LYMEPOLICYWONK: Whose interests is the FDA protecting? Not Lyme patients, apparently

ByLori
FDA

Because LDTs include the Lyme tests manufactured by IGeneX and Advanced Laboratory Services that many patients rely on for accurate diagnosis.

The FDA’s announcement came on the heels of a July 2014 letter sent by five U.S. Senators to the budget office, urging action on the FDA’s draft guidance, which has been under review for several years. The letter specifically calls out Lyme disease testing.

“Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reviewed a frequently utilized LDT to detect Lyme disease and found ‘serious concerns’ about false-positive results and misdiagnosis. The CDC recommended that the diagnosis of Lyme disease should instead be left to tests approved by the FDA. [Letter here]”

I am deeply concerned that Senator Blumenthal D-CT, who supported the Connecticut antitrust action against the IDSA, is one of the five Senators who signed the letter. The other four are Sen. Edward Markey D-MA; Sen. Elizabeth Warren D-MA; Sen. Sherrod Brown D-OH; and Sen. Richard Durbin D-IL.

The FDA notice does not specifically mention Lyme disease in its proposal to regulate LDTs. However, Jeffrey Shuren, Director of FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said the regulations were in part prompted by tests that result in “unnecessary antibiotic treatments.”

What’s so bad about requiring FDA approval for Lyme tests?

The problem is that the FDA approved tests for Lyme disease are notoriously insensitive and have been shown to miss more than 50% of Lyme disease cases. (Here) Currently, the FDA has approved 84 Lyme tests, which are produced by 28 companies. [List here] Approximately 90% of these are ELISA tests, which is the first test required under the CDC two-tiered lab test recommendations for Lyme disease. However, researchers have found that the ELISA is too insensitive to be used for screening: “Our data indicated that the sensitivity and specificity of the currently used tests for Lyme disease are not adequate to meet the two-tier test approach being recommended.”

So FDA approval of Lyme tests does not equate with quality. In fact, to obtain FDA approval a lab test need only meet the low bar set by other FDA approved tests. That means if a company can afford to go through the process, it can introduce more lousy tests on the market.

Complying with FDA regulations is costly and time consuming. These regulations will squeeze out smaller companies and protect the larger companies from competition. The FDA admitted as much to the New York Times:

“The agency said the playing field was unbalanced. Some companies that have done the clinical studies to win FDA approval are competing against very similar tests that get to market without such studies and oversight.” [Article Here]

Get that? It’s not about giving patients the best care and treatment; it’s about making things “fair” for multi-billion dollar corporations that provide faulty Lyme tests. Plus, the lack of competition also means that larger companies, whose tests are already approved, will have no incentive to improve them.

The regulatory change has been widely criticized for suppressing innovation and reducing patient access to care. The American Medical Association was among the first to raise concerns, saying it believes the regulations add an additional layer of requirements which may result in patients “losing access to timely life-saving diagnostic services and hinder advancements in the practice of medicine.” The Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) said the regulations would “harm patients by reducing access, decreasing innovation, and substantially raising the costs of essential diagnostic testing.” AMP also noted that LDPs are “often the standard-of-care, the highest quality test available, and at times, the only available testing option.”

Twenty-three laboratory directors and pathologists from academic centers including Harvard, Duke, and the University of Utah, have gone on record warning FDA regulation will stymie the growth of personalized medicine and the ability of labs to keep pace with the changing face of disease. [ARUPlab.com] The American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA) expressed concern about the impact on innovation and said FDA approval of LDTs is unnecessary because they have “been regulated for decades … under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) and by state law.” [ACLA.com] With so much heated opposition to the proposal, law firms expect “a messy fight ahead.”

The IDSA guidelines require a positive blood test to confirm the presence of Lyme. Since lousy lab tests so rarely deliver the right diagnosis, insurers rely on these IDSA guidelines to deny care and prevent patients from getting the treatments they need. (here)

Lyme patients have been railing against the poor quality of Lyme tests for years. So why aren’t better tests on the market? Blame the vested lab interests that currently control FDA Lyme testing. Among the 28 companies with FDA approved tests, at least 25% have ties to the key IDSA researchers who developed the IDSA Lyme guidelines. Drs. Gary Wormser, Raymond Dattwyler, and Allen Steere, have disclosed industry ties with at least nine companies who are involved with Lyme diagnostic tests: Biomerieux, Bio-Rad, Biopeptides, DiaSorin, Abbott, Baxter, Chembio, Immunetics, and Viramed.

A CDC study in 2008 found that over four million Lyme lab tests are performed annually at an estimated cost of $500 million. This is not chump change and in this fight, concern for patients is not even on the agenda. It’s time to recognize anti-competitive acts for what they are. The proposed regulations enrich vested lab interests at the expense of patients.

The public comment period for the proposed regulation will open in October. We hope you have your pen handy.  We will keep you informed of on-going developments.

The LYME POLICY WONK blog is written by Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA, who is the Chief Executive Officer of LymeDisease.org, formerly CALDA. Contact her at lbjohnson@lymedisease.org. On Twitter, follow me @lymepolicywonk.

