LYMEPOLICYWONK: Survey says most physicians don’t follow IDSA Lyme guidelines

Byldoadmin

I was reading the latest Poughkeepsie Journal article by Mary Beth Pfeiffer, “Doctors bucking Lyme Protocols.” This is the latest in her remarkable series of investigative reports on Lyme disease. After reviewing abstracts of the three studies the CDC relied on to revise the case numbers up from 30,000 to 300,000, she makes this conclusion about the treatment durations used by a random sample of patients throughout the United States: “Just 39 percent of Lyme patients reported being treated within the [IDSA] guidelines, or for four weeks or less. Fully 56 percent were treated longer, while 5 percent said they were not treated at all.” That’s astonishing. I should point out that this survey was random—it was not stacked with the patients of ILADS physicians, it was random. With all of its market clout and with the weight of the CDC behind it, the IDSA still can’t convince physicians to follow its rigid treatment guidelines.  What does that mean for patients, physicians, the CDC, the IDSA, and ILADS?

Well, for starters, let’s see what the CDC and IDSA have to say about this. Paul Mead of the CDC says: “These findings confirm that health care providers are not rigidly following the IDSA guidelines.” OK, well that is obvious and we all agree. Then he adds that the findings “underscore the need for more education of providers regarding best treatment practices.”  Really? So he thinks that the problem is that physicians haven’t read the guidelines and need education?  I find that hard to swallow. The CDC posts a link to the IDSA guidelines on its website. Uptodate, a widely followed web-based service for the physicians “who don’t know” about a disease, virtually parrots the IDSA guidelines. And, of course, insurance guidelines do the same.  So, IDSA Lyme guidelines are easy to find, difficult to misunderstand.  Four weeks therapy max, no more.  Period.

The IDSA says, “The use of long-term antibiotic therapy does not reflect best practices and may be a result of inaccurate information.”  To me, this sounds like the IDSA is saying its practices are “best.” That’s not remarkable. Ford thinks its cars are best, right?  (If we were dealing with tons of evidence this might be different. But in Lyme, there are a handful of small studies with mixed results. The weight of these guidelines is based on opinion.) And, at least for patients, the essential debate is about what is “best” for the patient.  The IDSA then characterizes those doctors who don’t follow their guidelines as ill-informed. Again, I think this is extremely unlikely.

This also seems like déjà vu to me.  Drs. Macauda and colleagues (including Yale’s Dr. 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”.  (One year after this study was published, the Embers study was published which demonstrated persistence in monkeys after treatment.)

So, now it looks like both patients and physicians believe that the IDSA guidelines are wrong. And the CDC and IDSA researchers believe the problem is pure and simple ignorance. Is it even possible that there is another explanation? Can patients who live with the disease and the community physicians who treat them know something that the IDSA researchers who sat on the IDSA guidelines panel don’t know?  Maybe this is part of what the Institute of Medicine is getting at in its new guidelines on creating trustworthy guidelines—which now require that guideline panels going forward include clinicians and others “expected to be affected” by the guidelines. (Recall that the IDSA panel consisted solely of researchers.)

Maybe we have entered the realm of “practice-based evidence”—where what matters is whether it actually works in clinical practice.  Physicians and patients are telling the CDC and the IDSA that the IDSA guidelines don’t work.

Are they listening?

 

LYME POLICY WONK blog is written by Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA, who is the Chief Executive Officer of LymeDisease.org, formerly CALDA. Contact her at lbjohnson@lymedisease.org.

References:

LYMEPOLICYWONK: Study Shows Public Believes that Lyme Infection Persists and Longer Term Treatments Are Needed https://lymedisease.org/news/lymepolicywonk/775.html

Mary Beth Pfeiffer, Doctors bucking Lyme protocols Study: Treatments longer to help patients; 3.9 million have been infected in U.S. http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20130915/NEWS01/309150044/Doctors-bucking-Lyme-protocols

Institute of Medicine, Creating Trustworthy Guidelines: http://books.nap.edu/booksearch.php?booksearch=1&record_id=13058&term=affected&chapter=75-108

 

Similar Posts

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: ILADS Weighs in on IOM Process

    Today, ILADS sent a letter to the IOM expressing its concerns about the lack of balance in the panel and the speaker list for the Lyme State of the Science conference. Not surprisingly, it was concerned primarily about the exclusion of ILADS physicians from presenting at the conference and with the large roles handed to Dr. Wormer, chair of the IDSA Lyme guidelines panel, and Dr. Aguera-Rosenfeld, who until recently worked at NYMC with him, are both known to have biased views regarding the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease. Exclusionary conduct on the part of the IDSA has prevented the type of scientific debate that is essential to understanding where the science in Lyme disease rests. ILADS took issue with the large roles handed to the IDSA in the diagnosis and treatment issues at the conference, stating: “There is a significant disconnect between IDSA and the community of physicians who treat Lyme disease. There is also an urgent need for transparency in recognizing the limitations of the existing Lyme research. The bulk of the research on Lyme treatment has been controlled by IDSA researchers. Their research is based on sample populations that do not reflect those seen in clinical practice.” Lyme treatment research has been plagued by sample sizes that are too small to measure clinically relevant treatment effects and that do not reflect the types of patients seen in clinical practice. The link to the ILADS letter follows the jump. . .

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Study Finds Coinfections in Lyme Disease Common

    The largest survey of chronic Lyme disease patients was recently published in PeerJ. LymeDisease.org conducts these large-scale surveys to collect information directly from Lyme patients. Although the incidence of coinfections in chronic Lyme disease is unknown, many people assume that co-infections are rare in Lyme patients. The fact is no one has asked the question. So we asked over 3,000 chronic Lyme patients whether they had coinfections that were confirmed by laboratory tests.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: ILADS Calls on IDSA to Remove Barriers to Lyme Guideline Change

    Responding to patient concerns, the President of ILADS, Dr. Robert Bransfield today delivered a letter to the IDSA calling upon the organization to remove barriers to guidelines change. The letter follows patient complaints to ILADS about the IDSA voting process, which were uncovered by the Connecticut Attorney General in the oversight of the IDSA Lyme guidelines review process. According to the Attorney General, the voting process used by the IDSA was in violation of the terms of the antitrust Settlement Agreement. The Attorney General has called upon the IDSA to redo the vote using the proper voting procedures. Text of the ILADS letter follows the jump.

  • CALDA, LDA and TFL Press Release on IDSA Hearing

    CALDA, the national Lyme Disease Association and Time for Lyme have issued a joint press release regarding the IDSA Lyme review hearing, which is schedule for July 30th in Washington D.C. The release highlights the growing opposition to the IDSA guidelines, the importance of acknowledging the full spectrum of science in Lyme disease, and the importance of permitting clinical judgment and treatment options for patients. Concerns are also raised about the current process, which Attorney Lorraine Johnson points out is not impartial because IDSA controls the process and has selected both the panel members and those who may present before the panel. Of critical importance is that fact that no physicians who treat chronic Lyme disease were selected to sit on the panel. The testimony will be aired live over the internet on July 30th.