/https://tf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com/filer_public/44/ad/44ad8f8b-e8c6-4c3b-9d22-10eececf06c3/gettyimages-1602304607.jpg)
Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Does diagnosis offer a better prognosis for those that are infected?by aliljet
- Yes, but this test cannot diagnose Lyme in humans.by lima
- Absolutely yes, because the most severe risks are associated with the bacteria reaching the heart and into the nervous system, which is a relatively slow process. There's a window of a couple of weeks.
If you could know as soon as you were bitten whether there was any risk of infection at all, that would be very valuable information.
I think it's only a one in ten chance that an infected tick would transmit the infection, anyway. But you would know whether you needed to even book an appointment.
by dofm - Yes, it's treatable with antibiotics and people that are treated get less sick. As stated in the article, prophylactic treatment with Doxycycline is the standard of care. Testing the tick is an alternative to that rather than something that should be expected to increase treatment...
The article also mentions that symptoms sometimes persist after treatment with antibiotics.
by maxerickson - Lower latency, but broader readout of the tick bacteria at: https://nyticks.org/tick-submission/
As mentioned in the article, this is not a safe way to assess Lyme disease. I still want to know what biohazards these tiny critters hold.
by pama - I live in Finland, and if I would be following this advice;
> "If you have an embedded tick where there’s a chance of infection, then go to your doctor and get a dose of antibiotics as a prophylactic, just to be on the safe side." ...I would be eating antibiotics 5 months per year each year of my life. I've had 13 ticks this summer, and it's the least I've ever had in a summer ever I think. I sometimes go over a 100 on a summer. But I've just had Lyme's disease once confirmed, but before that I had anti-bodies (which I got to know through a research project i participated in).
There's a lot of research on ticks going on in Finland, and I participate in two citizen science projects* this summer; for one I collect the ticks and send them to the researchers, the other project I just post observations.
I quickly realized it was a hassel to submit to both projects every time I found a tick on me or the cats. So I used Claude Code to build my own self-hosted app that stores my profile, location etc and submits my findings to both of the projects. Simple and nice litte project. I have a thought of publishing the app in some form, but haven't thought about it much.
- If not this, then what?
Like others, I was interested in the article because of Lyme and other diseases. Ticks really do suck.
I appreciate all the science-y comments though I understand very little. I appreciate comments about personal experiences with ticks, getting bitten, and getting sick.
I’m left with this: If this test is not really a viable solution (or at least one solution) to the problem of the unaffordability of visits to the doctor, what is a better solution. I would put all options on the table and move things like universal health care to the “working on it but not helpful right now” pile of solutions.
by susiecambria - Growing up near the epicenter of Lyme disease (which is awful) - it’s not that hard to deal with on a regular basis (I probably take half a dozen plus attached ticks off me year. When your pre-in-post shower - tick check. Take them off, worried they were on for a while, doxycycline as prophylactic. Feel crappy afterwards doctor+blood test / maybe antibiotics. It sucks but it’s manageable. Bourbon virus and alpha gal are super scary. When you k ow about them it’s easier to manage - when you’re oblivious it’s when it’s really dangerous.
What would be way more useful is a quick blood test (pin prick type à la thernos) that could diagnose early for treatment.
by balderdash - A really accurate blood test for tick borne disease would be much more useful that would allow you to know you have something in a time frame you could treat the diseases early.by balderdash
- I saw a commercial for this. I am not sure it makes much sense unless you literally are 100% sure that was the only tick. And it is like I think $40 or $50 a test. I am sure the women I saw discussing the satisfaction they got enjoyed crushing up those little bad guys, and maybe some placebo-like relief, but the truth of the matter is the only really reliable tests for Lyme Disease are blood tests.by jambalaya8
- 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
by 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.
- When I think about moving to the NE from out west, ticks are one of my main reservations. I think, given how many people and dogs recreate out there, I might have it blown out of proportion.by beej71
- Buried way way down:
LymeAlert, which will sell for about $50, is designed to detect the presence of Borrelia burgdorferi, the pathogen known to cause Lyme disease, in a tick.
