IDSA Now Accepting Applications For Panel Members For Guidelines Review Panel

Byldoadmin

This panel will re-evaluate the recommendations in the 2006 IDSA Lyme disease guidelines to determine whether contested recommendations need to be revised.

In May 2008, the IDSA agreed to re-evaluate its guidelines as part of the settlement agreement for an antitrust investigation by the Attorney General of Connecticut, which found significant conflicts of interest on the original panel, suppression of scientific evidence, and exclusion of panel members with opposing viewpoints. This is the first time a guidelines panel has been forced to re-examine its guidelines under antitrust law.

The IDSA estimates that the time commitment for those serving on the panel will be approximately two to four hours per week or 10 to 15 hours per month for eight to twelve months.

The following must be completed, submitted, and received by October 1, 2008:

  1. Application
  2. CV
  3. Notarized conflict of interest disclosure form (allow time to have this notarized and mailed!)
We encourage ILADS members and other open minded physicians to apply to participate in this important panel. Representation on the panel is critical to the outcome of the determinations. The primary restrictions are that panel members may not have conflicts of interest and may not have served on a Lyme guidelines panel in the past. The IDSA has posted its application process on the home page of its website.
Qualifications:
  • All panel members. The panel will be selected by the chair and the IDSA Standards and Practice Guidelines Committee. The IDSA is required to give “fair consideration to all reasonable applicants.” A prospective panel member cannot have previously served on a Lyme guidelines panel, must be free of conflicts of interest, must be a physician or a researcher, and need not be a member of IDSA. The Chair and members of the Panel must meet the following criteria:
  1. must be a clinician or scientist
  2. must not have served on any Lyme guideline panel
  3. must be free of conflicts of interest as determined by the ombudsman
  4. must be experienced in the review and interpretation of the medical/scientific literature
  5. must have knowledge of Lyme disease and/or other infectious diseases as evidenced by:
  • clinical experience and/or
  • research experience

 

  • The Chair: The chair of the panel is critically important because this person and the IDSA Standards and Practice Guidelines Committee will select the panel members from the pool of applicants. The chair will be selected by the IDSA Standards and Practice Guidelines Committee in an open process—meaning any qualified individual can apply. In addition to the requirements of all panelists, the Chair must meet the following requirements:
  1. must be trained in infectious diseases
  2. must be without any beneficial or financial interest related to Lyme disease as determined by the ombudsman
  3. must have knowledge of Lyme disease but need not be an expert
  4. must not have previously published a particular viewpoint on Lyme disease
  5. must have the ability to:
  • complete tasks in a timely manner
  • consider varying points of view
  • bring groups of individuals to consensus

Over a period of 8-12 months, members of the review panel will be expected to participate in several one- to two-hour conference calls and attend at least one, two-day, in-person meeting that will include the public hearing. The IDSA estimates that this and any necessary e-mail exchanges will take 10-15 hours per month or two-four hours per week.

Similar Posts

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Does IDSA Have Police Power? Can IDSA Regulate Lyme Tests?

    There is a lot of flurry in the Lyme light about the IDSA recent letter in opposition to the physician protection bill pending in the New Hampshire physician protection legislation. This legislation follows on the heels of legislation already passed in California, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Like breast cancer patients before them (who passed legislation in 20 states to secure the right to make treatment choices), Lyme patients are appealing to legislators to preserve their right to receive treatment for Lyme disease. The IDSA claims that its guidelines are not mandatory, but to my ears this sounds like double-speak. And, the newly elected President of IDSA, Dr. Whitley essentially admits as much when he complains about lab tests that are not “regulated” by the IDSA guidelines. What makes IDSA think that it has the “right” to regulate lab tests? Who says? How genuine is IDSA when it claims that its guidelines are really just “discretionary”? Come on, guys, one or the other, but you can’t play both sides of this issue with a straight face. Maybe we have to fall back to Lincoln or Bush, take your pick, about how many people you can fool.

  • Bias and patient autonomy—what’s the connection

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. So why do we care about bias in medical guidelines? Because opinion should not dictate patient care. Think of the prostate cancer patient who sees the surgeon who recommends surgery, the radiologist who recommends radiation treatment, and the internist who recommends watchful waiting. Everyone knows that one’s position depends on where one sits. The surgeon may genuinely prefer surgery and when he recommends it to his patient, the patient realizes that he is, after all, talking with a surgeon and that surgeons are likely to favor surgery. He also knows that he can walk down the street a bit and talk with the radiologist and get his perspective. The point is that even though the patient is given conflicting advice, at the end of the day the decision is his. He chooses among treatment options and the physicians respect his decision. This is called autonomy—a recognition that patients are entitled to make choices among health care options.

  • Opinion based medicine

    For those who haven’t read, the recent New York Times article, "Plenty of Guidelines, but Where's the Evidence?" by D. Sanghavi, M.D., I suggest you check it out. Sanghavi discusses the problems caused by centralized guidelines in medicine particularly when there is an evidence gap—when guidelines are based on opinion rather than a careful review of all of the evidence. And, this issue of centralization of medicine through guidelines is becoming more important as the push for national health care heats up.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: IDSA FINAL REPORT END OF APRIL!

    The IDSA will issue its final report by the end of April. Did you catch that? Yes, it made an announcement and buried it deep within its website for enterprising spelunkers to find. I think this was another attempt to “not communicate something important.” Someone did find it though and posted it on the web. People joined in. They asked, “How on earth did you find that?”

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: IDSA Lyme Hearing Panel–What to do when opinion is strong, but evidence is weak?

    Now that two studies have shown that IDSA guidelines are generally long on opinion and short on evidence, what should the IDSA guideline panel do? The study by Lee, discussed in yesterday's blog, found that IDSA frequently makes strong recommendations, but that these strong recommendations are supported by strong evidence only 15% of the time. Dr. Maloney found that the majority of recommendations in the IDSA Lyme guidelines were based on the weakest level of evidence–expert opinion. Shouldn't clinical judgment only be suppressed when there is strong evidence? That's what the American Academy of Pediatrics says in its guidelines on making guidelines.

  • |

    LYMEPOLICYWONK: Barthold and Luft–Persistence and Integrity in Science.

    Breathe a sigh of relief. No, really. It is not that often in Lyme disease that one reads an unbiased study that speaks truth to power, that values integrity in science over dogma. So, pour a cup of tea and I will pull out the most important findings and conclusions about persistence from the recently published study by Dr. Stephen Barthold and Dr. Ben Luft, “Ineffectiveness of Tigecycline against Persistent Borrelia burgdorferi.” Here they are in a nut-shell for those with neither the time nor the inclination to read the entire study (though I must say it is highly recommended!).