# Annual incidence of general practice consultations related, according to the general practitioner, to bed bugs and description of cases, 2019–2020, France

Bérenger Thomas, Florent Hamaide-Defrocourt, Titouan Launay, Pauline Vasseur, Ophélie Guyonvarch, Patricia Lefébure, Louise Rossignol, Nadia Younès, Clément Turbelin, Caroline Guerrisi, et al.

► To cite this version:

Bérenger Thomas, Florent Hamaide-Defrocourt, Titouan Launay, Pauline Vasseur, Ophélie Guyonvarch, et al. Annual incidence of general practice consultations related, according to the general practitioner, to bed bugs and description of cases, 2019–2020, France. PLoS ONE, 2024, 19 (8 August), 10.1371/journal.pone.0308990. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308990

HAL Id: hal-04724644

https://hal.science/hal-04724644v1

Submitted on 19 Nov 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
RESEARCH ARTICLE

# Annual incidence of general practice consultations related, according to the general practitioner, to bed bugs and description of cases, 2019–2020, France

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Bérenger Thomas<sup>1</sup>, Florent Hamaide-Defrocourt<sup>1</sup>, Titouan Launay<sup>1</sup>, Pauline Vasseur<sup>1</sup>, Ophélie Guyonvarch<sup>1</sup>, Patricia Lefébure<sup>2</sup>, Louise Rossignol<sup>1,3</sup>, Nadia Younès<sup>4,5</sup>, Clément Turbelin<sup>1</sup>, Caroline Guerrisi<sup>1</sup>, Thomas Hanslik<sup>1,6,7</sup>, Thierry Blanchon<sup>1*</sup>, Mathieu Rivière<sup>1</sup>, Romain Pons<sup>1</sup>

1. Sorbonne Université, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique, Paris, France,

2. General Practitioner, Limay, France, 3. Département de Médecine Générale, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France, 4. Service de Psychiatrie Adulte, Centre Hospitalier de Versailles, Versailles, France, 5. Team DevPsy, Centre de Recherche en Epidémiologie et Santé des Populations, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France, 6. Service de Médecine Interne, Hôpital Ambroise Paré, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Boulogne Billancourt, France, 7. Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, UFR Simone Veil - Santé, Versailles, France

* thierry.blanchon@upmc.fr

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

OPEN ACCESS

**Citation:** Thomas B, Hamaide-Defrocourt F, Launay T, Vasseur P, Guyonvarch O, Lefébure P, et al. (2024) Annual incidence of general practice consultations related, according to the general practitioner, to bed bugs and description of cases, 2019–2020, France. PLoS ONE 19(8): e0308990. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308990

**Editor:** Muhammad Faisal Shahzad, Gomal University, PAKISTAN

**Received:** October 31, 2023

**Accepted:** August 1, 2024

**Published:** August 27, 2024

**Copyright:** © 2024 Thomas et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

**Data Availability Statement:** Data have been uploaded as supplementary information

**Funding:** This work was funded by the Health General Direction (DGS) of the French Ministry of Health.

**Competing interests:** The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

**Abbreviations:** OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; GP, general practitioner.

## Abstract

Bed bug infestations have been increasing worldwide since the 2000s. Their consequences for health range from skin reactions to major psychological distress. However, epidemiological data is still lacking. This study estimated the incidence of general practice consultations related to bed bugs in France and evaluated factors associated with repercussions on everyday life. We conducted a prospective observational study from March 2019 to April 2020 among 217 GPs in France. Annual and monthly GP consultations related to bed bugs were estimated from the reported cases. Descriptive analyses were performed, and factors associated with repercussions on everyday life were assessed using a logistic regression model. The annual incidence rate of GP consultations related to bed bugs was estimated at 109 per 100,000 inhabitants [95%CI: 92–126]. Bed bug-related consultations occurred in all regions, peaking in the summer. Moderate-to-severe repercussions on everyday life were reported by 39% of the patients. The associated factors with this level of repercussions were: having seen bed bugs (OR = 4.02 [95%CI: 1.6–10.73]), having lesions from scratching (OR = 5.25 [1.65–19.92]), having lesions on the head and the neck (OR = 3.97 [1.52–10.95]) and reporting psychological distress (OR = 6.79 [2.47–20.42]). This study provides new knowledge on GP consultations related to bed bugs in France. These data will help tailor public health programs to the population's needs, including information and training for primary healthcare professionals.
## Introduction

Bed bugs are hematophagous insects belonging to the Cimicidae that are prevalent worldwide. The development and intensive use of organochlorine and organophosphate insecticides almost eradicated these insects from developed countries during the second half of the 20th century [1]. However, a re-emergence of bed bug infestations associated with the emergence of insecticide resistance and increasing human travel has been observed since the 2000s [2, 3].

Bed bug infestations mainly occur in high-density areas, transit hubs, private homes, and public places such as hotels, public transport, or cinemas [2, 4–6]. Visual inspection can confirm an infestation, but bed bugs are often not correctly identified [7, 8]. Bed bug bites are usually painless [9] and resultant skin lesions, mainly pruritic papules, typically occur in linear or grouped patterns on areas of exposed skin (neck, arms, shoulders and legs) [9–11]. Allergic reactions and anaemia have been reported in a few rare cases. It has also been shown that bed bugs can carry pathogens, but there is currently no evidence of transmission to humans [12, 13]. In addition to cutaneous reactions, bed bug infestations can cause anxiety, stress and insomnia due to itching, fear of insects, social isolation and the cost of eradication measures [14]. According to previous studies, living in shared housing, knowing someone who currently has bed bugs, having a history of infestation, low income, low educational level, young age and the presence of many children and adults in the household are associated with bed bug infestations [15, 16]. Interest of the general population in this public health issue is growing, and studies based on Google Trends reported an increase in the search volume index relating to bed bugs since 2004, with seasonal differences and cyclic peaks in the summer [17, 18].

