BACKGROUND: Commercial insurance claims data are a stable and consistent source of information on Lyme disease diagnoses in the United States and can contribute to our understanding of overall disease burden and the tracking of epidemiological trends. Algorithms consisting of diagnosis codes and antimicrobial treatment information have been used to identify Lyme disease diagnoses in claims data, but there might be opportunity to improve their accuracy. METHODS: We developed three modified versions of our existing claims-based Lyme disease algorithm; each reflected refined criteria regarding antimicrobials prescribed and/or maximum days between diagnosis code and qualifying prescription claim. We applied each to a large national commercial claims database to identify Lyme disease diagnoses during 2016-2019. We then compared characteristics of Lyme disease diagnoses identified by each of the modified algorithms to those identified by our original algorithm to assess differences from expected trends in demographics, seasonality, and geography. RESULTS: Observed differences in characteristics of patients with diagnoses identified by the three modified algorithms and our original algorithm were minimal, and differences in age and sex, in particular, were small enough that they could have been due to chance. However, one modified algorithm resulted in proportionally more diagnoses in men, during peak summer months, and in high-incidence jurisdictions, more closely reflecting epidemiological trends documented through public health surveillance. This algorithm limited treatment to only first-line recommended antimicrobials and shortened the timeframe between a Lyme disease diagnosis code and qualifying prescription claim. CONCLUSIONS: As compared to our original algorithm, a modified algorithm that limits the antimicrobials prescribed and shortens the timeframe between a diagnosis code and a qualifying prescription claim might more accurately identify Lyme disease diagnoses when utilizing insurance claims data for supplementary, routine identification and monitoring of Lyme disease diagnoses.

CONTEXT: In the northeastern United States, recommendations to prevent diseases spread by black-legged ticks (Ixodes scapularis) and lone star ticks (Amblyomma americanum) often rely on individuals to use personal protection or yard-based strategies. The 4-Poster deer treatment stations (4-Posters) suppress tick populations by treating deer hosts with acaricide, potentially offering a community-wide approach for reducing tick-borne diseases in endemic areas. The 4-Poster deployment logistics in mainland community settings are not well documented but are needed for future public health tick control efforts. PROGRAM: As part of a public health research effort to design a population-based 4-Poster effectiveness study aimed at reducing tick-borne disease incidence, TickNET researchers partnered with the Town of Ridgefield (Connecticut) to understand the feasibility and operational logistics of deploying 4-Posters on public land within a residential community to inform future public health interventions by municipalities or vector control agencies. IMPLEMENTATION: We deployed three 4-Posters on a municipal property from July to December 2020 and used motion-activated cameras to record wildlife activity nearby. We documented per-device operational details, costs, materials consumed, and animal activity. EVALUATION: Operation of 4-Posters was feasible, and device challenges were easily remedied. Deer visitation and heavy nontarget animal use were documented at all devices. Unexpectedly, monthly corn consumption was not correlated with monthly deer-view days. The monthly cost per device was US $1279 or US $305 per hectare with an average 21 minutes of weekly service time. DISCUSSION: Use of 4-Posters by communities, public health agencies, or vector control programs may be a practicable addition to tick management programs in tick-borne disease endemic areas in the Northeast. Such programs should carefully consider local and state regulations, follow manufacturer and pesticide label guidelines, and include wildlife monitoring. High labor costs incurred in this project could be mitigated by training vector control agency or municipality staff to service 4-Posters.

The 4-Poster Tick Control Deer Feeder (4-poster) device applies acaricide to white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and can reduce populations of the blacklegged tick (Ixodes scapularis), which transmits the agents of Lyme disease, anaplasmosis, babesiosis, and Powassan virus disease in the Northeastern United States. While 4-poster devices have the potential to provide community-wide management of blacklegged ticks in Lyme disease endemic areas, no recent study has assessed their acceptability among residents. We conducted a survey of residents from 16 counties with high annual average Lyme disease incidence (≥ 10 cases per 100,000 persons between 2013 and 2017) in Connecticut and New York to understand perceptions and experiences related to tickborne diseases, support or concerns for placement of 4-poster devices in their community, and opinions on which entities should be responsible for tick control on private properties. Overall, 37% of 1652 respondents (5.5% response rate) would support placement of a 4-poster device on their own property, 71% would support placement on other private land in their community, and 90% would support placement on public land. Respondents who were male, rented their property, resided on larger properties, or were very or extremely concerned about encountering ticks on their property were each more likely to support placement of 4-poster devices on their own property. The primary reason for not supporting placement of a 4-poster device on one's own property was the need for weekly service visits from pest control professionals, whereas the top reason for not supporting placement on other land (private or public) was safety concerns. Most respondents (61%) felt property owners should be responsible for tick control on private properties. Communities considering 4-poster devices as part of a tick management strategy should consider targeting owners of larger properties and placing devices on public lands.

