The FDA and Lyme Disease Testing—FDA is Listening, but Does it Matter?

Byldoadmin

The agency wants to require FDA authorization for laboratory developed tests which are currently overseen by CLIA (Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments) and CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services).  The FDA says this will protect patients—that FDA oversight will ensure that tests are effective and safe. We believe FDA oversight will do neither. As our survey results found, Lyme patients oppose FDA intervention in testing for good reasons.

Are FDA Authorized Lyme Tests Effective?  Why does the FDA say that approved tests are effective?  It turns out the FDA has two ways of authorizing tests.  Some must demonstrate effectiveness—that they in fact detect disease.  These are “FDA approved” tests.  Others must only demonstrate that they are “equivalent” to a test that  the FDA has already authorized.  These are called “FDA cleared” tests.  In Lyme disease, there are no FDA approved tests.  All tests are simply cleared as being equivalent to another—equally bad—test.  In Lyme disease, these tests miss roughly half of Lyme cases because they are insensitive. In our conversation with the FDA, officials acknowledged that when equivalent tests are equally bad, the quality bar for testing is set very low.  However, they were unwilling to require that currently cleared FDA tests be re-evaluated to demonstrate that they are effective at diagnosing the disease.

Does the FDA Have Good Systems for Tracking Lab Test Safety?  The other claim the FDA makes is that if all tests must be FDA approved, we can track “adverse events.” Supposedly, this means that patients can file a complaint if a lab test for Lyme  fails to detect the disease. However, this system does not work for Lyme disease tests (and presumably other tests) because patients are tested by “middle men”, like LabCorp, who don’t actually develop the test. One physician spent two weeks trying the track down the tests used by different middle men without success. The result is that although patients can file a complaint, if they cannot specify the lab test that was faulty, the FDA only receives complaints against “unknown” lab tests.  In the end, bad lab tests cannot be tracked and their developers cannot be held accountable.  In our conversation with the FDA, they acknowledged that the adverse event tracking system had problems.  But, again, they were unwilling to address the problems. So much for the FDA ensuring the effectiveness and safety of lab tests.

What About Using Expert Panels or FDA Accredited Third Party Reviewer to Authorize Laboratory Tests Currently on the Market? FDA says that it intends to utilize FDA-accredited third party review of laboratory tests (class II).  The problem here is that third party reviewers are not accountable to the public as the government is.  They do not have the same requirements for openness, transparency, or even managing conflicts of interests appropriately. In the Lyme community, we know that expert panels and third party reviewers are not necessarily impartial.  In Lyme disease, we have seen expert panels which are riddled with conflicts of interest and medical specialty society loyalty bias.  These are not disinterested or impartial panels. They are old boys’ clubs.

What Do Patients Have to Say About the FDA Proposed Guidance? Patients are concerned about false negative tests and the need for innovation. More than 50% of Lyme patients report having been denied a diagnosis due to negative serology (blood tests). Over 75% stated that a positive laboratory test was important or very important for diagnosis and treatment, while 60% said it was important for insurance coverage. The fact is that for Lyme patients testing is the gateway to diagnosis, treatment and insurance coverage.

The FDA assumes that the greatest risk to patients is associated with false positive test results, leading to misdiagnosis and treatment for a condition that the patient does not have. However, patients with a poor quality of life—those who are unable to work or who are on disability as many Lyme patients are—know that the risk of failing to diagnose and treat is the greater problem. Over 50% of Lyme patients reported having been diagnosed with another condition (e.g. fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, depression, or neurodegenerative disease) that later turned out to be caused by Lyme disease. 98% said the greatest risk to patients was not being diagnosed and treated when you have Lyme disease.  When asked to weigh the importance of innovation in Lyme testing against the importance of making sure tests were rigorously evaluated, 89% viewed innovation as more important.

Only two government agencies are required by law to be “patient-centered,” the FDA and the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).   Will the FDA step up to the plate and take patient concerns about the proposed guidance seriously?

You can read our entire comment letter to the FDA here. My previous posts on the proposed guidance are here and here.

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 her @lymepolicywonk.

Similar Posts

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: LymeDisease.org responds to Slate’s “Lyme-Illiterate” article

    In the final days waiting for Governor Cuomo to sign the Lyme bill in New York that would ensure Lyme patients access to diagnosis and care, Slate magazine ran what can only be called a Lyme bashing piece designed to kill the legislation. LymeDisease.org responded with this letter to the editor.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: NIH Tick Feeding Study Safety Risk Update

    We recently received a response from the NIH regarding our concerns about the NIH tick feeding study and the risk of tickborne infections from the larval ticks that researchers intend to place on patients to feed. We have written the NIH about this several times. Our latest letter focused on the newly identified pathogen, Borrelia miyamotoi, which can be transmitted to larval ticks through the mother's eggs. We asked the NIH to tell us what bacteria they test for in the larval ticks to ensure that patients in the study are not at risk. According to the NIH, the following pathogens are screened for: Borrelia burgdorferi, Babesia microti, Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Borrelia miyamotoi, Bartonella spp, Rickettsia sp., deer tick viruses and orbiviruses. We are glad to see that these pathogens are being screened for but remain concerned that unidentified pathogens nevertheless place patients at risk in the study.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Study Shows Public Believes that Lyme Infection Persists and Longer Term Treatments Are Needed

    Drs. Macauda and colleagues (including Peter Krause) conducted a survey of residents in the New England area and found: “The majority of our survey respondents believe that the Lyme disease spirochete can persist following antibiotic treatment, that a standard course of treatment for 2 to 4 weeks is often not curative, and that long-term antibiotic therapy of >2 months is sometimes useful.” The authors of the study recommend that state and federal agencies increase efforts to educate the public to curtail the “widespread belief in chronic Lyme”. But surely something’s wrong with this conclusion. The survey population was HIGHLY educated—almost half had a graduate degree and an additional third had a BA. They had extensive knowledge about the disease. Should we then assume, as the authors did, that their views reflect ignorance? Or should we assume that they actually just disagree with the IDSA claim that all patients are cured in 30 days, that persistent symptoms reflect “some other disease”, and that “chronic Lyme” doesn’t exist? Disagreement is not ignorance. Almost all of the participants knew at least one person with Lyme disease. Essentially, these people are saying what those of us in the Lyme community have known for some time: The IDSA guidelines are out of sync with reality.

  • 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: Patient-Centered Medicine and Lyme disease.

    We are in the midst of a sea of change in healthcare—driven largely by healthcare reform and evidence based medicine. Public trust is critical to the success of healthcare reform. But many patients believe that EBM is vulnerable to corruption by stakeholders—like insurers seeking to control costs and panel members who have industry conflicts of interest. Patient distrust in IDSA Lyme guidelines is high because Lyme patients believe that the guidelines panel was corrupted by industry conflicts (diagnostic tests, vaccines, and insurance) and researcher self-interest. Today, a shift from old models of medicine toward patient-centered medicine is emerging. It seeks to focus medical attention on the individual patient needs and concerns rather than those of physicians, insurers, pharmaceutical companies, and researchers. At LymeDisease.org we have been up to our eye-balls in EBM and patient-centered care since 2004, when we launched the two standards of care campaign.

  • IDSA HEARING: Follow the hearing and comment 8 a.m.-5 p.m. ET, July 30

    We are providing blog updates of testimony throughout the day.
    We will post frequent updates of the hearing testimony starting at 8 a.m. Eastern time. You can add comments at the bottom of this page. However, you must hit the refresh button on your browser periodically, so that you can see new postings and comments as they are added. If you keep this page open without refreshing it, you won’t see any of the updates.