With the spread of bed bug infestations, general practitioners (GPs) will likely face this issue increasingly in primary care. In France, GPs are the first healthcare professionals to be contacted in the event of clinical repercussions, which are common in case of bed bug infestation. However, to our knowledge, no study providing reliable data about consultations related to bed bugs has been conducted in general practice. The aim of this study was to estimate the incidence of primary care consultations related to bed bugs in France according to the GP, and to describe infestations and clinical characteristics of cases, as well as assessing the repercussions on everyday life for these patients. A secondary objective was to measure GPs’ perception about their own knowledge of bed bugs.

## Materials and methods

### Study design and data collection

We conducted a prospective observational study among GPs from the French *Sentinelles* network, a real-time epidemiologic surveillance system including about 1,300 volunteer GPs (2% of the total number of GPs in France) [19]. The representativeness of *Sentinelles* GPs has been studied before, and some limited differences with all French GPs were noted concerning practice location, sex and number of consultations per week [22]. Expecting 1 to 2 cases per GP per year to ensure that the incidence of consultations could be estimated with a 95% confidence interval equal to +/- 10% around point estimates, we recruited 217 GPs for this study (initial aim: 215). The regional recruitment of participating GPs followed the regional distribution of French GPs (S1 Table). GP feelings about their knowledge of bed bugs was assessed at the beginning of the study. This included their ability to identify bed bugs, their knowledge of control measures, and their knowledge about symptoms and clinical signs related to bed bugs. Each kind of knowledge was self-rated on a scale from zero (no knowledge) to 10 (complete knowledge).
From March 2019 to April 2020, these GPs were asked to report consultations related, according to them, to bed bugs. Eligible cases were defined as patients seen in general practice consultations presenting symptoms and/or clinical signs related to bed bugs. GPs completed a questionnaire for each patient, providing sociodemographic characteristics (age, sex, occupational status), symptoms and clinical signs (skin lesions, insomnia, psychological distress in the last four weeks (evaluated by Mental Health Inventory test [20]), and degradation of psychological health caused by bed bugs), repercussions on everyday life in three major domains (work, social life/leisure activities, and family life/home responsibilities) over the last 14 days (assessed with the Sheehan Disability Scale, which runs from 0 (no repercussions) to 10 (extreme repercussions)), a description of the infestation (infestation's place, bed bugs seen), the type of housing, the control measures used, and the treatment prescribed.

## Data management

GP feelings about their knowledge of bed bugs were classified into three categories: “poor” (0 to 3 out of 10), “moderate” (4 to 6) and “good” (7 to 10). The five-question Mental Health Inventory assessed the patient’s psychological distress in the last four weeks [20]. It was considered to be positive (meaning “a good bit of the time”, “most of the time”, or “all of the time”) if the patient felt frequently “nervous” and/or “downhearted and blue” and/or “so down in the dumps that nothing could cheer them up”. Repercussions on everyday life for each domain were considered moderate-to-severe if a score of 4 or higher was obtained [21]. Global repercussions were rated as moderate-to-severe if at least one of the three domains was affected by moderate-to-severe repercussions.

## Statistical analysis

The annual incidence rate of general practice consultations related to bed bugs in France was estimated as the mean number of cases notified by the *Sentinelles* GPs (adjusted for participation and geographic distribution) multiplied by the total number of GPs practicing in France and divided by population size (census data) [22]. We estimated annual incidence rates by age group and sex and monthly incidence rates. The variation of incidence over the four quarters of the year (April to June, July to September, October to December 2019 and January to March 2020) was assessed with a Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test followed by a Dunn's post hoc test.

We performed a descriptive analysis of the participating GPs and reported cases. We used Pearson's chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test (categorical variables) and Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests (continuous variables) to evaluate the significance of differences. Using a univariate and multivariate logistic regression model, we investigated the factors associated with moderate-to-severe repercussions on everyday life. A stepwise backward elimination process performed the multivariate analysis until the Akaike information criterion reached a minimum. All analyses were conducted in R software version 3.5.0 [23].

## Ethical considerations

This study was approved by the French Protection of Individuals Committee (CPP). It was authorized by the French National Data Protection Agency (CNIL) as part of ad hoc studies conducted by the Sentinelles network (notice 471 393). Patients were informed by the participating GPs, and oral consent was obtained and witnessed by GPs. In the case of minors, consent was obtained from parents or guardians.
# Results

## Characteristics of the participating GPs

Among the 217 included GPs, 214 performed at least one declaration during the study period (participation rate: 98.6%). More than half (n = 109) reported at least one consultation related to bed bugs. The mean number of consultations reported per GP was 1.8 (standard deviation: 1.2; maximum: 10).

