Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Clinical Intelligence

The oak processionary moth: a new health hazard?

Sibylle Rahlenbeck and Jochen Utikal
British Journal of General Practice 2015; 65 (637): 435-436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp15X686341
Sibylle Rahlenbeck
German Federal Environmental Agency, Berlin, Germany.
Roles: Consultant in public health
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jochen Utikal
Skin Cancer Unit, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, and Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Ruprecht-Karl University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Roles: Dermatologist
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

INTRODUCTION

Although a native of southern Europe, the thermophilic oak processionary moth (OPM, Thaumetopoea processionea) is expanding its prevalence to encompass Central and Northern Europe. Roughly, over the past decade, the moth’s range has spread northwards and the species has now became established in the warmer regions of Northern France, the Netherlands, the UK, and Germany.1–3 In the UK, the moth occurs in Surrey and in parts of west London.4 It is thought that the northward progression is due to a decline in late spring frosts, resulting in a more synchronous egg hatch.4 Occurrence of caterpillar dermatitis has increased considerably, not only in gardeners, but also in people engaging in outdoor activities. The larvae of these caterpillars are equipped with fine, barbed hairs (setae, 0.2 mm), which can readily penetrate the human skin.5,6 One of the major issues with the hairs is that they readily detach and can then be blown via wind currents for considerable distances. The older larvae (fifth and sixth instars) are of particular concern as they can carry up to half a million of the urticating setae per caterpillar. The spines can be active for up to 10 years, posing a long-term threat to human health (Box 1).

Box 1.

Key information

  • Urticating hairs can be active for up to 10 years

  • A high number of cases go unreported

  • First symptom is a severe itching

  • Clinical signs vary from cutaneous lesions to conjunctivitis, pharyngitis, malaise, and anaphylactic reactions.

The caterpillars start emerging in late April, and can be seen marching on oaks in long head-to-tail lines in order to feed on the foliage of oak trees; hence the name ‘processionary’. They are the larval stages of the OPM and June is the time of the year when they build their distinctive silken, web-like nests on the trunks of oak trees, typically about the size of a tennis ball (Figure 1). Not only do the caterpillars contain numerous urticating hairs with microscopic barbs but so do the nests. Control of the OPM is warranted for health reasons if affected trees are located in the vicinity of preschools, schools, or recreational facilities. The high-risk period stretches from mid-May to the end of August.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

A nest of the oak processionary moth at an oak tree. ©Rahlenbeck.

HEALTH EFFECTS

The systemic health effects caused by adult moths can result in a variety of medical conditions referred to as lepidopterism (Lepidoptera is the order of insects that includes butterflies and moths), while the skin conditions caused by the setae of the larvae are referred to as erucism or caterpillar dermatitis.2,6

After exposure the skin is always affected, particularly the neck, face, arms, and legs. Contact with the hairs and a protein contained in it (thaumetopoein) results in a mechanical, pseudo-allergic skin sensitisation, including the release of histamine and other kinins, as well as the development of a toxic-irritative dermatitis. Processionary caterpillars cause primarily a type I hypersensitivity reaction with the main complaint being intense itching. An erythema with wheals and flares is usually elicited within 1 hour after exposure and disappears within 24 hours. Some patients experience papules and nodules resembling reactions to an insect bite (Figure 2). Setae that is inhaled can result in an irritation of the upper respiratory system, with symptoms including cough and dyspnoea. When the eyes are affected, conjunctivitis and pronounced blepharal swelling can occur. Intraocular penetration of caterpillar hair resulting in ophthalmia nodosa has also been reported.7,8 Generalised systemic symptoms may include fever, nausea, and malaise. An anaphylaxis syndrome with shock has been reported on rare occasions. The duration of symptoms usually extends for 1–2 weeks, but may persist for up to a month (Box 2).

Box 2.

Signs and symptoms of a caterpillar dermatitis2,6

  • Within minutes: severe pruritus

  • Within 1–2 hours:

    • — toxic-irritative

    • — urticarial dermatitis

  • After 6–8 hours; delayed reactions:

    • — papular dermatitis (persisting)

    • — papules/nodules resembling insect bite reactions (up to 4 weeks)

The incidence of the condition can only be estimated, as the entity is not a reportable disease, with the result that patient numbers have not been registered in a systematic fashion. As no specific ICD-10-GM numbers are existing, an evaluation of health insurance data has not been possible. Severe itching is almost always reported, with conjunctivitis (15–20%) and irritation of the upper respiratory tract appearing in some patients (about 10%). One in four patients is usually a child or adolescent.

DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS

Presenting initially as a skin reaction, patients usually approach paediatricians and GPs. The differential diagnosis for skin reaction is broad and includes urticaria, allergic reactions, and insect bites. Early lesions of a bullous pemphigoid should be considered because of the bullous appearance, as should Sweet’s syndrome and all forms of figurate erythema. When itchy papules are already in existence for some time (caterpillar dermatitis), any irritative dermatitis of other origin, and a polymorphous light eruption should also be considered. The same applies to all other diseases producing an exanthema as part of their presentation. Although patients’ history of caterpillar setae exposure is a clue to the diagnosis, a skin biopsy with histopathologic analysis may also be helpful for a correct diagnosis. In the presence of conjunctivitis, pharyngitis, and asthmatic complaints, other allergic or toxic reasons must be ruled out.

TREATMENT

Management is symptomatic and supportive following recommended strategies of gently washing the urticating hairs off the skin or removing them using cellophane or adhesive tape. Clothes should be removed immediately and washed at a minimum of 60°C. With ocular manifestations, eyes should be washed and an ophthalmologist contacted. Conjunctivitis should be treated locally and may include application of an antiseptic (Box 3). Patients with intracorneal setae should be informed about the risk of intraocular penetration and followed up for a minimum of 6 months. Topical antihistamines and medium or high-strength corticosteroids can be applied to skin reactions. Use of nebulised and/or systemic bronchodilators may be administered for asthmatic bronchospasms. In severe cases, parenteral application of corticosteroids may be necessary.

Box 3.

Post-exposure prophylaxis

  • Remove hairs (wearing gloves) using adhesive duct tape or wash hairs off

  • Avoid introducing setae into home or living areas (clean shoes, remove setae using adhesive tape, vacuum)

  • Remove all clothes (wearing gloves) and wash at 60°C

  • Take a shower and wash hair

  • If eyes are affected: rinse with water to remove setae, contact an ophthalmologist

OUTLOOK

Due to a lack of standardised methods for counting setae, it has been impossible to establish a dose–response relationship between symptoms and setae exposure. As a consequence, it is not possible to determine the levels of exposure that result in or trigger the various symptoms and/or the subsequent health condition that ensues. In addition, methods for dermatologic investigations are not available as yet, neither are diagnostic criteria, nor the syndromic classification of the entity. To this end, more research is required to understand the details of the pathogenesis of OPM-related health effects and the approach to adequately address the condition.

Notes

Provenance

Freely submitted; not externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

The authors have declared no competing interests.

Discuss this article

Contribute and read comments about this article bjgp.org/letters

  • Received May 20, 2015.
  • Accepted June 16, 2015.
  • © British Journal of General Practice 2015

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Maier H,
    2. Spiegel W,
    3. Kinaciyan T,
    4. et al.
    (2003) The oak processionary caterpillar as the cause of an epidemic airborne disease: survey and analysis. Br J Dermatol 149(5):990–997.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Utikal J,
    2. Booken N,
    3. Peitsch WK,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Caterpillar dermatitis. An increasing dermatologic problem in warmer regions of Germany. Hautarzt 60(1):48–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Mindlin MJ,
    2. de Waroux lePolain,
    3. Case S,
    4. Walsh B
    (2012) The arrival of oak processionary moth, a novel cause of itchy dermatitis, in the UK: experience, lessons and recommendations. Pub Health 126(9):778–781.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Forestry Commission
    Oak processionary moth (Thaumetopoea processionea). http://www.forestry.gov.uk/oakprocessionarymoth (accessed 6 Jul 2015).
  5. 5.↵
    1. Battisti A,
    2. Holm G,
    3. Fagrell B,
    4. Larsson S
    (2011) Urticating hairs in arthropods: their nature and medical significance. Annu Rev Entomol 56:203–220.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Hossler EW
    (2010) Caterpillar and moths. Part I. Dermatologic manifestations of encounters with Lepidoptera. J Am Acad Dermatol 62(1):1–10.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Hossler EW
    (2009) Caterpillars and moths. Dermatol Ther 22(4):353–366.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Sengupta S,
    2. Reddy PR,
    3. Gyatsho J,
    4. et al.
    (2010) Risk factors for intraocular penetration of caterpillar hair in ophthalmia nodosa: a retrospective analysis. Indian J Ophthalmol 58(6):540–543.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 65 (637)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 65, Issue 637
August 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The oak processionary moth: a new health hazard?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The oak processionary moth: a new health hazard?
Sibylle Rahlenbeck, Jochen Utikal
British Journal of General Practice 2015; 65 (637): 435-436. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp15X686341

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
The oak processionary moth: a new health hazard?
Sibylle Rahlenbeck, Jochen Utikal
British Journal of General Practice 2015; 65 (637): 435-436. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp15X686341
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • INTRODUCTION
    • HEALTH EFFECTS
    • DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS
    • TREATMENT
    • OUTLOOK
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • The atypical presentation of COVID-19 as gastrointestinal disease: key points for primary care
  • COVID-19 with abdominal symptoms and acute abdominal pain: a guide to identification for general practice
  • How to manage low testosterone level in men: a guide for primary care
Show more Clinical Intelligence

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242