LYMEPOLICYWONK: My Speech at Stanford MedX: Patient Powered Research and Lyme

ByLorraine

Next week, I will be honored to speak at the Stanford MedX conferenceĀ on Patient Powered Research and Big Data.Ā You can watch it streaming live if you tune in at Ā around 10:30 am PST on Saturday the 26th. Patient powered research and big data are very important for patients with Lyme disease. Patient powered research is research that is conceived by patients, run by patients, and designed to improve patients lives. This type of research has only recently become possible with the rise of big data and the ability of patients to pool their health care data to determine which treatments are most effective and why treatments work for some patients but not others. Ā It is part of the democratization of science. Sign up to register for the streaming live presentation. Follow my tweets using #MedXlyme.

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

 

Similar Posts

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Dr. Paul Duray Resigns from IDSA Panel Due to Family Illness–Implications unknown

    The IDSA panel list has been revised to reflect the fact that Dr. Paul Duray has resigned from the panel. The IDSA does not post this type of information as a stand-alone announcement. Instead, they revise their prior notices. So you have to keep a close watch on their website for changes. What they did was add to his listing the following: Resigned from the Panel on October 7, 2009, due to a family illness. I am sure that everyoneā€™s heart goes out to Dr. Duray and we wish him and his family the best during this trying time. Letā€™s light a candle for Dr. Duray and his family.

  • |

    LYMEPOLICYWONK: Dr. Fallonā€™s Suggestions for Future Guidelines.

    A recent article by Dr. Fallon and colleagues reviews the findings of the four clinical trials and accurately lays out the state of the science in chronic Lyme research. This is important because future research needs and policy decisions are determined by the state of the science. If there is definitive science that tells us whether treatment for chronic Lyme works, there is no need for additional science and guidelines may justifiably take a hard line on treatment options. Otherwise, we are dealing with science in the making, more studies are needed, and treatment guidelines should be more flexible.

  • Lyme disease: Losing your innocence in science

    Having Lyme means losing your innocence, utterly, in science. It's true. I am remembering the night I explained evidence-based medicine to a friend whose daughter had Lyme. I explained that in Lyme evidence-based medicine was a ā€œtoolā€ for persuasion in a polemic argument. He was stunned. His daughter had Lyme. He believed in science. He had trouble, real trouble, getting his daughter diagnosed and treated. He knew the problems of Lyme from the inside out. But it hadnā€™t occurred to him that science wasnā€™t ā€œpureā€ science. That researchers followed their bias, their pet theories, their commercial interests in designing and interpreting studies. It was an interesting moment with this sharp and concerned father while he tried to understand the depth of the problem in Lyme. It was a moment when innocence is utterly lost for the first time to those who know how the system of science ā€œoughtā€ to work.

  • Gostin JAMA article–Politics as usual?

    How is it that one week JAMA publishes an article by Sniderman and Furberg, "Why Guidelines Require Reform", on the urgent need to for guideline reform and the next week they publish a piece by Kraemer and Gostin, "Science, Politics and Values", that could have been written by a PR firm for the IDSA, berating the Connecticut Attorney General for trying to accomplish just that?

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Newly Discovered Tick Pathogen, Borrelia miyamotoi, May Increase Safety Risks for Patients in NIH Tick Feeding Study

    Researchers recently discovered that Borrelia miyamotoi, a species of corkscrew-shaped bacteria found in Asia, Europe and North America and previously thought to be non-pathogenic, causes human illness similar to Lyme disease. In a parallel study, it was shown that tick larvae carry B. miyamotoi and that ticks can transmit the bacteria via the ovaries to newly hatched larvae. This discovery highlights the risk to patients in a current NIH study from exposure to unidentified pathogens in tick larvae that may not have been detected by the researchers. The study allows live tick larvae to feed directly on patients. Researchers generally attempt to reduce the risk of transmitting illness to research subjects by using newly-hatched laboratory-raised larval ticks that don't carry known pathogens. Because it was not known that B. miyamotoi was pathogenic, larval ticks used in the study may not have been screened for this disease. Last January we asked the NIH to pull the plug on the study because of the risk that unidentified pathogens in tick larvae posed for patients enrolled in the study, and we filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the study approval documents. The NIH responded by acknowledging the risk of unidentified pathogen transmission to study participants and said the issues were considered during the study approval review. However, the study documentation does not show that the issue was either carefully considered or that adequate precautions were taken. Although the NIH study consent form advises patients of the risk of acquiring an unidentified illness, we do not believe that disclosure is sufficient. So, again, today, we take pen in hand and ask the NIH to demonstrate that the study is safe or pull the study entirely.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Embers Monkey Trials Part 5. Of Mice and Men and Monkeys.

    The guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) deny the existence of persistent infection. ā€œThere is no convincing evidence in North America for the persistence of B. burgdorferi in the skin of humans after treatment with antibiotic regimens known to be active against B. burgdorferi in vitro.ā€ The Embers monkey research demonstrates persistence and is consistent with other animal model research. But, humans differ from animals in fundamental ways. So why not go further and demonstrate persistence in humans? The fact is that some experiments cannot be ethically conducted on humans. Hence, animal studies may be the only way research that can demonstrate a point. Such is the case with the Embers monkey trials. Embers demonstrated persistent bacteria notwithstanding 90 days of antibiotic treatment by using invasive tissue sampling that could not be conducted on humans.