JAMA to IDSA–Can you hear me now? Now? How about Now?!

Byldoadmin

Can you hear me?  Can you hear me now?  How about now?  The latest is on industry influence on professional associations.  Seems like timely reading for the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).   The article by Rothman et al, “Profession Medical Associations and Their Relationships with Industry—A Proposal for Controlling Conflict of Interest.” calls for medical associations to curtail industry funding and influence of their educational conferences and treatment guidelines.

Why?  Because they  threaten to undermine the reputation of the entire medical profession.

Why else?  Because they  “compromise clinical decision making adversely.”

Hear! Hear!   Hear! Can you hear me now?

The article notes that industry funding of the activities of medical associations is ‘pervasive’ and holds medical associations to a higher standard of accountability, saying: “Any threat to the integrity of [professional medical associations] must be thoroughly and effectively resolved.”     That would be a different approach for the IDSA to employ.  Rather than fighting tooth and nail with the Attorney General over meddling with medicine, the IDSA could rise up to the occasion and clean house by trying to do the right thing by patients.  Rather than trying to rubberstamp the guidelines adopted by its conflict-ridden Lyme disease guidelines panel, the IDSA could take a stand for integrity.

The article points out that “disclosure of industry relationships by committee members is not sufficient protection” and encourages medical associations to only appoint to guidelines panels members without conflict of interest—that is “no ties to industry”.  Merrill’s attention to the drum roll is important.  And, he asks the key question:  Will any medical associations listen?  Let’s hope so.  But, if the IDSA’s response to having its guidelines investigated by the Connecticut Attorney General is any indication, I wouldn’t hold my breath.  (Sigh.)

Similar Posts

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Thanks to Everyone Who Helped With the IDSA Petition!

    CALDA and Time for Lyme (TFL) want to thank everyone for their help on the petition asking Connecticut Attorney General Blumenthal to further hold the IDSA accountable. Although the petitions were limited to Connecticut residents and the timing fell in the midst of school graduations with all of the time those entail, approximately 2,500 signatures were collected and are being sent to him.

  • IDSA Lyme Hearing: Wormser– Talk About Exaggeration!

    Talk about exaggeration. No really–at the hearing. Dr. Carol Baker asked Dr. Wormser the $200 question: Why exaggerate if the truth will do? She was talking about the use in the guidelines of words like "vast majority" when the real percentage was 65%. And her question was why not let percentages speak for themselves? If the truth is 65%–why not simply say 65%. Is it just me, or does Wormser sound irritated at the question? His response after a drill down is that he would not use the expression "vast majority" to refer to anything less than say–90%. Excuse me? Did I hear that right? 90%. Really? Ok, let's break it down for him.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Institute of Medicine Cuts on the Bias for IDSA

    Finally, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) came out with its agenda for their “State of the Science Hearing”after much hemming and hawing. Patient groups (including CALDA) who asked for transparency in the study process received a mere “no comment” response. Well, we never got transparency, and we only got the agenda after it was finalized and released to the public. So, here’s the score: its 3 for 3 in the ‘Final Inning’ in favor of the IDSA.

    Four of the 6 IOM panel members are IDSA members.

    10 of the 14 physician speakers were authors on the IDSA guidelines or the copycat guidelines issued by members of the IDSA panel or members of the IDSA.

    Zero ILADS physicians have been chosen to speak. Let me repeat: ZERO, zip, nada, not a single ILADS physician was chosen to speak!

    Dr. Gary Wormser, poster boy of the Connecticut IDSA antitrust investigation, is kicking off the game.

    Oh, there’s window dressing to be sure. A personalized tour of the Agenda after the great leap forward. . .

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Study Shows Public Believes that Lyme Infection Persists and Longer Term Treatments Are Needed

    Drs. Macauda and colleagues (including Peter Krause) conducted a survey of residents in the New England area and found: “The majority of our survey respondents believe that the Lyme disease spirochete can persist following antibiotic treatment, that a standard course of treatment for 2 to 4 weeks is often not curative, and that long-term antibiotic therapy of >2 months is sometimes useful.” The authors of the study recommend that state and federal agencies increase efforts to educate the public to curtail the “widespread belief in chronic Lyme”. But surely something’s wrong with this conclusion. The survey population was HIGHLY educated—almost half had a graduate degree and an additional third had a BA. They had extensive knowledge about the disease. Should we then assume, as the authors did, that their views reflect ignorance? Or should we assume that they actually just disagree with the IDSA claim that all patients are cured in 30 days, that persistent symptoms reflect “some other disease”, and that “chronic Lyme” doesn’t exist? Disagreement is not ignorance. Almost all of the participants knew at least one person with Lyme disease. Essentially, these people are saying what those of us in the Lyme community have known for some time: The IDSA guidelines are out of sync with reality.

  • Chronic Lyme Disease and the “Axis of Evil”

    A recent publication authored by Feder and correspondence to that publication defined the 'Axis of Evil' in this controversy as physicians who treat patients with needlessly prolonged courses of antibiotics, 'specialty laboratories' that perform 'inaccurate' Lyme testing and the internet, which promotes 'Lyme hysteria'. Dr. Stricker and I published a counter article taking on each of the three elements of the "Axis of Evil", one by one (Future Microbiology, Volume 3, Number 6, December 2008 , pp. 621-624(4)). While this version of the article is available on Pub Med, the full version (which contains footnotes) is available for purchase by the publisher Future Science .