The 214 participating GPs had a mean age of 51 (Table 1). Almost two-thirds were male (n = 135, 63%), and most worked in an urban area (n = 175, 82%). GPs' feelings about their

<table><caption>Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of participating GPs and GPs' feelings about their knowledge of bed bugs, according to whether they reported a consultation related to bed bugs during the study*.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th>All GPs, n = 214</th><th>GPs who reported at least one-bed bugs case, n = 109</th><th>GPs who reported no bed bugs case, n = 105</th><th rowspan="2">p-value**</th></tr><tr><th>no. (%) or mean (SD)</th><th>no. (%) or mean (SD)</th><th>no. (%) or mean (SD)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Mean age, y (SD)</td><td>50.94 (12.19)</td><td>51.25 (12.34)</td><td>50.61 (12.07)</td><td>0.71</td></tr><tr><td>Sex</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.29</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>79 (37)</td><td>36 (33)</td><td>43 (41)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>135 (63)</td><td>73 (67)</td><td>62 (59)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Practice type</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.57</td></tr><tr><td>Individual</td><td>65 (33)</td><td>36 (35)</td><td>29 (31)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Group of 2 or 3</td><td>85 (43)</td><td>41 (39)</td><td>44 (47)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Group of 4 or more</td><td>48 (24)</td><td>27 (26)</td><td>21 (22)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Age at establishment time, y</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.34</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 30</td><td>67 (32)</td><td>39 (36)</td><td>28 (27)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>30–34</td><td>110 (52)</td><td>56 (51)</td><td>54 (53)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>35–39</td><td>24 (11)</td><td>11 (10)</td><td>13 (13)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>≥ 40</td><td>10 (5)</td><td>3 (3)</td><td>7 (7)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Area of practice</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.63</td></tr><tr><td>Urban</td><td>175 (82)</td><td>91 (83)</td><td>84 (80)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Rural</td><td>39 (18)</td><td>18 (17)</td><td>21 (20)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Self-evaluation of knowledge</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ability to identify bed bugs</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.22</td></tr><tr><td>Poor</td><td>62 (29)</td><td>26 (24)</td><td>36 (35)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Moderate</td><td>70 (33)</td><td>38 (35)</td><td>32 (31)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Good</td><td>81 (38)</td><td>45 (41)</td><td>36 (35)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Knowledge about control techniques</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.45</td></tr><tr><td>Poor</td><td>73 (34)</td><td>33 (30)</td><td>40 (38)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Moderate</td><td>104 (49)</td><td>56 (51)</td><td>48 (46)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Good</td><td>36 (17)</td><td>20 (18)</td><td>16 (15)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Knowledge about symptoms and clinical signs</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td>Poor</td><td>34 (16)</td><td>10 (9)</td><td>24 (23)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Moderate</td><td>67 (31)</td><td>39 (36)</td><td>28 (27)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Good</td><td>112 (53)</td><td>60 (55)</td><td>52 (50)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote>*Data were missing for the following characteristics: age (3), practice type (16), age at establishment time (3), self-evaluation of knowledge (1). GP, general practitioner; SD: standard deviation</footnote>

<footnote>**Categorical variables: Pearson's chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test; continuous variables: Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests</footnote>
knowledge of bed bugs revealed that 38% (n = 81) considered their ability to identify bed bugs, 17% (n = 36) "good" their knowledge about control measure, and 53% (n = 112) as "good" their knowledge about the type of symptoms and clinical signs related to bed bugs. GP confidence in their knowledge regarding symptoms and clinical signs related to bed bugs was lower among GPs reporting no cases during the study period (p = 0.02).

## Incidence of GP consultations related to bed bugs

The annual incidence of GP consultations related, according to them, to bed bugs was estimated at 71,925 [95% confidence interval: 60,606–83,244] between April 2019 and March 2020, corresponding to an annual incidence rate of 109 consultations per 100,000 inhabitants [95%CI: 92; 126] (Table 2). The annual incidence rates by sex were estimated at 139 [95%CI: 112; 166] per 100,000 women and 80 [95%CI: 59; 101] per 100,000 men. Based on age, the two categories with the highest annual incidence rates were individuals under 20 and those aged 20 to 29. Cases were reported in all regions of mainland France, with annual incidence rates ranging from 19 [95%CI: 0; 46] to 216 [95%CI: 53; 329] consultations per 100,000 inhabitants.

Monthly annual incidence rates ranged from 3 [95%CI: 1; 5] consultations per 100,000 inhabitants in January 2020 to 20 [95%CI: 12; 28] in August 2019 (Fig 1). Incidence rates were significantly higher in spring and summer 2019 (the first quarters April-June 2019 and July-September 2019) than in the following winter (January-March 2020) (p = 0.02 and 0.003, respectively).

## Description of cases

During the study period, the GPs reported 193 consultations on bed bugs, 191 of which were described (99%). The average age of patients was 34 years, ranging from 8 months to 86 years, and two-thirds were women (n = 127, 66%) (Table 3). In more than half of all cases, the bed bug infestation occurred in the patient's home (n = 96, 53%). Bed bugs were seen by the patient, the GP or another person in 48% of cases (n = 85). The patient had seen bed bugs in 34% of cases (n = 60) and GPs only in 7% (n = 13). Control measures were applied in almost two-thirds of home infestations, shared accommodation excluded (n = 59, 63%) (S2 Table), mainly through the treatment of laundry (n = 49, 83%), through household treatment (vacuuming, steaming, etc) (n = 41, 69%) and insecticide use (n = 30, 51%). Professional examination was sought in less than 10% of the cases (n = 8, 9%).

