Paul Mead, MD MPH Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Division of Vector- borne Diseases Fort Collins Colorado 

### TickNet Lyme and Other Tickborne Diseases

Prevention Study

### TickNet  Established in 2007 to foster coordination among public health officials on surveillance, research, education, and prevention of tickborne diseases  Collaborators: state & local health departments, CDC DVBD, DPDM & Emerging Infections Program (EIP)  Current extramural program goals:  Support and enhance surveillance (ELC)*  Applied research (EIP) *Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity Cooperative Agreement

### TickNet Extramural Funding 2010 $1,876,346

Tier 1 ELC EIP site Tier 2 ELC

Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity cooperative agreement (ELC) Emerging Infections Program (EIP)

### Current TickNet Research Projects  Laboratory Survey (CT, MD, MN, NY) Two stage survey to evaluate national testing volumes, test type, and rate of positivity among commercial, clinical and state laboratories for 5 tickborne diseases

### Current TickNet Research Projects  Laboratory Survey (CT, MD, MN, NY)  Underreporting Study (MD, MN, NY) Quantify underreporting of physician - diagnosed Lyme disease and assess medical record coding practices

### Current TickNet Research Projects  Laboratory Survey (CT, MD, MN, NY)  Underreporting Study (MD, MN, NY)  Active Surveillance for RMSF and Erythema Migrans in Western Tennessee (TN) Active surveillance to better define epidemiology and clinical features of spotted fever group rickettsioses and EM in four west- central Tennessee counties

### Current TickNet Research Projects  Laboratory Survey (CT, MD, MN, NY)  Underreporting Study (MD, MN, NY)  Active Surveillance for RMSF and Lyme - like Illness in Western Tennessee (TN)  Lyme and Other Tickborne Diseases Prevention Study (CT, MD, NY)

### Lyme and Other Tickborne Diseases

Prevention Study  Not a pesticide or IPM trial  Randomized, blinded, placebo - controlled trial to assess the efficacy of a targeted, single, springtime application of a commercially available acaricide  Primary outcome measure is prevention of human illness due to tickborne diseases

### Pesticides Kill Ticks  Single application of granular deltamethrin reduced nymphal I. scapularis 95% at 9 days 1  Single spray application of bifenthrin (Talstar) significantly reduced I. scapularis nymphs, larvae, and adults up to 41 weeks post spray2 1. Schultze et al. Ent Soc Am 2001 2. Rand et al. J Med Ent 2010

### Substantial Minority of Households Use Chemical Pesticides to Kill Ticks  29% of 2,400 Connecticut households used within the previous year 1  7% of 900 New England/Mid Atlantic households used currently2  Applications up to 4 times per year

1. Gould et al. Vector- Borne Zoo Dis 2007 2. CDC Unpublished data

### The Problem Residential acaricide use has not been shown to reduce tickborne disease in humans  If it doesn’t work, people shouldn’t use it  If it does work...

 evidence to promote greater usage  data need for cost/benefit analysis  impetus for finding safer acaricides or other methods of yard - based control

### LTDPS Methods I  ~1600 households in 3 states (NY, CT, MD)  Recruited through fliers, advertisements, and targeted mailings to county residents  Inclusion criteria  Households with > 2 residents  Freestanding, private property,  Lot size 1⁄2 to 5 acres  Not within 100 feet of water bodies  Not treated in previous year

### Study Locations New York  Dutchess Connecticut  Fairfield Maryland  Baltimore  Howard  Harford

### LTDPS Methods II  Houses randomized to receive single application of water or bifenthrin  Applications between May 1 and June 15 using backpack sprayer  Applied to ecotone 10 feet into lawn and 20 feet into brush or wooded areas  Post -treatment tick collection and pathogen testing for 10% of properties67%



### Where the wild ticks are

22% 2% Stafford, CAES, 2007

### Outcome measures  Monthly surveys to ascertain tick bites and ticks found on participants and pets  Self- reported tickborne disease during study period  Medical record review to validate reported illness

### Timeline 2011  Mar - Apr Enroll and survey  May - June Randomize and treat  June - Sept Monthly surveys  Oct - Nov Final survey, chart review

### Acknowledgments Connecticut Emerging Infections Program Connecticut Department of Public Health School of Public Health at Yale University James Meek Julie Ray Neeta Connally Maryland Emerging Infections Program Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Katherine Feldman Erin Jones Patricia Ryan S.B. Wee New York State Emerging Infections Program New York Department of Health Bryon Backenson Jennifer Hallisey Gary Lukacik Mark VanDeusen

### Acknowledgments

Division of Vector- Borne Diseases Alison Hinckley Ashley Kay Kiersten Kugeler Jennifer McQuiston Anna Perea Joe Piesman Mark Dolan Emily Zielinski - Gutierrez Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria Barbara Herwaldt CDC

Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this presentation are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

### For more information visit:

www.betickfree.com