Willingness and capacity of publicly-funded vector control programs in the USA to engage in tick management.

BACKGROUND: The vast majority of vector-borne diseases in the USA are associated with mosquitoes or ticks. Mosquito control is often conducted as part of community programs run by publicly-funded entities. By contrast, tick control focuses primarily on individual residential properties and is implemented predominantly by homeowners and the private pest control firms they contract. We surveyed publicly-funded vector control programs (VCPs), presumed to focus mainly on mosquitoes, to determine what tick-related services they currently offer, and their interest in and capacity to expand existing services or provide new ones. METHODS: We distributed a survey to VCPs in the Northeast, Upper Midwest and Pacific Coast states of the USA, where humans are at risk for bites by tick vectors (Ixodes scapularis or Ixodes pacificus) of agents causing Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases. The data we report are based on responses from 118 VCPs engaged in vector control and with at least some activities focused on ticks. RESULTS: Despite our survey targeting geographic regions where ticks and tick-borne diseases are persistent and increasing public health concerns, only 11% (12/114) of VCPs reported they took direct action to suppress ticks questing in the environment. The most common tick-related activities conducted by the VCPs were tick bite prevention education for the public (70%; 75/107 VCPs) and tick surveillance (48%; 56/116). When asked which services they would most likely include as part of a comprehensive tick management program, tick bite prevention education (90%; 96/107), tick surveillance (89%; 95/107) and tick suppression guidance for the public (74%; 79/107) were the most common services selected. Most VCPs were also willing to consider engaging in activities to suppress ticks on public lands (68%; 73/107), but few were willing to consider suppressing ticks on privately owned land such as residential properties (15%; 16/107). Across all potential tick-related services, funding was reported as the biggest obstacle to program expansion or development, followed by personnel. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the hesitancy of VCPs to provide tick suppression services on private properties and the high risk for tick bites in peridomestic settings, suppression of ticks on residential properties by private pest control operators will likely play an important role in the tick suppression landscape in the USA for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, VCPs can assist in this effort by providing locally relevant guidelines to homeowners and private pest control firms regarding best practices for residential tick suppression efforts and associated efficacy evaluations. Publicly-funded VCPs are also well positioned to educate the public on personal tick bite prevention measures and to collect tick surveillance data that provide information on the risk of human encounters with ticks within their jurisdictions.

Efficacy of unregulated minimum risk tick repellent products evaluated with Ixodes scapularis nymphs in a human skin bioassay.

BACKGROUND: The majority of vector-borne disease cases in the USA are caused by pathogens spread by ticks, most commonly the blacklegged tick, Ixodes scapularis. Personal protection against tick bites, including use of repellents, is the primary defense against tick-borne diseases. Tick repellents registered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are well documented to be safe as well as effective against ticks. Another group of tick repellent products, 25(b) exempt or minimum risk products, use alternative, mostly botanically derived, active ingredients. These are considered to pose minimal risk to human health and therefore are exempt from EPA registration; efficacy testing is not mandated for these products. METHODS: We used a finger bioassay to evaluate the repellency against I. scapularis nymphs for 11 formulated 25(b) exempt products together with two positive control DEET-based EPA registered products. Repellency was assessed hourly from 0.5 to 6.5 h after product application. RESULTS: The DEET-based products showed ≥ 97% repellency for all examined timepoints. By contrast, an average of 63% of ticks were repelled in the first 1.5 h after application across the 11 25(b) exempt products, and the average fell to 3% repelled between 2.5 and 6.5 h. Ten of the 11 25(b) exempt products showed statistically similar efficacy to DEET-based products at 30 min after application (repellency of 79-97%). However, only four 25(b) exempt products maintained a level of repellency similar to DEET-based products (> 72%) at the 1.5-h mark, and none of these products were effective in repelling ticks at the timepoints from 2.5 to 6.5 h after application. CONCLUSIONS: Neither the claims on the labels nor specific active ingredients and their concentrations appeared to predict the duration of efficacy we observed for the 25(b) exempt products. These products are not registered with the EPA, so the methods used to determine the application guidelines on their labels are unclear. Consumers should be aware that both the level of efficacy and the duration of repellency may differ among unregulated 25(b) exempt repellent products labeled for use against ticks. We encourage more research on these products and the 25(b) exempt active ingredients they contain to help determine and improve their efficacy as repellents under different conditions.