LYMEPOLICYWONK: The pivotal role of patients in Lyme disease research

ByDorothy Leland
MyLymeData

I gave the following remarks by telephone at the November 17 meeting of the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group.

Good morning. I’m Lorraine Johnson, the CEO of LymeDisease.org and the principal investigator of the MyLymeData patient registry and research platform.

Although Lyme disease is estimated to have over 400,000 cases per year, clinical trial research funding trails behind leprosy, which has an incidence of less than 200 cases a year.

In chronic Lyme disease, pharma has shown no interest in developing new treatment drugs and the NIH has funded just three clinical trial grants – the last one funded over 20 years ago.

The challenges of Lyme disease research

This means that even though it is not a rare disease, Lyme disease is research-disadvantaged and faces the same research challenges that rare diseases encounter. To facilitate and accelerate the pace of research, these diseases build a research engine linking patient registries, biorepositories, and clinical data networks. The NIH and the Patient Centered Research Outcomes Institute as well as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality have led efforts in this area. Dr. Collins recently acknowledged the important role of patient-led research in COVID-19.

MyLymeData has enrolled over 14,000 patients, collected over 5 million data points, and published three peer-reviewed studies. It has also partnered with the Lyme Disease Biobank, a project of the Bay Area Lyme Foundation and is working with a publicly traded company to help recruit patients for a diagnostics study.

MyLymeData was initially developed as part of the PCORnet patient-driven research effort when I served on its Executive Committee. I continue to serve as a subject matter expert in patient registries for PCORnet registries through the University of Chicago.

When the optimal treatment, duration, or combination of treatments is unknown–as it is in chronic Lyme disease–the process of conducting back-to-back sequential randomized controlled trials to determine the best treatment approach is not realistic. Dr. Califf, former head of the FDA who served with me on the PCORnet Executive Committee used to say, “Randomized trials are great, but they take too long, cost too much, and don’t apply to most people.”

Professor Abernathy at Duke puts it this way: “It can take more than a decade for a trial to progress from the idea stage to actionable information, and the cost and complexity mean that many questions will never be addressed with such trials”

Patients can’t wait for research that may not come. Patient registries like MyLymeData play a pivotal role in accelerating the slow pace of research. They allow us to evaluate care as it is actually provided by clinicians to provide the answers that chronic Lyme disease patients need today. To solve these problems, we will need to avail ourselves of all tools in our kits and all forms of evidence. Thank you.

Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA, is the Chief Executive Officer of LymeDisease.org. You can contact her at lbjohnson@lymedisease.org. On Twitter, follow her @lymepolicywonk. 

 

Dorothy Leland is a longtime advocate and researcher focused on Lyme disease education, policy awareness, and patient support. She has contributed to numerous publications and works closely with medical professionals and organizations to improve understanding and treatment of tick-borne diseases.

Similar Posts

  • Opinion based medicine

    For those who haven’t read, the recent New York Times article, "Plenty of Guidelines, but Where's the Evidence?" by D. Sanghavi, M.D., I suggest you check it out. Sanghavi discusses the problems caused by centralized guidelines in medicine particularly when there is an evidence gap—when guidelines are based on opinion rather than a careful review of all of the evidence. And, this issue of centralization of medicine through guidelines is becoming more important as the push for national health care heats up.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Intellectual Conflicts of Interest–A New Way to Smell a Rat?

    Here’s an interesting approach to conflicts of interests offered by one of the fathers of evidence based medicine, Dr. Gordon Guyatt. The topic was guideline development and the interests of those serving on a guideline panel in having their pet theories and research promoted in the guidelines. Why is this important to researchers? It helps further the academic careers of researchers when their work is cited, referred to and used as the foundation for creating treatment guidelines. There is a dynamic tension between the use of expertise and the potential bias expertise may bring to the table. Those of us in the Lyme community are only too familiar with the fact that the IDSA guidelines were developed by academic researchers and that references to their own research dominate the guidelines. Being tied to a theory that your research has advanced creates a bias towards reinforcing that theory in the selection of evidence cited, the evaluation of that evidence, and the development of guideline recommendations that confirm that bias. Guyatt’s perspective is novel and interesting. In his mind the way to manage this bias is not to exclude the researchers from sitting on the guideline panel but to limit their ability to misuse their power to further their own ends. Hence, those with what he called a primary conflict of interest are precluded from chairing a guideline panel, drafting recommendations and voting on them and even the ranking of evidence. Read how he defines an intellectual conflict of interest and how he would restrict participation in guideline development by those with intellectual bias.

  • |

    LYMEPOLICYWONK: Lyme Disease: Call for a “Manhattan Project” to Combat the Epidemic

    PLOS Pathogens just published the most recent commentary by Dr. Stricker and me on Lyme disease calling for a Manhattan Project effort to seriously tackle this debilitating illness in light of the CDC’s increase in annual incidence from 30,000 to 300,000. An excerpt and a link to the full article, which is available open access is below.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Health Consumers Skeptical About Evidence Based Guidelines

    A new article in Health Affairs, Evidence that Consumers are Skeptical About Evidence Based Health Care, draws an important conclusion: “Clearly, consumers will revolt if evidence-based efforts are perceived as rationing or as a way to deny them needed treatment.” Bingo! This is why patients with Lyme disease are in revolt.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: LDo Lyme Impact and Cost Survey Draws Over 1,500 Responses

    I want to extend my thanks to the 1,500 people who have already responded to the new LDo survey. This overwhelming response comes on the heels of our email notice sent yesterday. I also want to thank all of the organizations that have reposted our survey and urge those who have not responded yet to do so. Finally, I want to encourage those taking the survey to take the time to complete it fully. Some of the questions used come from government surveys that are used to determine the impact of different illnesses on the patients affected. These comparisons are very useful to understand how Lyme disease is similar or different from other diseases. This survey addresses many issues which are unknown in the Lyme community. For example, how many patients with chronic Lyme disease have co-infections? How many have adverse reactions to antibiotics? How many patients are currently on oral antibiotics? How many on IV antibiotics? Answers to questions like these are central to understanding what we need to do to improve the quality of life for Lyme patients throughout the nation. To take the survey, go to LymeDisease.org and click the “Take Patient Survey” button.