<table><caption>Table 2. National annual incidence and incidence rates of GPs' consultations related to bed bugs in France between April 2019 and March 2020 according to GP reports (global incidence and incidences by gender and age).</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Incidence [CI95%]</th><th>Incidence rate [CI95%]<br>(GPs' consultations per 100,000 inhabitants)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Total</td><td>71,925 [60,606–83,244]</td><td>109 [92–126]</td></tr><tr><td>By sex</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>46,561 [37,432–55,690]</td><td>139 [112–166]</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>25,109 [18,437–31,782]</td><td>80 [59–101]</td></tr><tr><td>By age, y</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0–19</td><td>20,452 [14,426–26,477]</td><td>130 [92–169]</td></tr><tr><td>20–29</td><td>14,493 [9,312–19,675]</td><td>196 [126–265]</td></tr><tr><td>30–49</td><td>14,194 [9,254–19,134]</td><td>86 [56–116]</td></tr><tr><td>≥ 50</td><td>22,531 [16,182–28,880]</td><td>89 [64–115]</td></tr></tbody></table>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308990.t002
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig 1. Estimated monthly incidence rates per 100,000 inhabitants (and 95% confidence intervals) of general practice consultations related to bed bugs in France between April 2019 and March 2020 according to GP reports.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308990.g001

## Consultations and clinical descriptions

Half of the consultations (n = 95, 51%) occurred within a week of the symptom onset (Table 4). Clinical examination revealed skin lesions in all but three of the patients (n = 188, 98%). These lesions mainly were papules (n = 155, 82%) and lesions from scratching (n = 126, 67%). The upper limbs and the trunk were the most affected area (n = 135, 75% and n = 125, 69%, respectively). Insomnia was reported by 73 patients (39%), more than a quarter of the patients reported a feeling of psychological distress in the last four weeks (n = 40, 27%). Medication was prescribed in most cases (n = 172, 91%). Antihistamines were the drugs most frequently prescribed (n = 145, 84%).

## Factors associated with repercussions on everyday life

More than a third of patients reported moderate-to-severe repercussions on their everyday life in the last 14 days (n = 60, 39%) (Table 4). In multivariate analysis (Table 5), factors positively associated with these repercussions were: having seen bed bugs (odds ratio (OR) = 4.02 [95% CI: 1.6–10.73]), having lesions from scratching (OR = 5.25 [1.65–19.92]), having lesions on the head or the neck (OR = 3.97 [1.52–10.95]) and reporting psychological distress in the last four weeks (OR = 6.79 [2.47–20.42]).
<table><caption>Table 3. Sociodemographic characteristics of patients seen in general practice consultations related to bed bugs in France between March 2019 and April 2020 and infestation features according to GP reports*.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="2" style="text-align: center;">n = 191</th></tr><tr><th></th><th style="text-align: center;">no. or mean</th><th style="text-align: center;">% or SD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Age, y</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mean (SD)</td><td style="text-align: center;">34.21</td><td style="text-align: center;">21.45</td></tr><tr><td>0–19</td><td style="text-align: center;">58</td><td style="text-align: center;">30</td></tr><tr><td>20–29</td><td style="text-align: center;">35</td><td style="text-align: center;">18</td></tr><tr><td>30–49</td><td style="text-align: center;">43</td><td style="text-align: center;">23</td></tr><tr><td>≥ 50</td><td style="text-align: center;">55</td><td style="text-align: center;">29</td></tr><tr><td>Sex</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td style="text-align: center;">127</td><td style="text-align: center;">66</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td style="text-align: center;">64</td><td style="text-align: center;">34</td></tr><tr><td>Occupational status</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Student</td><td style="text-align: center;">52</td><td style="text-align: center;">28</td></tr><tr><td>Working</td><td style="text-align: center;">76</td><td style="text-align: center;">42</td></tr><tr><td>Not-working</td><td style="text-align: center;">33</td><td style="text-align: center;">18</td></tr><tr><td>Retired</td><td style="text-align: center;">22</td><td style="text-align: center;">12</td></tr><tr><td>Infestation location</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Home</td><td style="text-align: center;">96</td><td style="text-align: center;">53</td></tr><tr><td>Other private accommodation (family, friend...)</td><td style="text-align: center;">30</td><td style="text-align: center;">16</td></tr><tr><td>Shared accommodation (hotels, holiday rentals...)</td><td style="text-align: center;">46</td><td style="text-align: center;">25</td></tr><tr><td>Other (transport, workplace...)</td><td style="text-align: center;">10</td><td style="text-align: center;">5</td></tr><tr><td>Bed bugs seen by the patient, the GP or another person</td><td style="text-align: center;">85</td><td style="text-align: center;">48</td></tr><tr><td>Bed bugs seen by the patient</td><td style="text-align: center;">60</td><td style="text-align: center;">34</td></tr><tr><td>Bed bugs seen by the general practitioner</td><td style="text-align: center;">13</td><td style="text-align: center;">7</td></tr><tr><td>Another person sees bed bugs</td><td style="text-align: center;">27</td><td style="text-align: center;">15</td></tr></tbody></table>

Discussion

This study provides new knowledge on GP consultations on bed bugs in France according to GP reports. The data includes an estimate of the incidence of consultations, a description of the characteristics of cases, and an assessment of repercussions on patient everyday life.

This is the first study assessing the incidence of general practice consultations related to bed bugs in a country. Most of the published data to date concern reports from pest management companies [2, 4, 15, 16, 24], self-reported declarations or limited local surveys reporting the prevalence of infected households in some cities [25, 26]. Other studies have focused on descriptions of dermatological consultations [27] or consultations at emergency departments [28]. These data complement those regarding the number of interventions from the French national pest management companies reported in 2019 (540,000 interventions) [29] and those of a US emergency department which published an estimate that 27% of patients suffering from bed bugs had consulted a primary care physician [30]. Regarding seasonality, the number of consultations was higher during the spring and summer months, consistent with previous findings. Data from the Danish Pest Infestation Laboratory and Norwegian pest control operators have shown that the number of cases reported is higher from July to November [31]. More extensive studies based on internet search analyses also found seasonality, with peaks in summer in the United States, Europe, and Australia [17, 18].

