The IDSA Guidelines Re-Evaluation Process

Byldoadmin


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.

 

Settlement process timeframe and phases.

The entire re-evaluation process is expected to between 8-12 months and has three phases:

  1. the selection of the chair and the panel (see above)
  2. the internal collection of scientific evidence and call for submissions of scientific evidence from the public
  3. the public hearing of the evidence, which will be aired live on the Internet.

 

Panel selection.

The IDSA must convene a new panel to determine whether contested recommendations need to be revised. The new panel will have between 8 and 12 members (including the chair) and must “as a group, reflect a balanced variety of perspectives and experience across a broad range of relevant disciplines, ranging from clinical experience in treating patients with Lyme disease to experience in investigating the best methods to diagnose and treat Lyme disease or other infectious diseases”.

Prospective panel members are chosen by the IDSA Standards and Practice Guidelines Committee and the Chairman of the new panel. Panelists cannot have previously served on a Lyme guidelines panel, must be free of conflicts of interest, must be a clinician or a researcher, and need not be a member of IDSA. All panelists will be screened for potential conflicts of interest by Dr. Brody, the independent medical ethicist. ILADS physicians are encouraged to apply for panel seats.

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 imposed on panel members, the chair must be trained in infectious disease, must not have a published viewpoint on Lyme disease, and must have experience managing tasks, building consensus, and considering varying viewpoints.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON QUALIFICATIONS FOR PANEL MEMBERS CLICK HERE.

Evidence selection.

IDSA staff will compile evidence internally for the panel to consider. However, in addition, the IDSA must post an announcement on its website and permit others to submit scientific studies for review by the panel over a 60 day period.

Public presentations and hearing.

After the scientific evidence has been reviewed, the IDSA must permit people who would like to present publicly to apply. Although preference will be given to researchers and physicians, any stakeholder may apply. The final list of presenters must reserve time divergent opinions. The panel will work with the medical ethicist and the Connecticut Attorney General’s office to finalize this list. Conflicts of interest of presenters must be disclosed, but will not preclude the presenter from participating. A public hearing of the presentations that will be aired live over the Internet. The presenters should identify specific recommendations of the IDSA guidelines that they contest (these are considered contested recommendations) and present evidence opposing the recommendation. Only contested recommendations will be reconsidered by the panel—so focus is critical.

Panel determinations.

Each contested recommendation will require a supermajority vote (75% or greater) to affirm that it is “medically/scientifically justified in light of all the evidence presented”. After the vote on each contested recommendation, the Review Panel will recommend whether the IDSA guidelines need to be revised in whole, in part, or not at all. If the guidelines need to be revised, then the new treatment recommendations will also be subject to the 75% voting requirement. The notion here is that a “consensus” of the panel is 75%, and all determinations require a consensus.

Similar Posts

  • IDSA Lyme Hearing: Wormser– Talk About Exaggeration!

    Talk about exaggeration. No really–at the hearing. Dr. Carol Baker asked Dr. Wormser the $200 question: Why exaggerate if the truth will do? She was talking about the use in the guidelines of words like "vast majority" when the real percentage was 65%. And her question was why not let percentages speak for themselves? If the truth is 65%–why not simply say 65%. Is it just me, or does Wormser sound irritated at the question? His response after a drill down is that he would not use the expression "vast majority" to refer to anything less than say–90%. Excuse me? Did I hear that right? 90%. Really? Ok, let's break it down for him.

  • Gooznews takes on conflicts in guidelines

    Gooznews posted an interesting commentary on guidelines, conflicts of interest in guideline development and over reliance on expert panels when there are gaps in evidence. Merrill Goozner is a health care ethicist and this is not the first entry on his blog that has caught my attention. You might want to check it out. His post is premised on the recent article by Sniderman in the Journal of the American Medical Association (recent issue), which does a remarkably job outlining the problems with control in evidence based medicine, how "opinions" of the panel members are recharacterized as "science" in the form of evidence based guidelines. Some of the comments to Goozner's post are interesting. One person responds that "Evidence-based medicine has morphed into pharma-based medicine and HMO-based medicine". I thought Goozner's post was a good opportunity to point out some of the problems with the IDSA guidelines. My comment follows:

  • Taming the beast: No MUS, No Fuss!

    Patients with Lyme disease know how important the definition of an illness can be. We know that the difference between chronic Lyme and Post Lyme Disease Syndrome is the difference between receiving treatment and being medically abandoned. So what’s with all the “new” language at the IDSA hearing about medically unexplained symptoms? MUS for short. No fewer than 3 IDSA speakers use this expression: Drs. Weinstein, Shapiro, and Wormser. It was like they synchronized talking points. First, let me tell you what MUS and PLDS have in common—no antibiotic treatment. Because—guess why? Because the term MUS applies to diseases of unknown etiology— diseases with no identified cause. But wait, you say. Doesn’t Lyme disease have a cause? You might assume that given that the bacteria has been identified, Lyme disease has a cause and isn’t really “unexplained”?

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Embers Monkey Trials Part 5. Of Mice and Men and Monkeys.

    The guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) deny the existence of persistent infection. “There is no convincing evidence in North America for the persistence of B. burgdorferi in the skin of humans after treatment with antibiotic regimens known to be active against B. burgdorferi in vitro.” The Embers monkey research demonstrates persistence and is consistent with other animal model research. But, humans differ from animals in fundamental ways. So why not go further and demonstrate persistence in humans? The fact is that some experiments cannot be ethically conducted on humans. Hence, animal studies may be the only way research that can demonstrate a point. Such is the case with the Embers monkey trials. Embers demonstrated persistent bacteria notwithstanding 90 days of antibiotic treatment by using invasive tissue sampling that could not be conducted on humans.