BACKGROUND: Nasopharyngeal specimens (NPS) are commonly used for SARS-CoV-2 testing but can be uncomfortable for patients. Self-collected saliva or anterior nasal specimens (ANS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection are less invasive but the sensitivity of these specimen types has not been thoroughly evaluated. METHODS: During September-November 2020, 730 adults undergoing SARS-CoV-2 testing at community testing events and homeless shelters in Denver provided self-collected saliva and ANS specimens before NPS collection and answered a short survey about symptoms and specimen preference. Specimens were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by rRT-PCR; viral culture was performed on a subset of specimens positive by rRT-PCR. Sensitivity of saliva and ANS for SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR was measured against NPS. Subgroup analyses included test outcomes by symptom status and culture results. RESULTS: Sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR appeared higher for saliva than for ANS (85% vs. 80%) and among symptomatic participants than among those without symptoms (94% vs. 29% for saliva; 87% vs. 50% for ANS). Among participants with culture-positive SARS-CoV-2 by any specimen type, sensitivity of saliva and ANS by rRT-PCR was 94% and 100%, respectively. Saliva and ANS were equally preferred by participants; most would undergo NPS again despite being least preferred. CONCLUSIONS: Saliva was slightly more sensitive than ANS for SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR. Both saliva and ANS reliably detected SARS-CoV-2 among participants with symptoms. Self-collected saliva and ANS offer practical advantages, are preferred by patients, and might be most useful for testing people with COVID-19 symptoms.

Entomological measures have long served as proxies for human risk of Lyme disease (LD) and other tickborne diseases (TBDs) in endemic areas of the United States, despite conflicting results regarding the correlation between these measures and human disease outcomes. Using data from a previous TBD intervention study in Connecticut, Maryland and New York, we evaluated whether human-tick encounters can serve as an accurate proxy for risk of TBDs in areas where LD and other Ixodes scapularis-transmitted infections are common. Among 2,590 households consisting of 4,210 individuals, experiencing a tick encounter was associated with an increased risk of both self-reported (RR = 3.17, 95% CI: 2.05, 4.91) and verified TBD (RR = 2.60, 95% CI: 1.39, 4.84) at the household level. Household characteristics associated with experiencing any tick encounter were residence in Connecticut (aOR = 1.86, 95% CI: 1.38, 2.51) or New York (aOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.25, 2.22), head of household having a graduate level education (aOR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.04, 2.08), owning a pet (aOR = 1.80, 95% CI: 1.46, 2.23) and a property size of 2 acres or larger (aOR = 2.30, 95% CI: 1.42, 3.70). Results for individual characteristics were similar to those for households. Future prevention studies in LD endemic areas should consider using human-tick encounters as a robust proxy for TBD risk.

Consistent and effective use of personal prevention methods for tickborne diseases, including Lyme disease (LD), is dependent on risk awareness. To improve our understanding of the general U.S. population's experiences with tick exposure and use of personal prevention methods, we used data from ConsumerStyles, a web-based, nationally representative questionnaire on health-related topics. Questions addressed tick bites and LD diagnosis in the last year, use of personal prevention methods to prevent tick bites, and willingness to receive a theoretical LD vaccine. Of 10,551 participants surveyed over three years, 12.3 % reported a tick bite for themselves or a household member in the last year, including 15.4 % of participants in high LD incidence (LDI) states, 16.3 % in states neighboring high LDI states, and 9.4 % in low LDI states. Participants in high LDI states and neighboring states were most likely to use personal prevention methods, though 46.6 % of participants in high LDI states and 53.9 % in neighboring states reported not using any method. Participants in low LDI states, adults ≥ 75 years of age, those with higher incomes, and those living in urban housing tended to be less likely to practice personal prevention methods. Likeliness to receive a theoretical LD vaccine was high in high LDI (64.5 %), neighboring (52.5 %), and low LDI (49.7 %) states. Targeted educational efforts are needed to ensure those in high LDI and neighboring states, particularly older adults, are aware of their risk of LD and recommended personal prevention methods.

Atypical manifestations that can be severe and difficult to diagnosis develop in 5%-20% of patients with cat-scratch disease. To clarify the epidemiology of atypical cat-scratch disease in the United States, we analyzed data from the 2005-2014 MarketScan national health insurance claims databases by using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification, codes for cat-scratch disease and selected atypical manifestations: retinitis/neuroretinitis, conjunctivitis, neuritis, encephalitis, hepatosplenic disease, osteomyelitis, erythema nodosum, and endocarditis. Atypical cat-scratch disease accounted for 1.5% of all cases, resulting in an average annual incidence of 0.7 cases/100,000 population. Atypical cat-scratch disease was associated with increased risk for hospitalization (risk ratios 8.77, 95% CI 6.56-11.72) and occurred most often in female patients 10-14 years of age. Ocular (48.7%), hepatosplenic (24.6%), and neurologic (13.8%) manifestations were most common among patients. A more comprehensive understanding of atypical cat-scratch disease can improve patient diagnosis and potentially elucidate pathophysiology of the disease.