<footnote>*Data were missing for the following characteristics: occupational status (8), infestation's place (9), bed bugs seen (15). GP, general practitioner; SD, standard deviation</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 4. Consultations characteristics, clinical description and medical care among patients seen in general practice consultations relating to bed bugs in France between March 2019 and April 2020*.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">n = 191</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>No.</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>History of previous bed bugs symptoms</td><td>12</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Consultation with another health professional for the ongoing symptoms</td><td>28</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>of which general practitioner</td><td>12</td><td>43</td></tr><tr><td>of which dermatologist</td><td>2</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>of which pharmacist</td><td>8</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>of which emergency service</td><td>4</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Time elapsed between symptom onset and consultation</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Less than a week</td><td>95</td><td>51</td></tr><tr><td>Between a week and a month</td><td>69</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>More than a month</td><td>24</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Area of practice of consulted general practitioner</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Urban</td><td>162</td><td>85</td></tr><tr><td>Rural</td><td>29</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>Bed bugs as the principal reason given for consultation</td><td>151</td><td>79</td></tr><tr><td>Skin lesions</td><td>188</td><td>98</td></tr><tr><td>of which were papules</td><td>155</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>of which were lesions from scratching</td><td>126</td><td>67</td></tr><tr><td>of which were macules</td><td>73</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>of which were nodules</td><td>43</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>of which were ulcers</td><td>19</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>of which were superinfections</td><td>12</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>of which were blisters</td><td>9</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>In the case of skin lesions, affected areas</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Head or neck</td><td>58</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>Trunk</td><td>125</td><td>69</td></tr><tr><td>Upper limbs</td><td>135</td><td>75</td></tr><tr><td>Lower limbs</td><td>98</td><td>66</td></tr><tr><td>Insomnia</td><td>73</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>Psychological distress in the last four weeks</td><td>40</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>Degradation of psychological health caused by bed bugs</td><td>26</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>Moderate-to-severe repercussions in the last 14 days</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>On work/studies</td><td>24</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>On social life/leisure activities</td><td>34</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>On family life/home responsibilities</td><td>43</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>Globally, in everyday life</td><td>60</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>Medications prescribed at the end of the consultation</td><td>172</td><td>91</td></tr><tr><td>of which were antihistamines</td><td>145</td><td>84</td></tr><tr><td>of which were antiseptics</td><td>68</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>of which were topical corticosteroids</td><td>65</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>of which were topical antibiotics</td><td>4</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>of which were oral antibiotics</td><td>3</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>of which were anxiolytics</td><td>3</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>of which were hypnotics</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>of which were antidepressants</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Sick leave certificate</td><td>4</td><td>2</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Data were missing for the following characteristics: history of previous bed bugs symptoms (7), consultation of another health professional (2), time elapsed between symptom onset and consultation (3), affected areas (8), insomnia (6), psychological distress (43), degradation of psychological health (17), repercussions on work/studies (19), on social life (37), on family life (37), on everyday life (36), medications (2), sick leave certificate (8).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308990.t004
<table><caption>Table 5. Factors associated with moderate-to-severe repercussions on everyday life in the last 14 days among patients seen in general practice consultations relating to bed bugs in France between March 2019 and April 2020 (univariate and multivariate analyses)*.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2">No.</th><th colspan="2">Moderate-to-severe repercussions on everyday life</th><th colspan="2">Univariate analysis</th><th colspan="2">Multivariate analysis</th></tr><tr><th>no. (%)</th><th>OR [95%CI]</th><th>p-value</th><th>OR [95%CI]</th><th>p-value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Sex</td><td>Female</td><td>103</td><td>39 (38)</td><td>Ref.</td><td rowspan="2">0.76</td><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>52</td><td>21 (40)</td><td>1.11 [0.56-2.19]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Age, y</td><td>0-19</td><td>39</td><td>11 (28)</td><td>Ref.</td><td rowspan="3">0.40</td><td rowspan="3"></td><td rowspan="3"></td><td rowspan="3"></td></tr><tr><td>20-29</td><td>27</td><td>11 (41)</td><td>1.75 [0.62-5]</td></tr><tr><td>30-49</td><td>41</td><td>16 (39)</td><td>1.63 [0.64-4.24]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Occupational status</td><td>≥ 50</td><td>48</td><td>22 (46)</td><td>2.15 [0.89-5.43]</td><td rowspan="4">0.38</td><td rowspan="4"></td><td rowspan="4"></td><td rowspan="4"></td></tr><tr><td>Working</td><td>71</td><td>29 (41)</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Student</td><td>42</td><td>12 (29)</td><td>0.58 [0.25-1.3]</td></tr><tr><td>Non-working</td><td>24</td><td>10 (42)</td><td>1.03 [0.4-2.63]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Infestation location</td><td>Retired</td><td>18</td><td>9 (50)</td><td>1.45 [0.51-4.14]</td><td rowspan="4">0.15</td><td rowspan="4"></td><td rowspan="4"></td><td rowspan="4"></td></tr><tr><td>Home</td><td>76</td><td>34 (45)</td><td>Ref.</td></tr><tr><td>Other private acc.</td><td>22</td><td>5 (23)</td><td>0.36 [0.11-1.03]</td></tr><tr><td>Shared acc.</td><td>42</td><td>14 (33)</td><td>0.62 [0.28-1.34]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Bed bugs seen</td><td>Other</td><td>9</td><td>5 (56)</td><td>1.54 [0.38-6.66]</td><td rowspan="2">0.003</td><td>Ref.</td><td>0.003</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>72</td><td>35 (49)</td><td>2.84 [1.42-5.84]</td><td>4.02 [1.6-10.73]</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">History of bed bugs</td><td>No</td><td>142</td><td>53 (37)</td><td>Ref.</td><td rowspan="2">0.28</td><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>9</td><td>5 (56)</td><td>2.1 [0.53-8.81]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Cs. with another HP</td><td>No</td><td>134</td><td>50 (37)</td><td>Ref.</td><td rowspan="2">0.40</td><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>19</td><td>9 (47)</td><td>1.51 [0.56-4]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Time between symptom onset and cs.</td><td>&lt; 1 wk</td><td>78</td><td>27 (35)</td><td>Ref.</td><td rowspan="3">0.43</td><td rowspan="3"></td><td rowspan="3"></td><td rowspan="3"></td></tr><tr><td>1 wk to 1 mo</td><td>53</td><td>20 (38)</td><td>1.14 [0.55-2.36]</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 1 mo</td><td>22</td><td>11 (50)</td><td>1.89 [0.72-4.97]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Practice area</td><td>Urban</td><td>133</td><td>55 (41)</td><td>Ref.</td><td rowspan="2">0.09</td><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Rural</td><td>22</td><td>5 (23)</td><td>0.42 [0.13-1.13]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Bed bugs are the principal reason given for cs.</td><td>No</td><td>32</td><td>10 (31)</td><td>Ref.</td><td rowspan="2">0.33</td><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>132</td><td>50 (41)</td><td>1.51 [0.67-3.58]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Papules</td><td>No</td><td>29</td><td>16 (55)</td><td>Ref.</td><td rowspan="2">0.05</td><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>123</td><td>43 (35)</td><td>0.44 [0.19-0.99]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Lesions from scratching</td><td>No</td><td>42</td><td>11 (26)</td><td>Ref.</td><td rowspan="2">0.04</td><td>Ref.</td><td>0.004</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>110</td><td>48 (44)</td><td>2.18 [1.02-4.95]</td><td>5.25 [1.65-19.92]</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Macules</td><td>No</td><td>95</td><td>38 (40)</td><td>Ref.</td><td rowspan="2">0.70</td><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>57</td><td>21 (37)</td><td>0.88 [0.44-1.72]</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continued)
<table><caption>**Table 5.** (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2">No.</th><th colspan="2">Moderate-to-severe repercussions on everyday life</th><th colspan="2">Univariate analysis</th><th colspan="2">Multivariate analysis</th></tr><tr><th>no. (%)</th><th>OR [95%CI]</th><th>p-value</th><th>OR [95%CI]</th><th>p-value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Nodules</td><td>No</td><td>114</td><td>44 (39)</td><td>Ref.</td><td rowspan="2">0.92</td><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>38</td><td>15 (39)</td><td>1.04 [0.48-2.19]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Ulcers</td><td>No</td><td>16</td><td>7 (44)</td><td>Ref.</td><td rowspan="2">0.67</td><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>136</td><td>52 (38)</td><td>1.26 [0.43-3.57]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Superinfection</td><td>No</td><td>10</td><td>5 (50)</td><td>Ref.</td><td rowspan="2">0.46</td><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>142</td><td>54 (38)</td><td>1.63 [0.43-6.11]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Blisters</td><td>No</td><td>7</td><td>3 (43)</td><td>Ref.</td><td rowspan="2">0.82</td><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>145</td><td>56 (39)</td><td>1.19 [0.23-5.6]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Head and/or neck lesions</td><td>No</td><td>102</td><td>32 (31)</td><td>Ref.</td><td rowspan="2">0.003</td><td>Ref.</td><td rowspan="2">0.005</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>43</td><td>25 (58)</td><td>3.04 [1.47-6.43]</td><td>3.97 [1.52-10.95]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Psychological distress</td><td>No</td><td>101</td><td>28 (28)</td><td>Ref.</td><td rowspan="2">&lt; 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>Ref.</td><td rowspan="2">&lt; 10<sup>-3</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>35</td><td>24 (69)</td><td>5.69 [2.52-13.56]</td><td>6.79 [2.47-20.42]</td></tr></tbody></table>

