Pet ownership increases human risk of encountering ticks.

We examined whether pet ownership increased the risk for tick encounters and tickborne disease among residents of three Lyme disease-endemic states as a nested cohort within a randomized controlled trial. Information about pet ownership, use of tick control for pets, property characteristics, tick encounters and human tickborne disease were captured through surveys, and associations were assessed using univariate and multivariable analyses. Pet-owning households had 1.83 times the risk (95% CI = 1.53, 2.20) of finding ticks crawling on and 1.49 times the risk (95% CI = 1.20, 1.84) of finding ticks attached to household members compared to households without pets. This large evaluation of pet ownership, human tick encounters and tickborne diseases shows that pet owners, whether of cats or dogs, are at increased risk of encountering ticks and suggests that pet owners are at an increased risk of developing tickborne disease. Pet owners should be made aware of this risk and be reminded to conduct daily tick checks of all household members, including the pets, and to consult their veterinarian regarding effective tick control products.

Assessing diagnostic coding practices among a sample of healthcare facilities in Lyme disease endemic areas: Maryland and New York - A Brief Report.

The value of using diagnostic codes in Lyme disease (LD) surveillance in highly endemic states has not been well studied. Surveys of healthcare facilities in Maryland (MD) and New York (NY) regarding coding practices were conducted to evaluate the feasibility of using diagnostic codes as a potential method for LD surveillance. Most respondents indicated that their practice utilized electronic medical records (53%) and processed medical/billing claims electronically (74%). Most facilities were able to search office visits associated with specific ICD-9-CM and CPT codes (74% and 73%, respectively); no discernible differences existed between the healthcare facilities in both states. These codes were most commonly assigned by the practitioner (82%), and approximately 70% of respondents indicated that these codes were later validated by administrative staff. These results provide evidence for the possibility of using diagnostic codes in LD surveillance. However, the utility of these codes as an alternative to traditional LD surveillance requires further evaluation.