LYMEPOLICYWONK: Meeting with Dr. Ben Beard of the CDC–The Importance of Dialogue and Lingering Concerns

Byldoadmin

Prevention: In his presentation, Dr. Beard emphasized that the CDC sees its primary role as focused on preventing Lyme disease.  Patients support this goal.  However, sick patients need access to treatments now that may restore their health.  Treatment options need to remain open while science is unfolding.  This is where we believe the primary goal should be set.

Educating Physicians:  One of the CDC’s goals is the education of physicians.  Sounds good, right?  Until you know the details, which are not overtly stated.  

The CDC currently has an IDSA training module on its website and links to the IDSA guidelines. Two studies conducted by IDSA members found that the IDSA treatment guidelines for many different diseases are based on very low levels of evidence-more than half of their recommendations are based on no more than expert opinion and anecdote. This is also true in the IDSA’s Lyme disease guidelines, where 38 of the 71 recommendations are based on expert opinion or anecdote and many others are based on very low levels of evidence. 

So, despite the fact that IDSA promotes its treatment guidelines as “evidence based”, those guidelines fall far short of the mark. And, where the evidence is lacking, conflicted, or poor, the IDSA guidelines prohibit treatment.  This ties the hands of physicians and patients who remain ill. Treatment failures under the IDSA guidelines are unacceptably high. IDSA does not recognize or treat chronic Lyme disease, and it doesn’t provide treatment options to patients who remain ill after IDSA treatment protocols fail, as those protocols do too often. Educating physicians to conform to the IDSA guidelines harms patients.  If this is what the CDC means by education, we’d rather have them stick to prevention, honestly, under the principle of first do no harm.

Funding of a 5 year study on chronic Lyme:   Dr. Beard’s presentation also highlighted the CDC’s funding of a 5 year study looking at long term complications of Lyme disease. Sounds good, right? Until you realize (again not overtly stated) that the funding was granted to Dr. Gary Wormser–the lead author of the IDSA guidelines who was described by the Connecticut Attorney General as holding “a bias regarding the existence of chronic Lyme disease”. Preconceived viewpoints held by researchers may drive study design, execution, and conclusions.  Dr. Wormser’s views on the topic of long term complications of Lyme disease are probably best summarized by the IDSA guidelines he penned: “In many patients, post-treatment symptoms appear to be more related to the aches and pains of daily living rather than to either Lyme disease or a tick-borne co-infection.”  Moreover, this study looks an awful lot like the Nowakowski study that Wormser participated in, published in 2003, which concluded that after 5 years, 90% of patients no longer have symptoms.

This conclusion conflicts with those of many other studies (Ashe, Trieb, Shadick) which show between 28-50% of patients have persisting symptoms years after treatment.  The discrepancy is probably explained by the fact that in calculating the 90% success rate, the Nowakowski study failed to use the appropriate “intent to treat analysis” to account for its 39% drop out rate.  Using the proper intent to treat analysis on Nowakowski would increase the percentage of patients who remain symptomatic from 10% at 5 years to 55%, which is more in keeping with previous studies.  These statistical choices can make all the difference in the world and the bias of a researcher may influence the method of analysis chosen.

Make no mistake, dialog is important, but so long as the CDC continues to promote the IDSA viewpoint, exclude patients from meaningful participation in health care policy, and fund studies by researchers with known biases, the CDC will continue to be viewed as part of the problem rather than part of the solution for Lyme disease.

You can contact Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA at lbjohnson@lymedisease.org.

Similar Posts

  • IDSA Announces New Guidelines Panel–Balanced or Biased?

    The IDSA panel list for the Lyme disease guidelines review panel were announced on Monday. The IDSA has a history of stacking its guidelines panels with like-minded experts and excluding divergent points of view. For patients this has meant limited or no treatment options. Imagine a prostate cancer panel of surgeons only—radiation, hormone treatment and watchful waiting might no longer be viable treatment options. How well-informed would surgeons be of alternatives to surgery? After the antitrust investigation launched by the Connecticut Attorney General, the IDSA was forced, as part of its settlement agreement, to have its 2006 Lyme disease guidelines reviewed by a new panel. The 2006 panel was riddled with conflicts of interest, exclusion of divergent viewpoints, and suppression of scientific evidence. (Click on title to read full article.)

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Spin, spun and hung out to dry. Lyme, science and the truth barrier

    We know spin when we hear it. Politicians like Bush (but not him alone) and talking points taken to the extreme. This is politics, right? So, why is Reuters calling research conclusions “spin” and why am I not surprised? Politicks as usual. At the IDSA hearing, one of the things that I asked the panel to do was to determine whether the conclusions of the key studies were supported by their findings or, instead, reflected the politics of this disease. A new study reported in Reuters talks about how conclusions and titles of studies become “spun” to support non-science agendas. Perhaps the bottom line is that you can take the science out of the man, but you cannot take the man out of the science. We regard science as sacrosanct, but inevitably it goes through the filter of a person, with all the human failings that entails, including observer bias, and, in our more jaded world, "spin". The Reuters article, tongue in cheek, says: “Scientists are no strangers to spinning their research, a new study — presumably not spun — shows.” Bottom line: ”In this representative sample of RCTs published in 2006 with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes, the reporting and interpretation of findings was frequently inconsistent with the results.”

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Researcher finds IDSA treatment guidelines long on opinion and short on science

    IDSA guidelines are long on opinion and short on science. This is the stunning conclusion made by an infectious disease specialist at Drexel University, Dong Lee, MD in a poster presentation at the recent IDSA annual conference. Dr. Lee’s analysis is based on a broad review of 30 guidelines published by the IDSA between 1994 and 2009. More than half of the recommendations made by the IDSA in these guidelines were not supported by science.

  • 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.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Is The IOM Workshop Really an IDSA Workshop in Disguise?

    I have gotten some thoughtful comments on my blog posts about the Institute of Medicine’s upcoming Lyme “state of the science” workshop. I want to share my thoughts about why CALDA pulled out of the process and why we will stay out unless there is dramatic change in the program. Whether it is best for groups to participate in a process even though it is biased is always a judgment call that depends on how biased the process is—in short whether you do more harm than good by staying in. CALDA pulled out because we represent Lyme patients and do not believe that we should legitimize a highly biased process by participating in it. We do not believe this is in the best interests of patients. Let me break this down a bit in terms of what is happening at the IOM workshop to explain why I believe it is highly biased.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Weinstein Offers IDSA Panel a Dead End Road to Nowhere

    I have been reviewing the IDSA transcripts and reread Dr. Arthur Weinstein’s testimony. Yesterday, I discussed Weinstein’s argument that chronic Lyme should be considered a somatic disorder in my post and concluded that his assertion is no more than an unproven hypothesis that should have no role in the treatment of patients. Today I tackle the second major assertion in his testimony—namely that one of the problems with diagnosing patients with chronic Lyme is that it delays early diagnosis and treatment for somatic disorder. The big question, of course, is whether the diagnosis of somatic disorder bears any fruit for patients or whether it is instead a dead end road to nowhere.