The incidence rate of GP consultations related to bed bugs was higher among women and children in our study. This result corroborates previous studies [26]. This does not necessarily mean that women or children are more likely to be affected by bed bugs. The incidence rate may reflect different behaviours in seeking healthcare, with women or children turning to their GPs more quickly and often than men, as shown in prior research [32, 33]. Some authors suggested, without any confirmation, that women and children may have a high sensitivity to bed bugs due to more delicate skin [27]. However, a US study assessing reactions to bed bugs showed no significant difference in sensitivity to bites between men and women [11].

Symptoms and clinical signs reported in this study by patients were similar to those previously reported [10]. As often reported in clinical studies, lesions were mainly located on exposed body parts [11, 27, 34]. Their frequencies are not precisely documented. In a US study on 474 patients, skin reactions were reported by 70% of respondents, 72% of whom had itchy red welts [11]. Studies and case reports also often mention psychological consequences [14]. In our study, insomnia and psychological distress were observed in 39% and 27% of patients, respectively. These findings are similar to those of a previous study on customers of US pest control services, in which 29% of patients reported insomnia, 22% mentioned "emotional distress", 20% had anxiety and 14% experienced stress [11]. Only a few studies have used evaluation scores [35, 36]. Our results, based on validated mental health scales, support previous findings and highlight the significant effect of infestations on mental health.

