LYMEPOLICYWONK: Institute of Medicine Issues Recommendations on Developing Treatment Guidelines—It’s a Matter of Trust

Byldoadmin

The main quote from the IOM summary report sets a tone that says NO to cookie cutter guidelines approaches and YES to patient preferences.

Rather than dictating a one-size-fits-all approach to patient care, clinical practice guidelines offer an evaluation of the quality of the relevant scientific literature and an assessment of the likely benefits and harms of a particular treatment. This information enables healthcare providers to proceed accordingly, selecting the best care for a unique patient based on his or her references.

The summary principles require balanced panels that include those who will be affected by the guidelines. Here are some snippets from the principles.

3.1  The [Guidelines Development Group] GDG should be multidisciplinary and balanced, comprising a variety of methodological experts and clinicians, and populations expected to be affected by the CPG. 

3.2  Patient and public involvement should be facilitated by including (at least at the time of clinical question formulation and draft CPG review) a current or former patient and a patient advocate or patient/consumer organization representative in the GDG.

3.3  Strategies to increase effective participation of patient and consumer representatives, including training in appraisal of evidence, should be adopted by GDGs.

5.1 A description and explanation of any differences of opinion regarding the recommendation.

7.1  External reviewers should comprise a full spectrum of relevant stakeholders, including scientific and clinical experts, organizations (e.g., health care, specialty societies), agencies (e.g., federal government), patients, and representatives of the public.

7.4 A draft of the CPG at the external review stage or immediately following it (i.e., prior to the final draft) should be made available to the general public for comment. Reasonable notice of impending publication should be provided to interested public stakeholders.

The IOM also intends to put some teeth into these concepts by recommending that the National Guidelines Clearinghouse, which distributes most guidelines through its website, follow its recommendations and “discontinue the inclusion of guidelines whose development is not sufficiently documented, and to prominently identify guidelines that reflect the committee’s proposed standards for trustworthiness.”  The full report is available on line for free.

The devil is in the details.  I like the broad patient participation principles, but have some concerns.  These revolve around the press toward standardization and whether smaller groups will be disadvantaged by the administrative burden the recommendations may impose. I’m also concerned about whether the patient’s role is meaningful or whether it can be used merely as window dressing on a panel heavily stacked to support a predetermined viewpoint.  Perhaps I’ll have a better sense of these issues with a deeper read. 

 You can contact Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA at lbjohnson@lymedisease.org.

Similar Posts

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: IDSA Hearings—Weinstein’s Pet Theory Shouldn’t Trump Patient Care

    I have been reviewing the IDSA transcripts and reread Dr. Arthur Weinstein’s testimony. Weinstein testified in support of the IDSA Lyme guidelines at the IDSA hearing on July 30th. He argued that chronic Lyme disease is a ‘somatic’ disorder involving a “serious amplification of symptoms” and states that he “doesn’t pretend to know the etiology (cause) of the pathophysiology”. He does though assert that the serious amplification of symptoms is associated with patients who have more psychiatric morbidity and is fostered by the labeling the disease “chronic Lyme” by advocacy groups and others that believe in a traditional medical cause for symptoms. This post is part of a twofer. Today, I ask if Weinstein is right that post treatment Lyme disease is a somatic disorder or if this is simply his pet theory. Tomorrow, I ask if the somatic disorder diagnosis provides patients with good patient care.

  • GIVING THANKS

    Last Thursday, the historic review of the IDSA 2006 Lyme guidelines was held in Washington, D.C. Eighteen people presented arguments for and against the guidelines. We don’t know how the IDSA panel will act in the face of this deluge of previously suppressed information, but we do know that we have grown enormously as a community and that the skill-sets we developed on this project will continue to have a positive effect in the future.

    I want to share with you a little of the background of the action and acknowledge people who have joined in this massive undertaking over this period. Many others have contributed, and I apologize if I have overlooked anyone’s contribution to this effort.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: IDSA APRIL DEADLINE

    We are all concerned about the latest report from the IDSA statement that they plan to issue their final report regarding the IDSA guidelines review panel by the end of April. We are particularly concerned about whether the IDSA has corrected its voting violations. There may be other actions for the community to take as this unfolds, but right now, it is critical that we continue keeping the pressure on for other state AG’s to send letters to the IDSA (IMPORTANT: cc the CT AG) expressing concern about the voting violations and asking for compliance. Letters from legislators would also help spotlight the importance of the issue. Information on how to do this is posted on CALDA’s website along with the press release issued by CALDA, TFL and the LDA.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Lyme disease abandoned by Pharma

    When I first became involved with Lyme disease, I remember wondering where the pharmaceutical interest was in the disease. Most of your double blind controlled trials are funded by the pharmaceutical industry. This means that if your disease is not on their radar, you’re going to have a long hard slog getting funding for studies on the efficacy of different treatments. Diseases that are on the agenda of big Pharma have a distinct advantage in evidence based medicine because studies, typically large scale studies, have been funded by someone with a dog in the hunt. In other diseases, the dog in the hunt may be overzealous, promoting treatments and selling drugs with little proof of effectively. But when a disease is neglected by big Pharma, the opposite occurs. Research simply isn’t done. And, that becomes a social justice issue when insurers and specialty societies deny patients access to care because research studies haven’t been funded and aren’t likely to be funded. Drugs are expensive to develop and research is expensive to conduct. Recently, GlobalDate releases a report that explains why Lyme disease is neglected and is likely to remain neglected by big Pharma.

  • Pick a little, talk a little–How to make a speech for IDSA Lyme review panel

    Well, as you can see, I’ve reached the cutting and pasting portion of writing my speech for the IDSA Lyme Guidelines Review Panel—a bit like making a quilt. You start off with yards of different fabrics, cut them into little squares and eventually reassemble them into the quilt, tying off the edges carefully and trying not to prick yourself with the needle on the way. As a patient advocate, I am allotted 15 minutes to make my point and leave the podium. By the way, it is a lot more difficult to write a 15 minute speech than a 45 minutes speech—size matters. It’s like Mark Twain said: “I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.”