LYMEPOLICYWONK: LymeDisease.org Endorses New ILADS Lyme Disease Guidelines

ByLori

The Centers for Diseases Control estimates that more than 300,000 people contract Lyme disease each year. People with Lyme frequently experience long delays in obtaining an initial diagnosis, have poor access to healthcare and suffer a severe burden of illness. Those who are not diagnosed early have a worse prognosis; half become chronically ill.

Focusing on how best to reduce the risk of developing chronic illness, the new guidelines target how to treat tick bites, erythema migrans rashes and persistent disease. Because the evidence base is poor, there is a strong need for clinical judgment and shared decision-making with patients. Many of the treatment decisions in Lyme disease depend on trade-offs. What are the risks and benefits for treating or not treating? How sick is the patient? How invasive is the treatment? To make informed medical choices patients need to understand the risks and benefits of treatment options. These guidelines provide that information.

The guidelines were developed over a three-year period and reflect the latest science. They are the first Lyme guidelines to use a rigorous systematic evidence evaluation approach called GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). GRADE has been adopted by other well-respected medical organizations including Cochrane Collaboration, the World Health Organization, and the National Institute of Health. The guidelines also reflect the high standards established by the Institute of Medicine for developing trustworthy guidelines and were reviewed by over 25 reviewers.

The complexity of Lyme disease makes a cookie cutter approach inappropriate noted Dr. Cameron, MD, MPH, lead author: “We moved away from designating a fixed duration for antibiotic therapy and instead encourage clinicians to tailor therapy based on the patient’s response to treatment.”

Coauthor Elizabeth Maloney, MD, commented on the need for clinicians to perform a deliberate and individualized assessment of the potential risks and benefits of various treatment options before making their initial selection: “We recommend careful follow-up because it allows them to adjust therapy as circumstances evolve. This more selective approach should reduce the risk of inadequate treatment giving rise to a chronic illness,” added Dr. Maloney.

The full guidelines, “Evidence Assessments and Guideline Recommendations in Lyme disease: The Clinical Management of Known Tick Bites, Erythema Migrans Rashes and Persistent Disease” were published online today in the August issue of Expert Review of Anti-infective therapy and are available on line for free access.

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

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: AIDS Advocacy–A Model for Change

    This is a terrific resource that explains what made the AIDS patient advocacy movement successful. It's is available for free. Here's an excerpt: "Change is possible. But in order to
    create change, the focused voices of advocates must be heard through the din. Individuals and organizations must do the hard work of becoming ready to question the status quo, and be smart enough to present well-founded alternatives. Strong leaders in government must pave the path and prepare to stay the course. Specific strategies with clear goals must be established in order to hold people accountable."

  • Publication Alert: IDSA Review Hearing Report–Lipstick on a Pig

    On April 22nd, the IDSA guidelines review hearing panel rubber-stamped its Lyme disease guidelines in its final report of the hearing. Those of us who presented and attended the hearing were appalled. Sure we had our reservations about the ability of a panel stacked with IDSA members to impartially review the guidelines, but there were 1,600 pages of peer reviewed evidence that had been presented to the panel and independent scientists had attested to the persistence of the Lyme bacteria and the low quality of the tests. How could they ignore the weight of such evidence? How could they decide to leave the guidelines completely unchanged even though a panel of their own choosing was divided on the testing? To make matters worse, the IDSA then trumpeted the results of a stacked panel as "independent" in their report. Dr. Stricker and I were given the opportunity to respond to the IDSA "spin" and our letter to the editor was just published. An excerpt follows:

  • IDSA announces presenters and order of presentation

    The Infectious Diseases Society of America has selected presenters to speak before its Lyme disease guidelines review panel on July 30. (This is part of the guidelines review process mandated by the IDSA’s settlement with the Attorney General of Connecticut.) The speakers representing patient advocates are Tina Garcia, of the Lyme Education and Awareness Program (LEAP) and me. Three researchers that are not affiliated with either ILADS or IDSA will speak: Drs. Brian Fallon from Columbia, Ben Luft from Stony Brook, and David Volkman, previously from the National Institute of Health (NIH). The following members of ILADS will be presenting: Drs. Daniel Cameron, Ken Liegner, Steven Phillips and Raphael Stricker. In addition, Allison Delong, MS, of Brown University, and Dr. Donta, a member of IDSA, will present. Those advocating for the IDSA guidelines include Drs. Phillip Baker (President of the American Lyme Disease Foundation and previously with NIH), Barbara Johnson (Centers for Disease Control), Eugene Shapiro, Sunil Sood, Allen Steere, Art Weinstein and Gary Wormser.

  • IDSA Hearing–Reflections

    The IDSA Lyme disease guidelines review hearing on Thursday was an historic event both in medicine and in the Lyme community. It is the first time an organization has been required to hold hearings and review treatment guidelines that were created by a panel with conflicts of interest. It is also the first time that a broad debate of both sides of the Lyme controversy over diagnosis and treatment with physicians and researchers has been held.