The main limitation of this study is the absence, for each case, of confirmation of bed bug infestation by an entomologist or disinfestation professional. The cases reported in this study were linked to bed bugs by GPs following information they received from their patients. The incidence rate may be overestimated because GPs could have wrongly linked some consultations to bed bugs. However, this study reflects actual life practices, where GPs cannot investigate bed bug infestation and must rely on questioning to make a diagnosis. Considering this limitation, this study has made it possible to establish an imperfect but essential estimate of the

<footnote>*acc., accommodation; CI, confidence interval; cs., consultation; HP, health professional; OR, odds ratio</footnote>
burden of disease in general practice. Another limitation is that incidences were based on declarative data reported by volunteer GPs. Participant GPs may have forgotten some cases. Alternatively, GPs may not have participated because they never saw bed bug infestations among their patients. GP participation was monitored during the study, mitigating incorrect reporting of bed bugs. In the absence of active participation, a reminder was sent by e-mail, and the GPs were contacted by telephone if they remained inactive. Finally, we collected only few data specifically on the infestation. This information was difficult for GPs to collect and investigate during consultations. To improve their participation to the study, we decided to limit the size of the questionnaire and to focus on the main objective of our study dealing with the clinical repercussion of bed bugs.

Despite these limits, this study estimated the burden of disease in the general practice of bed bug infestations and their clinical and psychological repercussions for patients. These data highlight the need for training for primary healthcare professionals. Improving their knowledge and capacity to confirm the link between symptoms and bed bug infestations could enhance patient care and orientation. These results will help tailor public health programs to the population's specific needs.

**Supporting information**

S1 Table. Regional repartition of the French population (census data) and of French general practitioners (GPs), target number of recruited GPs for the study and final repartition of recruited GPs.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Home characteristics and use of control measures in case of home infestations reported by patients seen in general practice consultations related to bed bugs in France between March 2019 and April 2020*.

(DOCX)

**Acknowledgments**

We thank all the GPs and their patients for their participation. We thank Andrew Meci for his proofreading.

**Author Contributions**

**Conceptualization:** Florent Hamaide-Defrocourt, Pauline Vasseur, Patricia Lefébure, Louise Rossignol, Nadia Younès, Clément Turbelin, Caroline Guerrisi, Thomas Hanslik, Thierry Blanchon, Mathieu Rivière.

**Data curation:** Bérenger Thomas, Florent Hamaide-Defrocourt, Ophélie Guyonvarch, Caroline Guerrisi.

**Formal analysis:** Bérenger Thomas, Titouan Launay, Romain Pons.

**Validation:** Thierry Blanchon.

**Writing – original draft:** Bérenger Thomas, Romain Pons.

**Writing – review & editing:** Bérenger Thomas, Florent Hamaide-Defrocourt, Titouan Launay, Pauline Vasseur, Ophélie Guyonvarch, Patricia Lefébure, Louise Rossignol, Nadia Younès, Clément Turbelin, Caroline Guerrisi, Thomas Hanslik, Thierry Blanchon, Mathieu Rivière, Romain Pons.
References

1. Potter MF. The History of Bed Bug Management—With Lessons from the Past. Am Entomol. 2011; 57 (1):14–25.

2. Davies TGE, Field LM, Williamson MS. The re-emergence of the bed bug as a nuisance pest: implica-
tions of resistance to the pyrethroid insecticides. Med Vet Entomol. 2012 Sep; 26(3):241–54. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-2915.2011.01006.x PMID: 22235873

3. Delaunay P. Human Travel and Traveling Bedbugs. J Travel Med. 2012 Oct 1; 19(6):373-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8305.2012.00653.x PMID: 23379708

4. Jourdain F, Delaunay P, Bérenger J-M, Perrin Y, Robert V. The Common bed bug (Cimex lectularius) in metropolitan France. Survey on the attitudes and practices of private- and public-sector professionals. Parasite. 2016; 23:38.

5. Wang C, Wen X. Bed Bug Infestations and Control Practices in China: Implications for Fighting the Global Bed Bug Resurgence. Insects. 2011 Apr 11; 2(2):83–95. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects2020083 PMID: 26467615

6. Hwang SW, Svoboda TJ, De Jong IJ, Kabasele KJ, Gogosis E. Bed Bug Infestations in an Urban Environment. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005 Apr; 11(4):533–8. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1104.041126 PMID: 15829190

7. Reinhardt K, Harder A, Holland S, Hooper J, Leake-Lyall C. Who Knows the Bed Bug? Knowledge of Adult Bed Bug Appearance Increases with People's Age in Three Counties of Great Britain. J Med Entomol. 2008 Sep; 45(5):956–8. https://doi.org/10.1603/0022-2585(2008)45[956:wktbbk]2.0.co;2 PMID: 18826041

8. Seidel C, Reinhardt K. Bugging Forecast: Unknown, Disliked, Occasionally Intimate. Bed Bugs in Germany Meet Unprepared People. Mulvenna J, editor. PLoS ONE. 2013 Jan 2; 8(1):e51083. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051083 PMID: 23300947

9. Doggett SL, Dwyer DE, Penas PF, Russell RC. Bed Bugs: Clinical Relevance and Control Options. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2012 Jan 1; 25(1):164–92. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.05015-11 PMID: 22232375

10. Goddard J, deShazo R. Bed Bugs (Cimex lectularius) and Clinical Consequences of Their Bites. J Am Med Assoc. 2009 Apr 1; 301(13):1358–66. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.405 PMID: 19336711

11. Potter F, Haynes KF, Connelly K, Deutsch M, Hardebeck E, Partin D, et al. The sensitivity spectrum: human reactions to bed bug bites. Pest Control Technol. 2010; 38(2):70–100.

