LYMEPOLICYWONK: ILADS Lyme guidelines on National Clearinghouse!

ByLorraine

 

Lyme treatment guidelines developed by the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS) were posted today on the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC). They are the first Lyme guidelines which comply with the Institute of Medicine’s new standards for rigorous evidence assessment and patient engagement in the development process. Physicians rely on the NGC for trustworthy evidence-based treatment guidelines. The NGC, part of the US Department of Health and Human Services, requires that guidelines meet high quality standards to be accepted for posting.

These new guidelines are the first Lyme disease guidelines to use GRADE, an exacting method for evaluating the quality of research studies, and to include a Lyme patient on the development panel.

“These guidelines put patients front and center,” according to Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA, Chief Executive Officer of LymeDisease.org, who is a co-author of the ILADS guidelines.

“There are two standards of care in Lyme disease—those of ILADS and those of the Infectious Diseases Society of America,” Johnson says. “Physicians should discuss both standards of care with patients.  Patients should make informed choices in consultation with their doctors about their best treatment options, based on their personal values and circumstances.”

The guidelines were developed over a two-year period with co-authors Dr. Elizabeth Maloney, MD, a provider of continuing medical education courses on tick-borne illnesses, and Dr. Dan Cameron, MD, a treating physician who is President of ILADS.

Following development, the guidelines were extensively reviewed by internal and external experts and published in a peer-reviewed journal, Expert Review of Anti-Infective Therapy. The guidelines, “Evidence Assessments and Guideline Recommendations in Lyme disease: The Clinical Management of Known Tick Bites, Erythema Migrans Rashes and Persistent Disease,” reflect the most current science. LymeDisease.org has endorsed the guidelines.

The Institute of Medicine was chartered by the US Congress to publish its standards on developing trustworthy guidelines in response to a growing climate of distrust arising from guideline developers with commercial ties that create worrisome conflicts of interest. Those with commercial ties were precluded from participating in the ILADS guideline process.

Cameron noted that the guidelines “recommend that clinicians perform a deliberate and individualized assessment of the potential risks and benefits of various treatment options before making their initial selection” and encourage close patient follow-up. Maloney stated that “using this patient-centered approach should reduce the risk of chronic illness due to inadequate antibiotic therapy.”

Johnson pointed out that the new guidelines include shared medical decision-making. “A lot of the treatment decisions in Lyme disease depend on trade-offs. How sick is the patient? How invasive is the treatment? What does the patient want? Patients need to understand the risks and benefits of treatment options to make informed medical choices. These guidelines provide that information.”

About Lyme disease: Lyme disease is a bacterial infection primarily transmitted by ticks. It is found throughout the United States, as well as in more than sixty other countries. Untreated Lyme disease can result in neurological disorders, crippling muscle and joint pain, heart conditions, disabling fatigue, and psychological disorders.  Even when Lyme disease is caught early and treated with a short course of antibiotics, debilitating symptoms can persist and require additional longer-term treatment.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 300,000 people are diagnosed with Lyme disease in the US every year. The illness affects people of all ages and according to the CDC is most common in children, older adults, and those who spend time in outdoor activities.

About LymeDisease.org: Since 1989, LymeDisease.org has advocated nationally for quality accessible healthcare for patients with Lyme and other tick-borne diseases. It is committed to shaping health policy through advocacy, legal and ethical analysis, education, physician training, and medical research. Its mission is to prevent Lyme disease, prevent early Lyme disease from becoming chronic, and to gain access to care for patients with chronic Lyme disease. For more information, visit lymedisease.org.

About ILADS: ILADS is a nonprofit, international, multidisciplinary medical society dedicated the appropriate diagnosis and treatment of Lyme and associated diseases. For more information, visit www.ILADS.org.

Press Contact: Dorothy K. Leland dleland@lymedisease.org

 

 

Similar Posts

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Lyme disease abandoned by Pharma

    When I first became involved with Lyme disease, I remember wondering where the pharmaceutical interest was in the disease. Most of your double blind controlled trials are funded by the pharmaceutical industry. This means that if your disease is not on their radar, you’re going to have a long hard slog getting funding for studies on the efficacy of different treatments. Diseases that are on the agenda of big Pharma have a distinct advantage in evidence based medicine because studies, typically large scale studies, have been funded by someone with a dog in the hunt. In other diseases, the dog in the hunt may be overzealous, promoting treatments and selling drugs with little proof of effectively. But when a disease is neglected by big Pharma, the opposite occurs. Research simply isn’t done. And, that becomes a social justice issue when insurers and specialty societies deny patients access to care because research studies haven’t been funded and aren’t likely to be funded. Drugs are expensive to develop and research is expensive to conduct. Recently, GlobalDate releases a report that explains why Lyme disease is neglected and is likely to remain neglected by big Pharma.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: CALDA CALLS ON TRIBUNE TO PRINT OP ED REBUTTAL TO BIASED ARTICLE

    Lyme patients take a lot of heat, frankly too much heat. Sometimes reporters make errors, don’t have enough facts, and aren’t fully informed. And that is rough. But it is even rougher when reporters are informed and given the correct information and then ignore half of it. So what do you do? Well, CALDA has written the Chicago Tribune protesting the highly biased reporting in its December 8, 2010 article on Lyme disease. We have asked them to publish an Op Ed piece by CALDA. We believe that reporters have an ethical obligation to report on stories in a balanced manner. They also owe it to patients to set out both sides of a scientific debate. To do otherwise, puts the lives and health of thousands of sick people in danger. What do you think? If you are interested in supporting this effort, please write the Tribune (emails below). Ask them to publish an Op-Ed by CALDA to set the record straight. A tip of the hat to Ellen and the NYC Lyme Activism group for their wonderful work on this project. More information after the jump. . .

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Testing the IDSA’s Commitment

    A recent article in the Greenwich Times addressing the "improper voting procedure” of the IDSA review panel contains a response from IDSA spokesman John Heys that the IDSA is "committed to ensuring the review panel conducts its review to the requirements of that action plan." Sounds a little boiler plate, huh? The next statement by Blumenthal though is more telling. He says that his office has yet to receive a response to the letter. That does not sound like much of a commitment. One has to wonder why it was necessary to write the letter of non-compliance in the first place and why the IDSA's only response to date has been to the press? "We hope there will be a response forthcoming shortly," Blumenthal said. So do we, so do we. . .

  • Chronic Lyme Disease and the “Axis of Evil”

    A recent publication authored by Feder and correspondence to that publication defined the 'Axis of Evil' in this controversy as physicians who treat patients with needlessly prolonged courses of antibiotics, 'specialty laboratories' that perform 'inaccurate' Lyme testing and the internet, which promotes 'Lyme hysteria'. Dr. Stricker and I published a counter article taking on each of the three elements of the "Axis of Evil", one by one (Future Microbiology, Volume 3, Number 6, December 2008 , pp. 621-624(4)). While this version of the article is available on Pub Med, the full version (which contains footnotes) is available for purchase by the publisher Future Science .