Lyme Policy Wonk

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.

We are all concerned about the latest report from the IDSA statement that they plan to issue their final report regarding the IDSA guidelines review panel by the end of April. We are particularly concerned about whether the IDSA has corrected its voting violations. There may be other actions for the community to take as this unfolds, but right now, it is critical that we continue keeping the pressure on for other state AG’s to send letters to the IDSA (IMPORTANT: cc the CT AG) expressing concern about the voting violations and asking for compliance. Letters from legislators would also help spotlight the importance of the issue. Information on how to do this is posted on CALDA’s website along with the press release issued by CALDA, TFL and the LDA.

The IDSA will issue its final report by the end of April. Did you catch that? Yes, it made an announcement and buried it deep within its website for enterprising spelunkers to find. I think this was another attempt to “not communicate something important.” Someone did find it though and posted it on the web. People joined in. They asked, “How on earth did you find that?”

Recently, a group that writes guidelines asked for my input about the role of patients in the development of Evidence Based Medicine guidelines. With universal healthcare now ‘the law of the land’, treatment guidelines have become even more important. Preserving the integrity of the guideline development- process is what matters most. It is essential that patients play a role in the process that can so affect their lives. The question posed to me was why should those developing guidelines involve patients? My response follows.

The Minnesota Board of Medical Practice (MBMP) has agreed to a five-year moratorium on the investigation, disciplining or issuance of corrective action based solely on long-term prescription or administration of antibiotic therapy for chronic Lyme disease. Minnesota joins a growing list of states that provide physician protection either through legislation or agreement, including California, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York. The MBMP took the action as a compromise to prevent pending physician protection legislation from passing. Any way you look at it, it was a good day for Lyme patients in Minnesota.

I have gotten a lot of reports from patients that Medco is refusing to dispense antibiotics because of the IDSA guidelines. At $51 Billion, let me repeat that $51 BILLION, dollar in revenue, Medco is the nation’s largest drug dispensing company. And, just for the record, they are over-riding the treatment recommendation of the treating physician and replacing it with, oh yeah, the IDSA “expert opinions” on treatment. This isn’t evidence based medicine, this is “eminence based medicine.” Their mission is to help “clients control the cost and enhance the quality” of prescription benefits. Looks like the IDSA is their friend. Complaints about Medco using these tactics have been becoming more frequent suggesting that this is not an isolated case and may be an across the board policy? If so, its reliance on IDSA guidelines to deny treatment across the board will have a serious adverse impact on patient lives.

Another run away Prius hit the news today. I have one (first year). I share these concerns. Is this car safe? Should I really be driving it? Have they recalled my model? It made me think about the IDSA Lyme guidelines a bit. Why haven’t they recalled these guidelines? They actually harm patients. The real risk to patients is not that they will have the risk of a reaction to their antibiotics, it is that they will be treated under these guidelines. That they will remain ill. That the diagnosis will be missed. That the treatment when it comes will be too little, too late. That the medical society responsible for the high, high treatment failure rates will do nothing more than circle the wagons around their self interests. That patients matter less than vaccine and diagnostic test patents and preserving the reputation of a medical society that does not even have patients on the agenda.

I’ve been getting a lot of email lately about the IDSA. Most of it is about the voting issues, but some of it is about other things they have done to “game the system”. Here’s a list of the top 10 questions patient ask me about the IDSA that begin with the word “why”? As Mark Twain says, “few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example”—or in this case, ten good examples of why the Lyme community should question the advice to “trust us, we’re the experts” when it comes to the IDSA. Let me know if you think there are any “whys” I left off the list.

One of the problems with the IDSA reviewing its own guidelines is that it is not an independent process. The IDSA selected the panel, paid the ethicist, and sets the ground rules. And, now we have the IDSA manipulating the voting process to achieve a goal–protection of the IDSA professional reputation–that conflicts with the goal of providing quality patient care. Think about it. The vote on the lab test requirement for diagnosis was 4 to 4. 4 to 4 means there was NO consensus. Yet the IDSA chalked this up as a victory on its side by ignoring the two step vote requirement and flipping the supermajority vote in its favor. The IDSA is essentially saying 4 to 4 means the IDSA wins on this point. To the fox guarding the chicken coop, this makes perfect sense. Let me drill down into the detail so that what the IDSA did here is clear.

This is a chart of the relative importance of different stakeholders to big Pharma. (Click chart to enlarge.)
I was really struck by how little weight patients were given (9%) compared to specialists (47%) and compared to key opinion leaders (21%).
So if you take specialists and add key opinion leaders to that, 68% of drug companies thought that key opinion leader who are specialists would have the
most influence on their company over the next 2 years. Wow! And, look at the lowly role of the general practitioner