12. Lai O, Ho D, Glick S, Jagdeo J. Bed bugs and possible transmission of human pathogens: a systematic review. Arch Dermatol Res. 2016 Oct; 308(8):531–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-016-1661-8 PMID: 27295087

13. Delaunay P, Blanc V, Del Giudice P, Levy-Bencheton A, Chosidow O, Marty P, et al. Bedbugs and Infectious Diseases. Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Jan 15; 52(2):200–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciq102 PMID: 21288844

14. Ashcroft R, Seko Y, Chan LF, Dere J, Kim J, McKenzie K. The mental health impact of bed bug infestations: a scoping review. Int J Public Health. 2015 Nov; 60(7):827–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-015-0713-8 PMID: 26298442

15. Potter MF, Haynes KF, Fredericks J. Bed bugs across America. Pestworld. 2015 Nov;4–11.

16. Richards L, Boase C, Gezan S, Cameron M. Are bed bug infestations on the increase within Greater London. J Environ Health Res. 2009; 9(1):17–24.

17. Kantor J. Seasonal variability in bed-bug (Cimex lectularius) activity in Western Europe, the United States, and Australia using search engine query data as a surrogate outbreak measure. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016 Sep; 75(3):627–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2016.04.025 PMID: 27543216

18. Sentana-Lledo D, Barbu CM, Ngo MN, Wu Y, Sethuraman K, Levy MZ. Seasons, Searches, and Inten-
tions: What The Internet Can Tell Us About The Bed Bug (Hemiptera: Cimicidae) Epidemic. J Med Ento-
mol. 2016 Jan; 53(1):116–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjv158 PMID: 26474879

19. Flahault A, Blanchon T, Dorléans Y, Toubiana L, Vibert JF, Valleron AJ. Virtual surveillance of commu-
nicable diseases: a 20-year experience in France. Stat Methods Med Res. 2006 Oct; 15(5):413–21.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280206071639 PMID: 17089946

20. Ware JE, Gandek B. Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Nov; 51(11):903–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356 (98)00081-x PMID: 9817107

21. Sheehan DV, Harnett-Sheehan K, Raj BA. The measurement of disability: Int Clin Psychopharmacol.
1996 Jun; 11(Supplement 3):89–95.

22. Souty C, Turbelin C, Blanchon T, Hanslik T, Le Strat Y, Boëlle P-Y. Improving disease incidence estimates in primary care surveillance systems. Popul Health Metr. 2014 Dec; 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-014-0019-8 PMID: 25435814
23. R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2019. https://www.R-project.org/

24. British Pest Control Association. BPCA National Survey. 2014.

25. Ralph N, Jones HE, Thorpe LE. Self-Reported Bed Bug Infestation Among New York City Residents. J Environ Health. 2013; 76(1):38-45.

26. Wang C, Singh N, Zha C, Cooper R. Bed Bugs: Prevalence in Low-Income Communities, Resident's Reactions, and Implementation of a Low-Cost Inspection Protocol. J Med Entomol. 2016 May; 53 (3):639-46. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjw018 PMID: 27049026

27. Totkova A, Totka A, Sevcikova L, Argalasova L, Cibulkova A, Simko M. Problems with the bedbug (Cimex lectularius) in Slovakia. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2019 Sep 19; 26(3):400-4. https://doi.org/10.26444/aaem/103898 PMID: 31559793

28. Sheele JM, Crandall CJ, Chang BF, Arko BL, Dunn CT, Negrete A. Risk Factors for Bed Bugs Among Urban Emergency Department Patients. J Community Health. 2019 Dec; 44(6):1061-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-019-00681-2 PMID: 31152304

29. Racon-Bouzon C. La punaise de lit, un fléau à l'ombre des politiques publiques, ça pique! Prévenir et agir ensemble pour ne plus subir. 2020 Sep. https://www.racon-bouzon.fr/_files/ugd/aad295_2c173cb9f286472d9a19f681d6d4a28a.pdf

30. Sheele JM, Crandall CJ, Chang BF, Arko BL, Dunn CT, Negrete A. Characteristics of Bed Bug Infested Patients in the Emergency Department. Emerg Med Int. 2019 May 9;2019. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/8721829 PMID: 31210990

31. Kilpinen O, Jensen K-MV, Kristensen M. Bed bug problems in Denmark, with a European perspective. In: Proceedings of the 6th International conference on urban pests, 13-16 July 2008, Budapest, Hungary. Veszprem, Hungary: OOK-Press Kft; p. 395-9.

32. Scaife B, Gill P, Heywood P, Neal R. Socio-economic characteristics of adult frequent attenders in general practice: secondary analysis of data. Fam Pract. 2000 Aug 1; 17(4):298-304. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/17.4.298 PMID: 10934176

33. Kapur N, Hunt I, Lunt M, McBeth J, Creed F, Macfarlane G. Primary care consultation predictors in men and women: a cohort study. Br J Gen Pract. 2005; 55(511):108-13. PMID: 15720931

34. Parola P, Izri A. Bedbugs. Solomon CG, editor. N Engl J Med. 2020 Jun 4; 382(23):2230-7. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMcp1905840 PMID: 32492304

35. Goddard J, de Shazo R. Psychological Effects of Bed Bug Attacks (Cimex lectularius L.). Am J Med. 2012 Jan; 125(1):101-3.

36. Susser SR, Perron S, Fournier M, Jacques L, Denis G, Tessier F, et al. Mental health effects from urban bed bug infestation (Cimex lectularius L.): a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2012; 2(5): e000838. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-000838 PMID: 23015597