School Nurse Challenges Guidelines For Resistant Lice|
05/01/03 - John Smithkey of Canton,Ohio finds "Guidelines for
Resistant Lice" suspect. The National Pediculosis Association urges
other school nurses and pediatricians to follow his lead and review
more closely the document published and accepted as public health
policy by many health professionals without due diligence.
John Smithkey III, RN, BSN, of Canton, Ohio set out to research why
his school policy excluded children with head lice and nits.
He was angry as he thought their position flew in the face of the
current guidelines supported by the National Association of School
Nurses (NASN) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).
In doing his research, he found that NASN and AAP recommendations were
based on the August 2000 "Guidelines for Resistant Lice" which were
developed by an expert panel that met at the Harvard School of Public
Health, (guidelines here).
This panel was funded by the makers of Ovide, a Malathion prescription
product for head lice. The panel's recommendations were printed as a
supplement in the publication Contemporary Pediatrics.
Smithkey also found that the expert panel was made up mainly of
individuals who directly or indirectly worked for the makers of lice
treatment products. Not surprisingly, the panel's recommendations
included over-the-counter treatments and the prescription Malathion.
Smithkey points out apparent conflicts of interest but describes the
kicker as their list of factors that cause head lice to become
resistant to drug therapy.
The Guidelines list the following four factors as contributing to lice
1. Inappropriate use of pediculicides in non-lice cases (dandruff,
Smithkey asks how a louse becomes resistant when there are no head
lice in the patients hair. If there are no lice, resistance cannot
2. Overuse of over-the-counter treatments on nonviable nits or
Resistance cannot develop when pesticides are applied to dead
3. Misuse of pediculicides (not following product
4. Use as prophylaxis.
How do you create resistance when you use a treatment as a preventive
before you even have lice or nits?
Smithkey says "I could find no sign of independent peer review," and
uses their resistance factors as a reason to question the validity of
the Guidelines. He wonders "Did anybody proof this document?" and asks
if anybody even read it before adopting it as public health policy.
Finally he asks: "How did the professional organization that
represents school nurses approve this report?"
When the Guidelines were first published in 2000, the NPA submitted a
report to the Dean of the Harvard School of Public Health on the
inaccuracies, misleading information and inappropriate product
recommendations contained in the Guidelines that put children's health
at risk. The Dean took no action.
The National Pediculosis Association (NPA) urges other school nurses,
school administrators and pediatricians to follow Smithkeys lead and
review more closely the document that is currently being utilized in
many communities throughout the country for public health policy.
Smithkey's editorial can be found