I often see the statement that fewer than 50% of individuals with lyme experience the EM rash or recall getting bitten by a tick. What is the origin of this claim, and how accurate is it?
Posted by iceskater (Member # 8655) on :
i dont know the origin of the percentage with lyme figures;however, I do know that the rash is a reaction to the enzymes in tick spit. I, myself did not experience a rash. Anyone else?
Posted by ldfighter (Member # 9405) on :
quote:Originally posted by iceskater: i dont know the origin of the percentage with lyme figures;however, I do know that the rash is a reaction to the enzymes in tick spit. I, myself did not experience a rash. Anyone else?
I don't know about the numbers either, but I've read that the EM rash is NOT a reaction to the tick spit; it is a reaction to the Lyme bacteria in the skin. That's why EM rash is diagnostic for Lyme disease. It's also why you can have multiple EM rashes away from the site of the tick bite.
It is possible to have a rash that is a reaction to tick spit but that wouldn't be an EM rash - it would appear sooner and disappear more quickly than an EM.
(Not sure how good this resource is for other Lyme info)
I never had a rash either, or even recall a bite, so I was just curious about the validity of the statement.
Posted by ldfighter (Member # 9405) on :
Think of it this way: those who say the rash happens most of the time are only looking at the population of patients who meet CDC criteria. By CDC standards, you need to have either the rash OR positive tests + a specific CDC-defined manifestation (like frank arthritis). That's a limited definition meant for surveillance, doesn't include everyone with Lyme - but DOES include everyone who gets a rash. So if you look only at the CDC cases, you're naturally going to find that a high percentage gets the rash. (Higher than is really true.)
When you think about it, every single person with Lyme who doesn't meet CDC criteria has not had the rash. So add all those people in and the percentage would drop. (How many exactly? who knows!) This is the source of the disagreement.
I believe the 40%-50% figures come from studies of people who were diagnosed with lyme clinically, but I'm not sure. You might want to check this out (paragraph 7): http://www.ilads.org/publications_phillips_2006.htm Posted by ldfighter (Member # 9405) on :
Also, most people who are bitten do not recall the tickbite. This is not controversial, both sides agree. The tick secretes a chemical so you don't feel a thing.
Posted by Soleilpie (Member # 8481) on :
I don't think any of the statistics are very accurate. I think there are many different scenarios that have occurred.
There are some Lyme patients that never had an EM. Then there are some who had an EM, but never even noticed it because of its location. Then there are those who did see an EM. And then there are those who noticed an EM, but the physician not being educated enough thought it was a spider bite or something else other than an EM.
With all of these scenarios, who knows what the true stats are when defining how often EM's appear in Lyme patients.
Posted by Lymetoo (Member # 743) on :
No rash here.
Posted by randibear (Member # 11290) on :
i'm curious about that em rash. everything i've read says "expanding" but mine did not expand, lasted only a couple of days then disappeared.
was oily looking on top, shiny, and itched like crazy. was on the inside of my left knee. had a hole in the middle was red, surrounded by white, then another really messy area that was pimply red, oozy looking. was gross.
so does the em rash HAVE to expand or not???
Posted by Lisianthus (Member # 6631) on :
Out of the 11 people in my family 4 had a EM rash.
My youngest son was bit by a flying insect (possibly a deer fly) in Conn. and his rash appeared right before my eyes. This was a reinfection.
I never got a rash. My sister did when she was reinfected also.
Lisi
Posted by ESG (Member # 4816) on :
I had no rash; my son had no rash.
My daughter had 5 rashes at once, all different shapes & sizes (none perfect circles) and not one had a tick bite mark inside it.
The rashes appeared a few weeks after she had a vicious fever & was incredibly ill; pediatrician said it was a summer flu. She was so sick I had to support her when she wanted to go to the bathroom. She was moaning saying she had never felt this way before.
"Summer flu". Thank goodness for the rashes, weeks later. Eight years later, she is still a sick person, a teen who cannot play sports & barely makes it through a shortened day at school.
"Summer flu". The beginning of a child's life with constant pain and illness.
"Summer flu", no rashes at that time.
Edith
Posted by Geneal (Member # 10375) on :
The only rash I ever had was diagnosed as ring worm....
My daughter and son had it as well..
Who knows?
How often are rashes misdiagnosed????!!!
Another piece of the puzzle in this never ending quest to pin down Lyme disease.
Hugs,
Geneal
Posted by Lymetoo (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by randibear: so does the em rash HAVE to expand or not???
Anybody know??
Posted by Marnie (Member # 773) on :
I don't know either...the %.
I suspect it is a matter of how many Bb's are able to put on the protective "coat" (Salp 15 protein from the tick's saliva).
This protein appears to buy Bb time to infect and to respond appropriately.
Sis had no rash (noticeable allergic response)...or just did not see one either (in hair or other place not easily seen?).
First symptoms...extreme muscle pains, fatigue, joint pains.
Misdiagnosed and given steroids...disaster!
Curious that a rash sometimes RE-APPEARS during abx. treatment.
