Unfortunately, there are major issues with this approach.
The vendor claims "lab-level accuracy" (conveniently omitting the actual accuracy numbers), but the test is a lateral flow test, which means its Limit of Detection is going to be orders of magnitude worse than molecular tests. Tick tests do not require FDA clearance, so their claims are most likely unreviewed.
Existing lab tests for ticks are almost universally based on PCR.
Ticks are small (especially nymphs) and extracting enough material can be tricky even for molecular testing, so I can't imagine an LFT test working terribly well, especially for nymphs, which are responsible for a lot of Lyme infections due to being easy to miss.
The other, bigger problem is that the test result is mostly useless.
The risk of Lyme transmission from an infected tick ranges rougly from <1% for a fresh bite (<24h) to ~10-25% once the tick is engorged (72h+). A positive tick test result would be insufficiently predictive of Lyme disease transmission on its own to justify taking antibiotics in most cases in the absence of other symptoms.
And you can't trust negative results either due to limited sensitivity, so you can't rule out transmission either.
In my opinion, tests like this can lead to worse overall health outcomes due to unnecessary treatment or withholding prophylaxis from someone who otherwise qualifies.
lima
Wow, this seems a pretty big deal.
Here in the UK, Lyme traditionally been a marginal problem (tick bites aren't) but we now have such rapid climate change, along with rapidly increasing wild deer and boar populations, that some areas in the UK are becoming risk zones on more or less the same level of risk as some US regions.
Alas the difference here is that education has not caught up to the USA: very few people have any grasp of the risk of Lyme because the high risk zones are, by and large, not well known, and they don't always correlate that well with the basic risk of acquiring a tick.
I think most specialists in the UK think this is likely to lead to a pretty big increase to infections before people learn, so maybe this sort of tool will help offset that.
I walk a lot in an area with some wild deer and boar, and I would love to have one of these in my cupboard as a precaution. Would be great to see them in supermarkets in high risk areas, too.
dofm
The most interesting part:
> After carefully removing the tick with either tweezers or a tick-removal tool, you place it into the kit’s “Tick Crusher.” The grinder pulverizes the tick’s chitinous exterior, exposing the internal contents where the Borrelia burgdorferi is located
vaylian
As a parent in the US northeast who likes taking their kids camping and hiking, ticks have been an ongoing conversation this year. I think this is going to sell well.
jensensbutton
Does diagnosis offer a better prognosis for those that are infected?
aliljet
Great. Let's get working on preventing/curing alpha-gal allergy though.
Or actually let's just eradicate all ticks.
acheron
Sign me up.
Used to be a big Event Of The Year when my grandpa found one after spending all day out in their 'garden' (a few acres bordering deep woods). I remember being maybe 11 when he found one, let me try and figure out how to crush it, I couldn't. He showed me how to use the butt of a butterknife and leverage to get the fuckers
I don't live anywhere near a proper forest and we've had several close calls this year, I caught one crawling across my scalp when I was getting into bed last month. Went and got tested just to be safe
I know feeding crows is really fun, but please don't. It's very important that they get hungry enough to eat mice sometimes. Same goes for deer, the past couple of years I've had them walk _towards_ me and my dog instead of bolting, presumably because someone is feeding them (by hand, not garden raiding)
monster_truck
Why can't the government or a generic drug manufacturer just produce the Lyme Disease vaccine? It is safe and the patent has expired!
(Also, I have the same question about the poison ivy immunotherapy pills that were common in the US before the FDA.)
comments (9)
The vendor claims "lab-level accuracy" (conveniently omitting the actual accuracy numbers), but the test is a lateral flow test, which means its Limit of Detection is going to be orders of magnitude worse than molecular tests. Tick tests do not require FDA clearance, so their claims are most likely unreviewed.
Existing lab tests for ticks are almost universally based on PCR.
Ticks are small (especially nymphs) and extracting enough material can be tricky even for molecular testing, so I can't imagine an LFT test working terribly well, especially for nymphs, which are responsible for a lot of Lyme infections due to being easy to miss.
The other, bigger problem is that the test result is mostly useless.
The risk of Lyme transmission from an infected tick ranges rougly from <1% for a fresh bite (<24h) to ~10-25% once the tick is engorged (72h+). A positive tick test result would be insufficiently predictive of Lyme disease transmission on its own to justify taking antibiotics in most cases in the absence of other symptoms.
And you can't trust negative results either due to limited sensitivity, so you can't rule out transmission either.
In my opinion, tests like this can lead to worse overall health outcomes due to unnecessary treatment or withholding prophylaxis from someone who otherwise qualifies.
lima
Here in the UK, Lyme traditionally been a marginal problem (tick bites aren't) but we now have such rapid climate change, along with rapidly increasing wild deer and boar populations, that some areas in the UK are becoming risk zones on more or less the same level of risk as some US regions.
Alas the difference here is that education has not caught up to the USA: very few people have any grasp of the risk of Lyme because the high risk zones are, by and large, not well known, and they don't always correlate that well with the basic risk of acquiring a tick.
I think most specialists in the UK think this is likely to lead to a pretty big increase to infections before people learn, so maybe this sort of tool will help offset that.
I walk a lot in an area with some wild deer and boar, and I would love to have one of these in my cupboard as a precaution. Would be great to see them in supermarkets in high risk areas, too.
dofm
> After carefully removing the tick with either tweezers or a tick-removal tool, you place it into the kit’s “Tick Crusher.” The grinder pulverizes the tick’s chitinous exterior, exposing the internal contents where the Borrelia burgdorferi is located
vaylian
jensensbutton
aliljet
Or actually let's just eradicate all ticks.
acheron
Used to be a big Event Of The Year when my grandpa found one after spending all day out in their 'garden' (a few acres bordering deep woods). I remember being maybe 11 when he found one, let me try and figure out how to crush it, I couldn't. He showed me how to use the butt of a butterknife and leverage to get the fuckers
I don't live anywhere near a proper forest and we've had several close calls this year, I caught one crawling across my scalp when I was getting into bed last month. Went and got tested just to be safe
I know feeding crows is really fun, but please don't. It's very important that they get hungry enough to eat mice sometimes. Same goes for deer, the past couple of years I've had them walk _towards_ me and my dog instead of bolting, presumably because someone is feeding them (by hand, not garden raiding)
monster_truck
(Also, I have the same question about the poison ivy immunotherapy pills that were common in the US before the FDA.)
hedora
mainmailman