LYMEPOLICYWONK: ILADS Lyme guidelines on National Clearinghouse!

ByLorraine

 

Lyme treatment guidelines developed by the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS) were posted today on the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC). They are the first Lyme guidelines which comply with the Institute of Medicine’s new standards for rigorous evidence assessment and patient engagement in the development process. Physicians rely on the NGC for trustworthy evidence-based treatment guidelines. The NGC, part of the US Department of Health and Human Services, requires that guidelines meet high quality standards to be accepted for posting.

These new guidelines are the first Lyme disease guidelines to use GRADE, an exacting method for evaluating the quality of research studies, and to include a Lyme patient on the development panel.

“These guidelines put patients front and center,” according to Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA, Chief Executive Officer of LymeDisease.org, who is a co-author of the ILADS guidelines.

“There are two standards of care in Lyme disease—those of ILADS and those of the Infectious Diseases Society of America,” Johnson says. “Physicians should discuss both standards of care with patients.  Patients should make informed choices in consultation with their doctors about their best treatment options, based on their personal values and circumstances.”

The guidelines were developed over a two-year period with co-authors Dr. Elizabeth Maloney, MD, a provider of continuing medical education courses on tick-borne illnesses, and Dr. Dan Cameron, MD, a treating physician who is President of ILADS.

Following development, the guidelines were extensively reviewed by internal and external experts and published in a peer-reviewed journal, Expert Review of Anti-Infective Therapy. The guidelines, “Evidence Assessments and Guideline Recommendations in Lyme disease: The Clinical Management of Known Tick Bites, Erythema Migrans Rashes and Persistent Disease,” reflect the most current science. LymeDisease.org has endorsed the guidelines.

The Institute of Medicine was chartered by the US Congress to publish its standards on developing trustworthy guidelines in response to a growing climate of distrust arising from guideline developers with commercial ties that create worrisome conflicts of interest. Those with commercial ties were precluded from participating in the ILADS guideline process.

Cameron noted that the guidelines “recommend that clinicians perform a deliberate and individualized assessment of the potential risks and benefits of various treatment options before making their initial selection” and encourage close patient follow-up. Maloney stated that “using this patient-centered approach should reduce the risk of chronic illness due to inadequate antibiotic therapy.”

Johnson pointed out that the new guidelines include shared medical decision-making. “A lot of the treatment decisions in Lyme disease depend on trade-offs. How sick is the patient? How invasive is the treatment? What does the patient want? Patients need to understand the risks and benefits of treatment options to make informed medical choices. These guidelines provide that information.”

About Lyme disease: Lyme disease is a bacterial infection primarily transmitted by ticks. It is found throughout the United States, as well as in more than sixty other countries. Untreated Lyme disease can result in neurological disorders, crippling muscle and joint pain, heart conditions, disabling fatigue, and psychological disorders.  Even when Lyme disease is caught early and treated with a short course of antibiotics, debilitating symptoms can persist and require additional longer-term treatment.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 300,000 people are diagnosed with Lyme disease in the US every year. The illness affects people of all ages and according to the CDC is most common in children, older adults, and those who spend time in outdoor activities.

About LymeDisease.org: Since 1989, LymeDisease.org has advocated nationally for quality accessible healthcare for patients with Lyme and other tick-borne diseases. It is committed to shaping health policy through advocacy, legal and ethical analysis, education, physician training, and medical research. Its mission is to prevent Lyme disease, prevent early Lyme disease from becoming chronic, and to gain access to care for patients with chronic Lyme disease. For more information, visit lymedisease.org.

About ILADS: ILADS is a nonprofit, international, multidisciplinary medical society dedicated the appropriate diagnosis and treatment of Lyme and associated diseases. For more information, visit www.ILADS.org.

Press Contact: Dorothy K. Leland dleland@lymedisease.org

 

 

Similar Posts

  • 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.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: IDSA Reports No Change in Guidelines–The Fat Cat Ate the Canary

    What happened? The IDSA has issued its official report of the Lyme review panel. “[A] special independent Review Panel has unanimously agreed that no changes need be made to IDSA’s 2006 Lyme disease guidelines.” Let me point out three faults with this statement. First there was no “independent Review Panel”. There was a panel that was selected by the IDSA, which intentionally excluded from the panel physicians who disagreed with their assessment—all community physicians who treat chronic Lyme were excluded from the panel. Second, some changes to the recommendations were proposed by the panel. Third, the determinations were not unanimous. The most important recommendation regarding the requirement of positive serology for diagnosis actually had a 4 to 4 vote split. I will spare you the long read—28 pages of text and give you the bare bones only version. Nothing changed. They are not even sure what the fuss was about, honestly. They never expected the guidelines to change, stacked the panel, paid the ethicist, ran the process, and achieved a foregone conclusion which “validated” their guidelines. Seems like the IDSA fat cat ate the canary.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Dr. Fallon Sets the Record Straight—Part 2. Differences Matter.

    When studies fail to take heterogeneity into account, researchers can leap to the wrong conclusion. In a recent open-access article, Dr. Fallon and colleagues describe the four NIH trials, the Krupp Stop-LD study, the Klempner seronegative study, the Klempner seropositive study, and Fallon neurologic study and make a key point. There are considerable differences between chronic Lyme patients (so-called patient heterogeneity) that need to be addressed in study design to improve what he calls the signal to noise ratio. If a study does not address heterogeneity, the results may simply reflect “garbage in, garbage out.”

  • |

    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!).

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: A Baker’s Dozen?—Or Is it Six of One a Half Dozen of another?

    Some of you know Dr. Phil Baker, formerly of the National Institute of Health, currently of the American Lyme Disease Foundation—a group some regard as a front organization for the IDSA. (4 of the 7 ALDF directors were authors of the IDSA guidelines.) You might know that he oversaw the NIH Lyme disease trials. You might know he testified on behalf of the IDSA at the IDSA review panel—7 of the 8 panel members chosen by the IDSA were IDSA members. You might know that he characterizes the findings of that panel as “independent”, that he characterizes patients as vulnerable fools, and their treating physicians as predators. He has a certain viewpoint, it seems. But in his mind, there is no disagreement among gentlemen about science. It is odd for a man of science to refuse to read peer reviewed research to the contrary. In his mind, are there truly only heroes and villains? No real science. Well, then. Dr. Stricker and I rebutted his editorial and for once, it is available on line. I quote a snippet and then give you the link for the response and counter, counter, counter—whatever…

  • Attorney General Press Release: IDSA Lyme Disease Guidelines Flawed and Driven by Conflicts of Interests

    On May 1, 2008, the Connecticut Attorney General announced a landmark settlement against the Infectious Diseases Society of America in connection with its guidelines for treating Lyme disease. The IDSA guidelines are relied upon by insurers throughout the nation to deny seriously ill patients treatment for chronic Lyme disease. The Attorney General found substantial conflicts of interest among the panel members on the IDSA guidelines who held commercial interests related to diagnostic tests, vaccines, and insurance. In addition, the Attorney General found that the panel suppressed scientific evidence and excluded opposing views from the panel.