Tick Bites and Lyme Disease in an Endemic Setting: Problematic Use of Serologic Testing and Prophylactic Antibiotic Therapy | Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology | JAMA | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.206.238.77. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
CDC.  Lyme disease—United States, 1991-1992.  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep.1993;42:345-348.Google Scholar
2.
Costello CM, Steere AC, Pinkerton RE, Feder Jr HM. A prospective study of tick bites in an endemic area for Lyme disease.  J Infect Dis.1989;159:136-139.Google Scholar
3.
Shapiro ED, Gerber MA, Holabird NB.  et al.  A controlled trial of antimicrobial prophylaxis for Lyme disease after deer-tick bites.  N Engl J Med.1992;327:1769-1773.Google Scholar
4.
Agre F, Schwartz R. The value of early treatment of deer tick bites for the prevention of Lyme disease.  AJDC.1993;147:945-947.Google Scholar
5.
Warshafsky S, Nowakowski J, Nadelman RB, Kamer RS, Peterson SJ, Wormser GP. Efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of Lyme disease.  J Gen Intern Med.1996;11:329-333.Google Scholar
6.
Eppes SC, Klein JD, Caputo GM, Rose CD. Physician beliefs, attitudes, and approaches toward Lyme disease in an endemic area.  Clin Pediatr (Phila).1994;33:130-134.Google Scholar
7.
Coyle BS, Strickland GT, Liang YY, Pena C, McCarter R, Israel E. The public health impact of Lyme disease in Maryland.  J Infect Dis.1996;173:1260-1262.Google Scholar
8.
Ziska MH, Donta ST, Demarest FC. Physician preferences in the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease in the United States.  Infection.1996;24:182-186.Google Scholar
9.
Bakken LL, Case KL, Callister SM, Bourdeau NJ, Schell RF. Performance of 45 laboratories participating in a proficiency testing program for Lyme disease serology.  JAMA.1992;268:891-895.Google Scholar
10.
Gerber MA, Bieluch V, Levitz RE, Parry MF, Sabetta J, Schleiter G. Appropriateness of serologic tests and parenteral antibiotic therapy for patients with presumed Lyme disease.  Conn Med.1995;59:195-196.Google Scholar
11.
Craven RB, Quan TJ, Bailey RE.  et al.  Improved serodiagnostic testing for Lyme disease: results of a multicenter serologic evaluation.  Emerg Infect Dis.1996;2:136-140.Google Scholar
12.
Ley C, Le C, Olshen EM, Reingold AL. The use of serologic tests for Lyme disease in a prepaid health plan in California.  JAMA.1994;271:460-463.Google Scholar
13.
Nachamkin I, Riddle DL, Feldman M, Edelstein PH. Utilization of tests for Lyme disease antibody at a university hospital.  Clin Diagn Lab Immunol.1996;3:287-289.Google Scholar
14.
Steinberg SH, Strickland GT, Pena C, Israel E. Lyme disease surveillance in Maryland, 1992.  Ann Epidemiol.1996;6:24-29.Google Scholar
15.
Maryland Dept of Health and Mental Hygiene, Epidemiology and Disease Control Program.  Selected communicable diseases in Maryland in 1995.  Md Med J.1996;45:715-718.Google Scholar
16.
Dean AG, Dean JA, Coulombier D.  et al.  Epi Info, Version 6: A Word Processing, Database, and Statistics Program for Public Health on IBM-Compatible Microcomputers.  Atlanta, Ga: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1994.
17.
Falco RC, Fish D. Ticks parasitizing humans in a Lyme disease endemic area of southern New York State.  Am J Epidemiol.1988;128:1146-1152.Google Scholar
18.
Dressler F, Yoshinari NH, Steere AC. The T-cell proliferative assay in the diagnosis of Lyme disease.  Ann Intern Med.1991;115:533-539.Google Scholar
19.
Dattwyler RJ, Volkman DJ, Luft BJ, Halperin JJ, Thomas J, Golightly MG. Seronegative Lyme disease: dissociation of specific T- and B-lymphocyte responses to Borrelia burgdorferi N Engl J Med.1988;319:1441-1446.Google Scholar
20.
Feder Jr HM, Gerber MA, Luger SW, Ryan RW. Persistence of serum antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi in patients treated for Lyme disease.  Clin Infect Dis.1992;15:788-793.Google Scholar
21.
Aguero-Rosenfeld ME, Nowakowski J, Bittker S, Cooper D, Nadelman RB, Wormser GP. Evolution of the serologic response to Borrelia burgdorferi in treated patients with culture-confirmed erythema migrans.  J Clin Microbiol.1996;34:1-9.Google Scholar
22.
Steere AC, Hutchinson GJ, Rahn DW.  et al.  Treatment of the early manifestations of Lyme disease.  Ann Intern Med.1983;99:22-26.Google Scholar
23.
Dattwyler RJ, Volkman DJ, Conaty SM, Platkin SP, Luft BJ. Amoxycillin plus probenecid versus doxycycline for erythema migrans borreliosis.  Lancet.1990;336:1404-1406.Google Scholar
24.
Gerber MA, Shapiro ED, Burke GS, Parcells VJ, Bell GL. Lyme disease in children in southeastern Connecticut: Pediatric Lyme Disease Study Group.  N Engl J Med.1996;335:1270-1274.Google Scholar
25.
Nadelman RD, Nowakowski J, Wormser GP. Can Lyme borreliosis be prevented after tick bite?  Lancet.1993;342:1052.Google Scholar
26.
 Antibiotic prophylaxis of Lyme disease following recognized bite: Bacterial Zoonoses Branch, Division of Vector-Borne Diseases National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control.  Conn Med.1991;55:691-693.Google Scholar
27.
Wormser GP. Lyme disease: insights into the use of antimicrobials for prevention and treatment in the context of experience with other spirochetal infections.  Mt Sinai J Med.1995;62:188-195.Google Scholar
28.
Magid D, Schwartz B, Craft J, Schwartz JS. Prevention of Lyme disease after tick bites: a cost-effectiveness analysis.  N Engl J Med.1992;327:534-541.Google Scholar
29.
Sood SK, Salzman MB, Johnson BJ.  et al.  Duration of tick attachment as a predictor of the risk of Lyme disease in an area in which Lyme disease is endemic.  J Infect Dis.1997;175:996-999.Google Scholar
30.
Steere AC, Taylor E, Wilson ML, Levine JF, Spielman A. Longitudinal assessment of the clinical and epidemiological features of Lyme disease in a defined population.  J Infect Dis.1986;154:295-300.Google Scholar
31.
Bingham PM, Galetta SL, Athreya B, Sladky J. Neurologic manifestations in children with Lyme disease.  Pediatrics.1995;96:1053-1056.Google Scholar
32.
Nocton JJ, Steere AC. Lyme disease.  Adv Intern Med.1995;40:69-117.Google Scholar
33.
CDC.  Recommendations for test performance and interpretation from the Second National Conference on Serologic Diagnosis of Lyme Disease.  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep.1995;44:590-591.Google Scholar
34.
Dressler F, Whalen JA, Reinhardt BN, Steere AC. Western blotting in the serodiagnosis of Lyme disease.  J Infect Dis.1993;167:392-400.Google Scholar
35.
Johnson BJB, Robbins KE, Bailey RE.  et al.  Serodiagnosis of Lyme disease: accuracy of a two-step approach using a flagella-based ELISA and immunoblotting.  J Infect Dis.1996;174:346-353.Google Scholar
36.
Ettestad PJ, Campbell GL, Welbel SF.  et al.  Biliary complications in the treatment of unsubstantiated Lyme disease.  J Infect Dis.1995;171:356-361.Google Scholar
Original Contribution
January 21, 1998