The test kit, which remains effective for up to 12 months, is simple to use. 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. A patent-pending buffer solution readies the sample for testing. The user then inserts a test strip into a slot in the grinder. The strip’s chemically treated nitrocellulose paper functions as an immunochromatographic assay that can detect the presence of Borrelia burgdorferi.
by ElijahLynn - There are MANY facebook groups filled with people fully convinced that they have Lyme disease. These groups teach that virtually any and every symptom is caused by the infection and that basically everyone has it. As if this wasn’t insane enough, the people in the group will push each other to go on antibiotics - via so called lyme literate doctors - until they are on the verge of death due to the side effects. Worse: if a lab test is negative they say you should treat by symptom (referring people back to the massive list of virtually every known symptom as proof that they have lyme). It gets worse: even if you get really bad reactions to the treatment, they say you are having a herxheimer reaction and to keep pushing. It gets worse: having followed many of those groups for years, it’s rare that anyone actually gets better from whatever symptom they were having that led them down the self destructive path of lyme self-diagnosis. Well, it actually is a bit worse: even if by some chance you did had a positive lyme test, and if by chance you did got years worth of antibiotics, SOT treatments, etc etc etc… and now you have finally a clean test- well actually it’s bartonella, or parasites, or babesia, or EBV or whatever … so you must carry on. And, it’s not that these people are idiots, it’s just that they fall into a very specific category: 1) have real symptoms, 2) have no real answers from medicine, 3) have internet access, 4) have no notion, not even a tiny spec, of the existence of a concept called falsifiability. So when i read that there’s a new at home test for lyme… on tics(!) i can only imagine the massive amount of suffering this will cause on these poor people… and i imagine many if them will put their blood on the test and come up with all kinds of ways to use this to find yet another proof that they have itby algoth1
- We are quickly entering a medical dark age due to the conspiracy theorists, “Do Your Own Research-ers,” YouTube influencers, and other kinds of Internet-borne DIY self diagnosis.by ryandrake
- 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.
by dofm - Ah, yes, climate change, which also explains how Lyme disease, first diagnosed in the US in the northern midwest and northeast, later spread southward. I'm sure it works in mysterious ways in your neighborhood as well.by bhk
- Maybe it is a raise of dog ownership in UK as well. They bring ticks inside houee, and shed it in public parks. Our dog used to have like 50 ticks everytime it returned from run.
- Certainly had to convince my gp a few years ago that indeed there is Lyme in Irelandby CalRobert
- One thing pointing out is that deer aren’t really the disease reservoir for Lyme disease (it’s primarily mice) - but deer are key for tick population growth.by balderdash
- Ticks are much more common in Scotland thanks to deer population and high rainfall. Ticks prefer damp conditions to drought conditions, so this last summer wouldn't have been good for them. The damp makes it easier to survive while they are waiting for passing hosts. They also like long grass and overgrown areas.
England in comparison is much more built up.
We do have Lyme disease here unfortunately. I know someone who has it.
by nephihaha - It started around Connecticut in the 70s and has been spreading out radially since then. I believe it’s still not a huge problem in the western United States (there are other tick borne diseases there however). Soon it will spread across the world and tick bites will be serious business everywhere.by dyauspitr
- I have a friend who got a tick bite on holiday in America many years ago. Turns out they got Lyme disease but no doctors in the UK were experienced with it so they dealt with years of misdiagnosis. I really hope any education effort can get out ahead of that.by afavour
- 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.
by lima - It's been 15 years since I worked on open source PCR machines, but has someone not figured out how to build a "one time use" disposable type qPCR test? A single test, not an instrument. There's no way these types of tests should be left up to lateral flow etc.by tito
- In addition, there also is the issue of tick borne encephalitis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick-borne_encephalitisby MeteorMarc
- Yeah, I would be vary of accuracy of such tests.
The infected unfed ticks have few spirochetes in them. The numbers grow by two orders of magnitude as they feed - the reason why old bites are much more dangerous than the fresh bites.
by don_esteban - "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."
Even smaller and less noticeable are the larvae. And I know I learned that they cannot transmit the disease, because they only do so, if they have biten an infected animal before - so I never worried about small ticks, but apparently new research indicates, that this is wrong.
"However, newer research suggests that some pathogens, including Borrelia miyamotoi, may be transmitted from the adult female tick directly to her offspring.
This means larval ticks may already be infected before their first bite."
https://danielcameronmd.com/larval-ticks-borrelia-miyamotoi/
by lukan - > The vendor claims "lab-level accuracy" (conveniently omitting the actual accuracy numbers)
Hey, labs have QC failures all the time.