LYMEPOLICYWONK: Saying what you mean and meaning what you say: Evidence, Science and the IDSA

Byldoadmin

The controversy was kicked off by an article in the American Journal of Medicine by Cerar et al “Subjective symptoms after treatment of early Lyme disease.”    The premise of the article is that patients with Lyme disease do not develop any relapsing, persistent, chronic symptoms that can be considered to be due to persistent infection.  The article drew flak from three separate letters to the editor, one by Dr. Sam Donta, one by Dr. Stricker and I, and one by Dr. Cairns, all taking issue with the fact that the patients in the study were all promptly diagnosed and treated and could not be used to make sweeping generalizations about patients who are not promptly diagnosed and treated.  A survey by CALDA in 2005, found that diagnosis of patients with chronic Lyme disease was delayed for an average of 4.5 years.

Dr. Cairns had previously published a meta-analysis of 5 studies and found that patients with Lyme disease were more likely than controls to have fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and neurocognitive difficulties years after diagnosis with Lyme disease.  One has to wonder what exactly about a meta-analysis is not “evidence based”?  Their point?  That her studies included patients that did not meet the CDC surveillance case definition.  Oh. . ., that.  But wait, didn’t the CDC say that the surveillance definition of Lyme disease should not be used to diagnose patients—that the diagnosis should be made clinically?  Then, doesn’t it follow, that Cairn’s use of clinically relevant patient populations—those diagnosed with the disease—is the better approach?  Or, is the definition of Lyme disease “just what [Wormser and Cerar] choose it to mean—neither more nor less”?

You can follow additional comments on Lyme policy at www.lymepolicywonk.org.  You can contact Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA at lbjohnson@lymedisease.org.

Similar Posts

  • |

    LYMEPOLICYWONK: Dr. Fallon’s Suggestions for Future Guidelines.

    A recent article by Dr. Fallon and colleagues reviews the findings of the four clinical trials and accurately lays out the state of the science in chronic Lyme research. This is important because future research needs and policy decisions are determined by the state of the science. If there is definitive science that tells us whether treatment for chronic Lyme works, there is no need for additional science and guidelines may justifiably take a hard line on treatment options. Otherwise, we are dealing with science in the making, more studies are needed, and treatment guidelines should be more flexible.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: LYME IS PART OF A MUCH BROADER DEBATE ABOUT THE ROLE OF PATIENTS IN HEALTHCARE

    The broad debate about the role of consumers in health care policy is important to the Lyme community. However, many of the things that have harmed Lyme patients, powerful unresponsive medical societies with conflicts of interest, the patients’ lack of voice in the process, and access to care limitations should concern every patient, regardless of the disease. An important article on patients and their skepticism for evidence based medicine appeared in Health Affairs this month. (“Evidence That Consumers Are Skeptical About Evidence-Based Health Care”). Ray and I responded to the article with an eletter, “Consumer Acceptance Depends on Whether Guidelines Reflect Patient Values”, which is published with the article. Links can be found after the jump.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: CDC Tells Poughkeepsie Journal Long Term Antibiotics Not Warranted; I Respond

    Dr. Lyle Petersen of the CDC wrote an editorial for the Poughkeepsie Journal in response to the remarkable series of articles by Mary Beth Pfeiffer on Lyme Disease. In his letter, Dr. Petersen restates the IDSA/CDC perspective patients have long heard. Lyme disease is easy to diagnose and treat, but for those with chronic Lyme treatment is both ineffective and dangerous. He proposed that we work on preventing Lyme disease and early diagnosis and treatment—both laudable goals, but not at the expense of treating seriously ill patients. My response to his letter, which I posted on the Poughkeepsie website (and encourage you to respond there as well) follows.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: IDSA Lyme Conflicts of Interest–Tell me more!

    Merrill Goozner, a highly regarded medical ethicist, posted a recent commentary on conflicts of interest, "No Light at the End of the Tunnel on Disclosure." The commentary expresses his disappointment at the paltry level of self-disclosure of conflicts even under legal pressure. Those of you following the IDSA antitrust action commenced by Attorney General Richard Blumenthal in Connecticut may recall that the conflict of interest disclosure level of the IDSA panel members increased dramatically AFTER the investigation was launched. It's remarkable how helpful another set of eyes, particularly those of an official, can be when drafting conflict of interest disclosures. My commentary to Merrill's post follows:

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: IDSA Hearings Delay has Lyme Patients on Tenterhooks

    The IDSA hearing results were expected by the year end. Then were delayed—until “after the first of the year”. Perhaps the delay was caused by Dr. Duray’s resignation from the panel due to personal illness. We don’t know because we have not been told the reason for the delay or how long the delay will be. Patients are on tenterhooks awaiting the results and with good cause. Revision of the IDSA Lyme guidelines could make a world of difference for Lyme patients. According to a CALDA survey, 53% of patients with chronic Lyme have been treated according to the IDSA Lyme guidelines and 90% of these were not restored to health under the IDSA protocols. Isn’t the point of treatment guidelines to improve patient outcomes? And, if they don’t, shouldn’t they be revised?

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: IDSA Reports No Change in Guidelines–The Fat Cat Ate the Canary

    What happened? The IDSA has issued its official report of the Lyme review panel. “[A] special independent Review Panel has unanimously agreed that no changes need be made to IDSA’s 2006 Lyme disease guidelines.” Let me point out three faults with this statement. First there was no “independent Review Panel”. There was a panel that was selected by the IDSA, which intentionally excluded from the panel physicians who disagreed with their assessment—all community physicians who treat chronic Lyme were excluded from the panel. Second, some changes to the recommendations were proposed by the panel. Third, the determinations were not unanimous. The most important recommendation regarding the requirement of positive serology for diagnosis actually had a 4 to 4 vote split. I will spare you the long read—28 pages of text and give you the bare bones only version. Nothing changed. They are not even sure what the fuss was about, honestly. They never expected the guidelines to change, stacked the panel, paid the ethicist, ran the process, and achieved a foregone conclusion which “validated” their guidelines. Seems like the IDSA fat cat ate the canary.