Tick Bites and Lyme Disease in an Endemic Setting: Problematic Use of Serologic Testing and Prophylactic Antibiotic Therapy

Author Affiliations

From the Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md (Drs Fix and Strickland), and the Kent County Health Department, Chestertown, Md (Dr Grant).

JAMA. 1998;279(3):206-210. doi:10.1001/jama.279.3.206
Abstract

Context.— The use of serologic testing to diagnose Lyme disease (LD) is a source of controversy. Expert recommendations also discourage the routine use of antibiotic therapy for prophylaxis of LD following tick bites, but the extent to which physicians in endemic areas have adopted these recommendations is not known.

Objective.— To assess the pattern of use of serologic testing and antibiotic therapy for tick bites and LD and associated charges for management in an endemic area.

Design.— Active surveillance of patient-physician encounters for tick bites and LD.

Setting.— Primary care practices on the Eastern Shore of Maryland.

Patients.— Consecutive sample of 232 patients with tick bites, LD (defined by physician diagnosis in medical record), and suspected LD (physician notation of possible, but not definite LD) seen in 1995.

Main Outcome Measures.— Serologic testing for LD, test results, antibiotic therapy, and direct costs of management.

Results.— Surveillance identified 142 patients (61.2%) with diagnoses of tick bites, 40 patients (17.2%) with LD, and 50 patients (21.6%) with suspected LD. Of the 142 patients seen for tick bites, 95 (67%) underwent serologic testing for LD. Of these, 93 patients had initial negative or equivocal results; 24 (26%) of the 93 had convalescent testing, with 1 seroconversion. Seventy-eight patients (55%) with a diagnosis of tick bite received antibiotic therapy. No patients with tick bite developed clinical LD. Serologic testing for LD was performed for 36 patients (90%) with a diagnosis of LD and 46 patients (92%) with suspected LD. In most cases, antibiotics were prescribed before serologic test results became available. Convalescent testing was not performed for 37 (86%) of the 43 patients with suspected LD who had initial negative or equivocal results. Of these 37 patients, 25 (68%) did not receive antibiotic therapy. Direct charges for treatment of these 232 patients totaled $47595, one third of which was attributable to serologic testing. A total of 32% of direct charges were for patients with tick bites, 48% were for patients with LD, and 20% were for patients with suspected LD.

Conclusions.— In this setting, most patients consulting physicians for tick bites received prophylactic antibiotic therapy of unproven efficacy and underwent unnecessary, costly serologic testing. Despite almost universal use in this study, serologic testing for LD did not appear to influence treatment of patients diagnosed as having LD.

×