A group of 310 Belgian forest workers was examined to assess the seroprevalence of anti-Borrelia IgG antibodies. Using principal component analysis and binary logistic regression, the joint effects of individual characteristics and environmental characteristics were examined.
RESULTS:
Sixty-seven of the 310 workers were seropositive for Lyme disease (LD), leading to a seroprevalence of 21.6%. The seroprevalence was higher among forest workers visiting forests more frequently (P = 0.003) or who reported over 100 tick bites (P-value < 0.001). The intensity of tick bites and the use of protection measures against tick bites have a positive impact on LD seroprevalence while the quantity of shadow from trees at ground level had a negative one.
CONCLUSIONS:
This study showed that forest workers are a population at risk for LD and, by extension, at risk for various tick-borne diseases. In addition to the role of the environment, our results also showed the importance of considering exposure when predicting the risk of infection by Bb.
By HEALTHDAY May 25, 2018, 11:49 AM

Tick bites can transmit Lyme disease.
BERTRAND GUAY / AFP/GETTY IMAGES
Outdoor enthusiasts: Here’s a bit of good tick-fighting news just in time for Memorial Day weekend and the unofficial start of summer. A new U.S. government study confirms that insecticide-treated clothes marketed for preventing tick-borne ills do, in fact, thwart the pests.
In lab tests of clothes bought from one manufacturer, researchers found that the garments either quickly caused ticks to fall off, or rendered them unable to bite.
The study involved three types of ticks that, in the United States, are major carriers of disease — including Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and what’s known as southern tick-associated rash illness, or STARI.
The clothes were pretreated with permethrin, a synthetic form of an insect-thwarting compound from the chrysanthemum flower. It’s used in insecticide sprays and shampoos and creams that treat lice and scabies.
Several companies already market permethrin-treated shirts, pants, socks and other clothing, as a way to ward off disease-transmitting pests. The new study adds to evidence that the garments are indeed toxic to ticks, according to senior researcher Lars Eisen, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“All tested tick species and life stages experienced the ‘hot-foot’ effect after coming into contact with permethrin-treated clothing,” Eisen said.
That, he explained, made the ticks drop off of “vertically oriented” clothes — which would simulate a pair of pants when a person is standing.
In addition, Eisen said, when the ticks were in contact with the clothes for up to five minutes, they lost their ability to move normally — and to bite.
There are still questions, he noted, including what types of clothing offer the best protection in the real world.
The CDC already recommends permethrin as one tactic for avoiding tick bites. It says that people can “treat clothing and gear, such as boots, pants, socks and tents, with products containing 0.5 percent permethrin.”
The agency further says that “pretreated clothing is available and may be protective longer.”
Thomas Mather is director of the University of Rhode Island’s Center for Vector-Borne Disease and its TickEncounter Resource Center.
He said the new findings, published May 24 in the Journal of Medical Entomology, offer more support for the tick-fighting garments.
“This can be a pretty effective way to stop ticks,” said Mather, who was not involved in the study.
In his own research, Mather found there are benefits even with permethrin-treated summer clothes that leave some skin uncovered — shorts, T-shirts, socks and sneakers.
His team had a group of brave volunteers watch a movie while allowing lab-raised, disease-free ticks to crawl on their bodies. Some wore regular clothes, some wore clothes with permethrin — either pretreated or with the insecticide added using home kits. Those wearing either kind of treated clothing ended up with far fewer live ticks on their bodies by the end of the movie.
While people can use permethrin on their regular clothes, the pretreated garments hold up to many more washings, according to Mather — up to 70.
Some people may be wary of chemically treated clothes. But, Mather said, the amount of permethrin in clothing is very low: A solution containing only 0.5 percent of the pesticide is “dried into” the fabric.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, research indicates that permethrin is “poorly absorbed” through the skin, and there’s no evidence that treated clothing could be harmful to children or pregnant women.
U.S. military members have been using permethrin-treated uniforms since the 1990s, the EPA noted. According to Mather, the garments may also be a good bet for people whose jobs keep them outdoors — or for gardeners or anyone else who spends time in places where tick exposure is a concern.
Eisen pointed to some other CDC-recommended ways to cut the risk of tick-borne ills: