Cargando…

Tick killing in situ before removal to prevent allergic and anaphylactic reactions in humans: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: Tick anaphylaxis is a potentially fatal outcome of improper tick removal and management. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether killing ticks in-situ with ether-containing sprays or permethrin cream, before careful removal by the mouthparts could reduce this risk. METHODS: This was a prospect...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Taylor, Benjamin William Phillips, Ratchford, Andrew, van Nunen, Sheryl, Burns, Brian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6494660/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31089457
http://dx.doi.org/10.5415/apallergy.2019.9.e15
_version_ 1783415262026924032
author Taylor, Benjamin William Phillips
Ratchford, Andrew
van Nunen, Sheryl
Burns, Brian
author_facet Taylor, Benjamin William Phillips
Ratchford, Andrew
van Nunen, Sheryl
Burns, Brian
author_sort Taylor, Benjamin William Phillips
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Tick anaphylaxis is a potentially fatal outcome of improper tick removal and management. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether killing ticks in-situ with ether-containing sprays or permethrin cream, before careful removal by the mouthparts could reduce this risk. METHODS: This was a prospective study at Mona Vale Hospital Emergency Department (ED) in Sydney, New South Wales, over a 6-month period during the peak tick season of 2016. Tick removal methods, allergic/anaphylactic reactions were recorded for patients presenting with ticks in situ or having already removed the ticks themselves. Primary endpoint was allergic/anaphylactic reaction after tick killing/removal. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-one patients met study inclusion criteria. Sixty-one patients (28 known tick-hypersensitive) had ticks killed with Wart-Off Freeze or Lyclear Scabies Cream (5% w/w permethrin) before removal with fine-tipped forceps or Tick Twister. Three patients (2 known tick-hypersensitive) had allergic reactions (5%), none anaphylactic. The 2 known hypersensitive patients suffered reactions during the killing process and the third patient had a particularly embedded tick meaning it could not be removed solely by mouthparts. Fifty patients presented to the ED posttick removal by various methods, none using either fine-tipped forceps or Tick Twister, of which 43 (86%) experienced allergic reactions – 2 anaphylactic. Five patients suffered allergic reactions before presentation despite no attempt at kill or removal, but ticks had likely been disturbed by some other method. Five patients had live ticks removed in ED – 3 refused killing and had no reaction despite 1 having known hypersensitivity; 2 had ticks on eyelids contraindicating killing, 1 with known hypersensitivity but both had allergic reactions post removal. CONCLUSION: Results support killing ticks in-situ before careful removal by mouthparts to reduce allergic/anaphylactic reactions although further research is still required.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6494660
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64946602019-05-14 Tick killing in situ before removal to prevent allergic and anaphylactic reactions in humans: a cross-sectional study Taylor, Benjamin William Phillips Ratchford, Andrew van Nunen, Sheryl Burns, Brian Asia Pac Allergy Original Article BACKGROUND: Tick anaphylaxis is a potentially fatal outcome of improper tick removal and management. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether killing ticks in-situ with ether-containing sprays or permethrin cream, before careful removal by the mouthparts could reduce this risk. METHODS: This was a prospective study at Mona Vale Hospital Emergency Department (ED) in Sydney, New South Wales, over a 6-month period during the peak tick season of 2016. Tick removal methods, allergic/anaphylactic reactions were recorded for patients presenting with ticks in situ or having already removed the ticks themselves. Primary endpoint was allergic/anaphylactic reaction after tick killing/removal. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-one patients met study inclusion criteria. Sixty-one patients (28 known tick-hypersensitive) had ticks killed with Wart-Off Freeze or Lyclear Scabies Cream (5% w/w permethrin) before removal with fine-tipped forceps or Tick Twister. Three patients (2 known tick-hypersensitive) had allergic reactions (5%), none anaphylactic. The 2 known hypersensitive patients suffered reactions during the killing process and the third patient had a particularly embedded tick meaning it could not be removed solely by mouthparts. Fifty patients presented to the ED posttick removal by various methods, none using either fine-tipped forceps or Tick Twister, of which 43 (86%) experienced allergic reactions – 2 anaphylactic. Five patients suffered allergic reactions before presentation despite no attempt at kill or removal, but ticks had likely been disturbed by some other method. Five patients had live ticks removed in ED – 3 refused killing and had no reaction despite 1 having known hypersensitivity; 2 had ticks on eyelids contraindicating killing, 1 with known hypersensitivity but both had allergic reactions post removal. CONCLUSION: Results support killing ticks in-situ before careful removal by mouthparts to reduce allergic/anaphylactic reactions although further research is still required. Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology 2019-04-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6494660/ /pubmed/31089457 http://dx.doi.org/10.5415/apallergy.2019.9.e15 Text en Copyright © 2019. Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Taylor, Benjamin William Phillips
Ratchford, Andrew
van Nunen, Sheryl
Burns, Brian
Tick killing in situ before removal to prevent allergic and anaphylactic reactions in humans: a cross-sectional study
title Tick killing in situ before removal to prevent allergic and anaphylactic reactions in humans: a cross-sectional study
title_full Tick killing in situ before removal to prevent allergic and anaphylactic reactions in humans: a cross-sectional study
title_fullStr Tick killing in situ before removal to prevent allergic and anaphylactic reactions in humans: a cross-sectional study
title_full_unstemmed Tick killing in situ before removal to prevent allergic and anaphylactic reactions in humans: a cross-sectional study
title_short Tick killing in situ before removal to prevent allergic and anaphylactic reactions in humans: a cross-sectional study
title_sort tick killing in situ before removal to prevent allergic and anaphylactic reactions in humans: a cross-sectional study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6494660/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31089457
http://dx.doi.org/10.5415/apallergy.2019.9.e15
work_keys_str_mv AT taylorbenjaminwilliamphillips tickkillinginsitubeforeremovaltopreventallergicandanaphylacticreactionsinhumansacrosssectionalstudy
AT ratchfordandrew tickkillinginsitubeforeremovaltopreventallergicandanaphylacticreactionsinhumansacrosssectionalstudy
AT vannunensheryl tickkillinginsitubeforeremovaltopreventallergicandanaphylacticreactionsinhumansacrosssectionalstudy
AT burnsbrian tickkillinginsitubeforeremovaltopreventallergicandanaphylacticreactionsinhumansacrosssectionalstudy