Similar Posts

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: IDSA PETITION –CT RESIDENTS URGED TO SIGN, DISTRIBUTE AND DELIVER!

    Connecticut residents are urged to sign the petition to hold the IDSA legally accountable for violating the antitrust Settlement Agreement with the CT AG. Patients in the Lyme community are alarmed by the IDSA’s flagrant violation of the antitrust Settlement Agreement. Those in Connecticut are urged to sign the petition (link below in full story) electronically and to download a print version of the petition and take it door-to-door, at shopping centers, post offices and other public venues to gather signatures. We need to make our voices heard and we need to make them heard now. Paper petitions may be downloaded from the link below this blog post and should be mailed back no later than May 31st to Time for Lyme, 30 Myano Lane, Ste. 20, Stamford, CT 06902. If you are a Connecticut resident or you know anyone in Connecticut, please get this petition distributed and signed. The health and well-being of Lyme patients depends on it!

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Does IDSA Have Police Power? Can IDSA Regulate Lyme Tests?

    There is a lot of flurry in the Lyme light about the IDSA recent letter in opposition to the physician protection bill pending in the New Hampshire physician protection legislation. This legislation follows on the heels of legislation already passed in California, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Like breast cancer patients before them (who passed legislation in 20 states to secure the right to make treatment choices), Lyme patients are appealing to legislators to preserve their right to receive treatment for Lyme disease. The IDSA claims that its guidelines are not mandatory, but to my ears this sounds like double-speak. And, the newly elected President of IDSA, Dr. Whitley essentially admits as much when he complains about lab tests that are not “regulated” by the IDSA guidelines. What makes IDSA think that it has the “right” to regulate lab tests? Who says? How genuine is IDSA when it claims that its guidelines are really just “discretionary”? Come on, guys, one or the other, but you can’t play both sides of this issue with a straight face. Maybe we have to fall back to Lincoln or Bush, take your pick, about how many people you can fool.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Patient Viewpoints Survey Update. 2,000 Responses! We Are On Our Way.

    The Lyme disease Patient Preferences Survey initially posted on October 5 has drawn over 2,000 responses to date! We want to thank everyone who responded and encourage you to distribute the survey to others you know who have Lyme disease. We received many comments on the survey as well with suggestions for future surveys. The two competing guidelines for diagnosing and treating Lyme disease (those of the International Lyme Disease Association and those of the Infectious Diseases Society of America) are both over 5 years old. Because of this, we assume they are in the process of revision. We have contacted the IDSA and asked about their timetable for guideline revision and requested that patient viewpoints be included in any development process. We will keep you posted.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Embers Monkey Trials Part 2: Chronic Lyme Disease Treatment and Persistence

    This is Part 2 of a series on the Embers study of Lyme disease in non-human primates. As described in Part 1 of the series, the Embers monkey research study posed three questions: one regarding treatment of early disseminated Lyme disease, one regarding treatment of late disseminated Lyme disease, and one regarding the ability of the C6 to accurately detect infection. This part of my blog series on the Embers study focuses on the second question–the ability of 90 days of antibiotics to eradicate infection in late disseminated Lyme disease. The researchers defined late disseminated Lyme disease as 27 weeks after inoculation. Rhesus macaques were chosen as the animal model because they experience many of the key signs of human Lyme disease, including neuroborreliosis ( an infection of the brain or nervous system.)

  • |

    LYMEPOLICYWONK: Lyme Vaccinations: Safety First

    Dr. Stricker and I published a letter to the editor on Lyme vaccines in Lancet. The letter responds to an article by employees of Baxter, which has a vaccine in development. The article by Baxter employees in support of a new vaccine was published with an editorial by Dr. Lantos, the new Lyme spokesman for the IDSA. Both the Baxter article and the Lantos editorial make short shrift of patient vaccine safety concerns, which Lantos describes as “largely unsubstantiated”. Dr. Stricker and I note that the first vaccines sparked a class action lawsuit from patients harmed by the vaccines. In the end, of course, the vaccine was pulled by the manufacturer. We note that “by withdrawing LYMErix when it did, the manufacturer avoided releasing phase 4 post-marketing data that probably would have shown increased side-effects related to the vaccine. The data have never been disclosed.” We conclude that given this sketchy past, any new vaccine will need to be forthright about safety issues. The dismissive attitude toward patient safety reflected in the Baxter article and the Lantos editorial serve only to increase patient distrust. Because vaccinations are given to a healthy population, our first priority is to make sure they are safe. Our letter to the editor is available open access for readers.

  • |

    LYMEPOLICYWONK: Barthold and Luft–Persistence and Integrity in Science.

    Breathe a sigh of relief. No, really. It is not that often in Lyme disease that one reads an unbiased study that speaks truth to power, that values integrity in science over dogma. So, pour a cup of tea and I will pull out the most important findings and conclusions about persistence from the recently published study by Dr. Stephen Barthold and Dr. Ben Luft, “Ineffectiveness of Tigecycline against Persistent Borrelia burgdorferi.” Here they are in a nut-shell for those with neither the time nor the inclination to read the entire study (though I must say it is highly recommended!).