Prevention and Treatment of Head Lice in Children
- 109 Downloads
Head louse infestations (pediculosis) are prevalent worldwide. In developed countries, the infestation rate of 4- to 13-year-old children remains high despite preventive efforts. This is due to the existence of numerous ineffective pediculicides, the incorrect use of the effective agents, toxicological concerns and the development of louse strains resistant to insecticides.
One of the most effective tools for the prevention and control of lice is the louse comb, which should be used regularly for the detection of living lice at an early stage of infestation, and as an accessory to any treatment method to remove living and dead lice. The louse comb can also be used systematically for the treatment of infestations, for confirmation that treatment with pediculicides has been successful, and for the removal of nits (dead eggs or egg shells).
Most pediculicides are only partially ovicidal. Therefore, 10 days after beginning treatment with any antilouse product, the scalp of the child should be examined. If no living lice are found, the treatment should be discontinued. If living lice are still present, treatment should be continued with a product containing a different active ingredient.
Suffocating agents such as olive, soya, sunflower and corn oils, hair gels and mayonnaise are able to kill a significant number of lice only if they are applied in liberal quantities for more than 12 hours. However, they lubricate the hair and therefore may facilitate combing and removing lice and eggs from the scalp.
Nits may remain glued on the hair for at least 6 months, even after a successful treatment, and lead to a false positive diagnosis of louse infestation. If nits are seen on the hair, the child should be examined, but treatment should be initiated only if living lice are found. Formulations containing 5% acetic acid or 8% formic acid, as well as acid shampoos (pH 4.5 to 5.5) and conditioners, in combination with a louse comb, can be helpful for removing nits.
There is no conclusive evidence that using essential oils to repel lice is effective. Regular examination of the child’s head using a louse comb is the best measure to detect re-infestation at an early stage. Educating caregivers, nurses and teachers about louse biology, epidemiology, prevention and control is of paramount importance. The psychological effect of an infestation with lice is significant and often associated with anxiety and fear. The child should not be made to feel responsible for having lice, or be punished or reprimanded.
KeywordsAdis International Limited Malathion Head Louse Louse Infestation Body Louse
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Gratz N. Human lice, their prevalence and resistance to insecticides. Geneva: WHO, 1998Google Scholar
- 2.Taplin D, Meinking TL. Pyrethrins and pyrethroids for the treatment of scabies and pediculosis. Semin Dermatol 1987; 6: 125–35Google Scholar
- 3.Anonymous. Lice — yes, lice again a problem [editorial]. Infect Dis 1976; 6: 1Google Scholar
- 4.Atkinson L, Clore ER, Kisel BE, et al. Internal and external parasites. Pediatrics 1986; 1: 1–7Google Scholar
- 5.Tamir D, Noam P, Tor A, et al. Prevalence of head lice in schools in Jerusalem during 1979–1982 [in Hebrew]. Harefuah 1984; 107: 45–50Google Scholar
- 8.Mumcuoglu KY, Miller J, Gofin R, et al. Head lice in Israeli children: parents’ answers to an epidemiological questionnaire. Isr J Zool 1990/1991; 39: 177–83Google Scholar
- 9.Altschuler, DZ, Kenney LE, Pediculicide performance, profit, and the public health. Arch Dermatol 1988; 122: 260Google Scholar
- 11.Anonymous. Essai comparatif antipoux [Comparison of anti-louse treatments]. Mensuel de l–Institut National de la Consommation 1994; 276: 9–12, 44Google Scholar
- 12.Taplin D, Meinking TL. Permethrin.Curr Probl Dermatol 1995; 24: 255–60Google Scholar
- 14.Buxton PA. The louse: an account of the lice which infest man, their medical importance and control. 3rd rev. ed. London: Arnold, 1950Google Scholar
- 16.Lyons P. The most dangerous medicine. Available from: National Pediculosis Association. http://www.headlice.org [Accessed 1999 Jul 2]
- 18.Anonymous. POM-to-P shift proposed for budesonide and P-to-POM for carbaryl. Pharm J 1995; 255: 138Google Scholar
- 20.Brown AWA, Pal R. Insecticide resistance in arthropods. WHO Monogr Ser 38, 1971Google Scholar
- 21.Gratz N. Treatment resistance in louse control. In: Orkin N, Maibach HI, Parish LC, et al., editors. Scabies and pediculosis. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1977: 179–90Google Scholar
- 22.Vector resistance to pesticides. Fifteenth report of the WHO expert committee on vector biology and control. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 1992; 818: 1–62Google Scholar
- 23.Anonymous. Concern over development of resistance to pyrethroid head lice treatments. Pharm J 1995; 255: 490Google Scholar
- 26.Brandenburg K, Deinard AS, DiNapoli J, et al. 1% permethrin creme rinse vs 1% lindane shampoo in treating pediculosis capitis. Am J Child Dis 1986; 140: 894–96Google Scholar
- 29.Mumcuoglu KY, Miller J, Galun R. Susceptibility of the human head and body louse (Pediculus humanus) (Anoplura: Pediculidae) to insecticides. Insect Sci Applic 1990; 11: 223–6Google Scholar
- 32.Rupes V, Moravec J, Chmela J, et al. A resistance of head lice (Pediculus capitis) to permethrin in Czech Republic. Cent Eur J Public Health 1994; 3: 30–2Google Scholar
- 37.Rosenfeld J, Manor O, Mumcuoglu KY. Relationship of sociodemographic variables and head-lice infestation among elementary school children in Bet Shemesh. Isr J Zool 1993; 39: 177–83Google Scholar
- 41.Glaziou P, Nguyen NL, Moulia-Pelat JP, et al. Efficacy of ivermectin for the treatment of head lice (Pediculosis capitis). Trop Med Parasitai 1994; 45 (3): 253–4Google Scholar