Research Article Bull's-Eye and Nontarget Skin Lesions of Lyme
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Dermatology Research and Practice Volume 2012, Article ID 451727, 6 pages doi:10.1155/2012/451727 Research Article Bull’s-Eye and Nontarget Skin Lesions of Lyme Disease: An Internet Survey of Identification of Erythema Migrans John N. Aucott,1 Lauren A. Crowder,2 Victoria Yedlin,2 and Kathleen B. Kortte3 1 Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, 10755 Falls Road, Suite 200, Lutherville, MD 21093, USA 2 Division of Clinical Research, Lyme Disease Research Foundation, 10755 Falls Road, Suite 200, Lutherville, MD 21093, USA 3 Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Phipps 174, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA Correspondence should be addressed to John N. Aucott, [email protected] Received 27 June 2012; Accepted 15 August 2012 Academic Editor: Jag Bhawan Copyright © 2012 John N. Aucott et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Introduction. Lyme disease is an emerging worldwide infectious disease with major foci of endemicity in North America and regions of temperate Eurasia. The erythema migrans rash associated with early infection is found in approximately 80% of patients and can have a range of appearances including the classic target bull’s-eye lesion and nontarget appearing lesions. Methods.Asurvey was designed to assess the ability of the general public to distinguish various appearances of erythema migrans from non-Lyme rashes. Participants were solicited from individuals who visited an educational website about Lyme disease. Results. Of 3,104 people who accessed a rash identification survey, 72.7% of participants correctly identified the classic target erythema migrans commonly associated with Lyme disease. A mean of 20.5% of participants was able to correctly identify the four nonclassic erythema migrans. 24.2% of participants incorrectly identified a tick bite reaction in the skin as erythema migrans. Conclusions. Participants were most familiar with the classic target erythema migrans of Lyme disease but were unlikely to correctly identify the nonclassic erythema migrans. These results identify an opportunity for educational intervention to improve early recognition of Lyme disease and to increase the patient’s appropriate use of medical services for early Lyme disease diagnosis. 1. Introduction least 5 cm or greater in size [7, 8]. The localized rash appears three to thirty days after an infected tick bite and disappears Lyme disease (LD), which is caused by the tick-borne naturally if left untreated over days to weeks. Though it has spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi, is an important cause of been documented that EM can have various manifestations infection in endemic regions of North America and Eurasia [9], the classic “target” shaped EM is best known in the and has a strong seasonality with the majority of the cases literature and most common on public health information occurring during the months of May through August. In and handouts [10]. In reality, a classic target EM manifests North America, over 90% of cases are reported from the East in only approximately 20% of patients with EM, with the Coast of the United States, although significant numbers of majority of EM lacking the central clearing or ring-within- cases are also reported from the upper Midwest of the United a-ring pattern [7, 9]. States and certain areas of Canada and the West Coast. In LD is an emerging infectious disease in many areas of Eurasia, cases have been reported from temperate regions the world including North America and temperate Eurasia. such as Germany [1, 2], Norway [3], Finland [4], and the LD is the most commonly reported vector borne disease United Kingdom [5]. Erythema migrans (EM) is the most in the US and the 3rd most common reportable infectious common manifestation of LD, with at least 80% of infected disease in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States [11]. persons developing a variation of this skin lesion in the first As such, LD is a public health concern for many people, weeks of infection [6]. EM is characterized by a round red especially in periurban residential areas of the northeast and patch gradually expanding over time, typically reaching at Mid-Atlantic. However, a review of the published literature 2 Dermatology Research and Practice on LD has documented both under- and overdiagnosis of group included a small insect bite reaction, an immediate the EM rash of LD [12, 13]. Additionally, a study showed skin reaction with tick still attached, as well as rashes that up to 72% of physicians surveyed are not able to from poison ivy exposure, shingles, cellulitis, hand-foot- correctly identify the EM accompanying LD [14] when mouth disease, and Staphylococcus aureus infection (Figure 1, shown both EM as well as other rashes common in an numbers 6–12). ambulatory population. Early diagnosis of LD is dependent on patients seeking evaluation, which depends on patients’ 2.2. Administration. Access to the survey was available ex- ability to recognize rashes or skin lesions that have a high clusively through the Lyme Disease Research Foundation probability of being EM. However, no literature to date website, which has been accessible to the public since 2007. has been published on patients’ ability to recognize EM. Google search terms that directed users to the site include The current study is aimed at determining the ability of “Lyme disease,” “Lyme disease foundation,” “Lyme disease the general public accessing an LD website to accurately symptoms,” “symptoms of Lyme disease,” “what is Lyme identify the EM rash. It is presumed that individuals who disease,” “signs and symptoms of Lyme disease,” “treatment conclude that a rash is not EM will be less likely to pursue for Lyme disease,” and “signs of Lyme disease.” The website medical services for evaluation of LD. By discovering how receives, on average, 10,000 hits per month, with peaks accurately the public is in identifying EM lesions, we can during the spring and summer seasons. Advertisement for then predict which lesions would lead the general public the rash survey was accomplished through word-of-mouth, to pursue health care services. Additionally, by determining the Foundation’s Twitter account, and a quarterly newsletter the identification pattern, educational interventions for the sent to those who signed up to receive it through the public can be targeted to increase knowledge and, therefore, Foundation website. Once on the website, participants were hypothetically increase pursuance of appropriate clinical directed via hyperlink to the survey, which was administered services. The hypothesis tested was that respondents will be via http://www.SurveyMonkey.com/. The survey includes able to correctly recognize the classic target EM, but not five rashes from known EM cases of early LD and seven nonclassic EM. rashes from common skin conditions not due to LD. Participants were asked to respond to one of the following three questions for each rash: “I am sure this is a Lyme disease 2. Methods rash,” “I am sure this is not a Lyme disease rash,” or “I do not know whether or not this is a Lyme rash.” After completion 2.1. Instrument Development. In order to develop the LD of the survey, regardless of performance, each participant was rash survey, a review of the literature was conducted for redirected to a detailed explanation of the causes of each rash. articles on EM and the reports of misidentification of The survey was conducted between August 1, 2011 and EM in the diagnosis of LD. In addition, expert opinions January 31, 2012. SAS (Statistical Analysis System Institute, were solicited from published authorities in the field when Cary, NC) and SPSS (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY) were choosing examples of both classic target and nonclassic EM used for data analysis. This study was approved by the Johns [15]. Both EMs and non-Lyme lesions were included in the Hopkins Institutional Review Board number NA 00071093. survey. A determination could then be made of which EMs would most likely alert a potential surveyor to a possibility of LD and which non-Lyme lesions might lead to the incorrect 3. Results and Discussion self-diagnosis of LD. EM photographs were selected based on professional 3.1. Results. Over the six-month study period between experience of one of the authors (JA) in order to represent August 1, 2011 and January 31, 2012, there were 42,068 the widest variety of EM appearances that were identified visits or page clicks to the Lyme Disease Research Foundation from a review of the current literature. Presentation of website (Figure 2). Of the visitors to the website, 3,902 EM has been reported most commonly as a homogenous people were recruited by the rash survey and were redirected red lesion, with central clearing or a target appearance to the http://www.SurveyMonkey.com/ website where the occurring less frequently in a US population [9, 15–21]. survey was carried out. Of those visitors, 3,898 participated Also commonly reported are secondary disseminated lesions in the survey by answering at least one question, with 3,104 [16, 19–23], occurring in 8–25% of cases [7, 9, 15, 17]. answering all questions. Figure 3 shows the accuracy of the Less common, but consistently reported manifestations of 3,104 respondents and shows the percentage of incorrect, EM include vesiculopustular