LYMEPOLICYWONK: Patient-Powered Research and Lyme Disease

ByLori

Traditionally, research has been researcher centered rather than patient centered.  Researcher-centered research pursues questions and curiosities of researchers that may have little or no relevance to patients. While this research may advance the pet theory of a researcher or generate additional funding to support that theory, it often does not improve patient care.  It may, in fact, not even be research that patients think is important.  And, it may not be research about  patients that are seen in clinical practice.

And, patient-powered research is intended to be part of a learning healthcare system.  Learning healthcare systems learn from their mistakes.  If they suggest a therapy, they look to see if it in fact works.  If not, they go back to the drawing board.

Patient-powered research seeks to have patient involved in framing the question, selecting the patient population, determining the treatment approach to be studied, and interpreting and disseminating the results. Examples of organizations that pioneered the patient-powered research include the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation’s Army of Women.

As the authors of the article explain:

 Too much clinical research has been funded, conducted, and published without attention to the ultimate relevance of the research questions or usefulness of the study findings to health care decision makers—namely, patients, their caregivers, clinicians, payers, and policy makers. Much clinical research has missed the mark. ..

 When we look back over the past ten years of research in Lyme disease, too much research funding has been given to answer questions that help support research paradigms of research.  For example, how many projects do we need to fund to help Dr. Wormser advance his theory that Lyme disease does not persist and that patients should not be treated?  How about a research project to seeks to improve patient quality of life?  To help patients get back to work or school?

And, as for a learning healthcare system in Lyme disease?  It doesn’t exist.  When patients remain ill, the response has been “so what, too bad, learn to cope.”  Why not ask the obvious questions that patients care about?  If 30 days of treatment doesn’t work, what does? If 90 days of treatment doesn’t work, what does? Or do these treatments work with certain patients, but not others? For these questions even to be asked, patients need a voice in selecting what type of research matters.

Right now, Lyme disease research is in the age of the dinosaurs.  Patient-powered research could change that.  Count me in!

References:

Fleurence RL, Beal AC, Sheridan SE, Johnson LB, Selby JV. Patient-Powered Research Networks Aim To Improve Patient Care And Health Research. Health Affairs. 2014 July 1, 2014;33(7):1212-9.

LYME POLICY WONK is written by Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA, the Executive Director of LymeDisease.org. Contact her at lbjohnson@lymedisease.org. On Twitter, she’s @lymepolicywonk.

Similar Posts

  • Lyme Policy Wonk: Beam me up, Scotty. See you after the jump!

    Why do we do what we do? Sometimes we win, but there are many, many (too many) bumps in the road on the way to success. How do we keep our perspective in the face of an adversary that seems unrelenting—vested, no entrenched, in a medical dogma that leaves patients on the side of the road? A medical society that believes that the views of patients are really–(really?) not relevant to the question at hand? I, for one, want to walk the road of other diseases that have been abandoned and forsaken by the medical establishment. But my road (and those of other illnesses), leads to success. And success–is all about the journey. Touching lives one by one until our day in the sun.

  • 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.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Two Standards of Care Revisited: Should Lyme Patients Have A Choice?

    Lyme disease is a controversial illness—as anyone with the disease knows. The controversy arises because there is medical uncertainty about the best way to diagnose and treat the disease, poor quality diagnostic tests, and very little treatment research. Out of this uncertainty, two approaches to treating the disease have emerged: one advanced by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the other advanced by the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS). But both of the approaches are not equal in the eyes of patients. One leaves patients without treatment options when short term therapy fails, as it does all too often. The other provides patients with the option of receiving additional care.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Speaking Truth to Power: Dr. Liegner Lays it Out for the IOM

    Dr. Liegner has been in the trenches a long time treating Lyme disease. He was working side by side in the early days with government scientists when they were curious and truly interested in learning something about this disease, before dogma took the place of science. Yesterday, he told the IOM how it is for Lyme patients, treating physicians, and researchers in this environment of fear, suppression, intimidation, indifference, and silence: "Physicians who have cared for persons with chronic Lyme disease have faced harassment at a minimum and for some, their careers have been ruined. Researchers who have seriously dedicated themselves to the scientific study of chronic Lyme disease in humans and/or animals have often found themselves attacked or marginalized. To persist in their researches would have resulted in virtual career suicide and some have been forced, by exigencies of survival, to leave the field." He also points out how the IOM feeds into this by allowing Dr. Wormser to speak unopposed and not permitting ILADS physicians an opportunity to speak: “The process of planning the meeting has been, as far as I can tell, quite opaque and it is notable that clinicians who actually treat persons with chronic Lyme disease have been nowhere to be found on either the planning committee or the panel. Neither is any clinician afforded adequate time to present, in a formal way, an opposing position to what must be viewed as the “keynote” speech by Dr. Wormser. Dr. Wormser’s extreme view on the existence of the entity of chronic Lyme disease needs no repeating but does need rebuttal.” His full letter follows the leap. . .