LYMEPOLICYWONK: Saying what you mean and meaning what you say: Evidence, Science and the IDSA

Byldoadmin

The controversy was kicked off by an article in the American Journal of Medicine by Cerar et al “Subjective symptoms after treatment of early Lyme disease.”    The premise of the article is that patients with Lyme disease do not develop any relapsing, persistent, chronic symptoms that can be considered to be due to persistent infection.  The article drew flak from three separate letters to the editor, one by Dr. Sam Donta, one by Dr. Stricker and I, and one by Dr. Cairns, all taking issue with the fact that the patients in the study were all promptly diagnosed and treated and could not be used to make sweeping generalizations about patients who are not promptly diagnosed and treated.  A survey by CALDA in 2005, found that diagnosis of patients with chronic Lyme disease was delayed for an average of 4.5 years.

Dr. Cairns had previously published a meta-analysis of 5 studies and found that patients with Lyme disease were more likely than controls to have fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and neurocognitive difficulties years after diagnosis with Lyme disease.  One has to wonder what exactly about a meta-analysis is not “evidence based”?  Their point?  That her studies included patients that did not meet the CDC surveillance case definition.  Oh. . ., that.  But wait, didn’t the CDC say that the surveillance definition of Lyme disease should not be used to diagnose patients—that the diagnosis should be made clinically?  Then, doesn’t it follow, that Cairn’s use of clinically relevant patient populations—those diagnosed with the disease—is the better approach?  Or, is the definition of Lyme disease “just what [Wormser and Cerar] choose it to mean—neither more nor less”?

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

Similar Posts

  • 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. . .

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: New Lyme Disease Culture Test Could be Game Changer

    Advanced Laboratory Services Inc. (ALSI) has announced a new culture test for Lyme disease. It is commercially available in all states except California, New York and Florida, which have individual state licensing requirements that must be met before the test can be offered. Direct detection of bacteria through culture is considered the “gold standard” for diagnosis, but this method has not been commercially available for Lyme disease using previous culture methods. The new test is based on research conducted by Dr. Eva Sapi and colleagues, which CALDA helped fund. Results of the research published earlier this year demonstrated the improved culture method for Borrelia burgdorferi, the agent of Lyme disease, and the technique has recently been corroborated using human blood samples. Larger confirmatory studies of the test are now being pursued. Dr. Joseph Burrascano, a pioneer in the treatment of Lyme disease, consulted with ALSI to help make the test commercially available. A sensitive high-quality culture test would not only permit patients to be accurately diagnosed, but would lay to rest much of the controversy surrounding Lyme disease.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Persistence Personified in Lyme Disease–Those Pesky Human Cases

    Current laboratory tests widely used for Lyme disease rely on indirect measures of infection based on the immune system’s antibody response to B. burdorferi—the bacteria which causes Lyme disease. Antibody tests are highly insensitive and miss a whopping 43% of Lyme disease cases. In addition, these tests can only determine past exposure to the bacteria, not active infection. They also cannot determine whether the infection has been eradicated.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Helene Jorgensen’s Comments to IOM Committee

    I am posting the written speeches of those who commented during the public comment period of the IOM. The speech below is that of Helene Jorgensen, the author of “Sick and Tired: How America’s Health Care System Fails Its Patients”. Helene Jorgensen presented her own encounter with Lyme disease and addressed the flaws in the clinical treatment flaws to date. Her testimony is available as a downloadable pdf by clicking the link at the bottom of this blog post.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: IDSA Violates Settlement Agreement Voting Procedures

    On Monday, February 1, 2010, the Connecticut Attorney General sent a letter to the IDSA expressing “concern” over “improper voting procedures” used by the IDSA in the Lyme guidelines review voting process. The IDSA may soon approve hearing determinations based on this improper voting procedure. The Attorney General requested that the IDSA redo the vote to comply with the Settlement Agreement. The four-page Attorney General letter was released in response to a Freedom of Information Request made on behalf of patient groups for information regarding the IDSA’s compliance with the Settlement Agreement.

  • GIVING THANKS

    Last Thursday, the historic review of the IDSA 2006 Lyme guidelines was held in Washington, D.C. Eighteen people presented arguments for and against the guidelines. We don’t know how the IDSA panel will act in the face of this deluge of previously suppressed information, but we do know that we have grown enormously as a community and that the skill-sets we developed on this project will continue to have a positive effect in the future.

    I want to share with you a little of the background of the action and acknowledge people who have joined in this massive undertaking over this period. Many others have contributed, and I apologize if I have overlooked anyone’s contribution to this effort.