LYMEPOLICYWONK: LYME IS PART OF A MUCH BROADER DEBATE ABOUT THE ROLE OF PATIENTS IN HEALTHCARE

Byldoadmin

 

Bring on the links!

Carman et al, “Evidence That Consumers Are Skeptical About Evidence-Based Health Care” 

Johnson and Stricker, “Consumer Acceptance Depends on Whether Guidelines Reflect Patient Values” 

My original blog post on the article goes into more depth. 

 You can follow additional comments on Lyme policy at www.lymepolicywonk.org.  You can contact Lorraine Johnson at lbjohnson@lymedisease.org.

Similar Posts

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: IDSA Lyme Guidelines—A Poster Child for Guidelines Reform? Institute of Medicine Says IDSA Lyme Guidelines Highlight Need for Change

    I was surprised. I had just settled into my long read of the 217 page new Institute of Medicine report on guideline reform (Clinical Practice Guidelines, We Can Trust, 2010), when the report took an amazing left turn. No, this is not the IOM report on Lyme disease (no telling when that comes out). This is the one on the need for medical guidelines reform in general—not just for Lyme disease. The IOM points to the Connecticut Attorney General investigation into the IDSA Lyme guidelines and says: “This case highlights the need for standardization and transparency in all aspects of systemic data collection and review, committee administration, and guideline development, so that questions about these issues do not detract from the science. [Guideline developers]. . . must be aware of the many, varied observers who will consider their development processes,
    particularly when their recommendations are likely to be controversial.” That’s a public slap on the wrist to the IDSA and it matters.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: CDC Tells Poughkeepsie Journal Long Term Antibiotics Not Warranted; I Respond

    Dr. Lyle Petersen of the CDC wrote an editorial for the Poughkeepsie Journal in response to the remarkable series of articles by Mary Beth Pfeiffer on Lyme Disease. In his letter, Dr. Petersen restates the IDSA/CDC perspective patients have long heard. Lyme disease is easy to diagnose and treat, but for those with chronic Lyme treatment is both ineffective and dangerous. He proposed that we work on preventing Lyme disease and early diagnosis and treatment—both laudable goals, but not at the expense of treating seriously ill patients. My response to his letter, which I posted on the Poughkeepsie website (and encourage you to respond there as well) follows.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: IDSA GUIDELINES LACK EVIDENCE—DON’T CALL IT EVIDENCE BASED IF IT’S JUST YOUR OPINION

    A recent study evaluated over 4,200 IDSA guideline recommendations and concluded that more than half—really?—more than HALF? were based on no more than expert opinion and anecdote, not evidence. As it turns out, only 1 of 7 treatment recommendations were based on high quality research trials. According to a recent article in Reuters, in the absence of a strong evidence base “the recommendations end up depending largely on who's on the guideline-drafting panel and any assumptions or opinions they may bring to the process.” The IDSA likes to paint patients who oppose its Lyme guidelines as “anti-science” misfits, but the truth is that patients just want some honesty and transparency. We’d like a little more evidence and a lot less opinion. We’d like more treatment options when the evidence is poor. Evidence based medicine is supposed to be about wringing the bias out of the process, but expert opinion is all about bias. One doctor who served on many IDSA panels acknowledged that “we are operating on a lot of bias. We recognize we have bias, but it’s impossible to eliminate when there is a dearth of data.” Well, this is clearly wrong. It is easy to acknowledge the lack of evidence and provide treatment options. Just like the prostrate guidelines do. More after the jump. .. .

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Was the Last Decade of Lyme Research a Cover-Up? Baker and the Embers Study Revisited.

    Two weeks ago, I posted a blog regarding the IDSA stealth front organization, the American Lyme Disease Foundation (ALDF). I highlighted the fact that Dr. Phil Baker, who was responsible for overseeing the Lyme clinical trials at the National Institute of Health (NIH) prior to his retirement, is now the Executive Director at the ALDF. I also questioned the handling of two companion studies during his tenure at NIH. One (Klempner), which found no persistent infection, was rushed to publication, while its companion monkey trial (Embers) languished for ten long years. During the interim, the Klempner trial was heavily promoted by the IDSA to deny patients treatment for chronic Lyme disease while no one mentioned that the companion study, the Embers trial, was still pending. Dr. Baker protested that he had nothing to do with the delay. However, I pointed out that he had an ethical obligation to accurately characterize the uncertain state of the science while the Embers companion study was pending. Dr. Baker now goes to great lengths to explain the delay (see below), and I respond.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: WHEN MEDICAL BOARDS ABUSE THEIR POWER

    Although most people believe that a "good" physician licensure board is a "tough" one that protects people from bad doctors, medical boards that abuse their tremendous power, can persecutes or even destroy good doctors. Those in the Lyme community are aware of the relentless prosecution of Dr. Charles Ray Jones in Connecticut. The case which has dragged on for years and cost an enormous amount of money seems specifically designed to accomplish only one purpose–to put Dr. Jones out of business. The case is particularly disturbing because the Connecticut Department of Public Health had previously said that it recognized two standards of care in the treatment of Lyme disease and would not prosecute physicians solely because they followed a standard of care that provided for longer term treatment of Lyme disease. This is abuse of power by a medical board, pure and simple.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: IOM LIVE BLOG PART III Public Comment

    I have summarized the public comments made at the IOM hearing today. I intend to post the statements made by those speaking to the panel that are provided to me. Those who spoke included Pat Smith of the national Lyme Disease Assn., Diane Blanchard and Ann Lyons of Time for Lyme, Gregg Skall of National Capital, Helene Jargensen, author of Sick and Tired, Candy Brassard of the EPA, Rick Smith, Bob Smith, and Julia Rice, a former nurse. Others listed to speak who did not attend were Arthur Weinstein, Phil Baker, and Lynn Shepler.