Here is an IDSA article for treatment guidelines for Lyme. You are more than welcome to rate it. Remember you can't get below 1. I would suggest a comment also.
You'd think they'd get a clue .... their last Lyme article was this lowly rated, too.
Posted by merrygirl (Member # 12041) on :
I know an article was posred before is this the same one??
I left my comment
Posted by Annick73 (Member # 13795) on :
could be an older one. This one is from this summer. Oh well. I still want to let them know. You can never let these people know too much right?
Posted by CaliforniaLyme (Member # 7136) on :
Nope*)!*)! Thank you Annick*)!*!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by merrygirl (Member # 12041) on :
Give em heck!
Posted by bettyg (Member # 6147) on :
17 | Number 2 | Summer 2007
From the President: IDSA Stands Up For Lyme Disease Guidelines
IDSA produces its practice guidelines with one goal in mind: to provide our members with the best possible advice about how to best take care of patients. We achieve that goal through a rigorous, transparent, evidence-based process.
Once written by an expert panel, our guidelines are carefully reviewed for content, readability, and objectivity by the Standards and Practice Guidelines Committee, by subject matter experts, and by the Board of Directors.
Thus, the conclusions are carefully developed, although we are always prepared to consider new evidence or new perspectives and initiate revisions if needed.
The Connecticut attorney general has notified IDSA that he is investigating possible antitrust violations in connection with the development of our 2000 and 2006 Lyme disease guidelines.
This unprecedented move against a professional society and its practice guidelines appears to have been initiated on behalf of health care professionals and patient care advocates who disagree with IDSA recommendations.
These individuals maintain that Lyme disease exists in a chronic form, and that long-term intravenous ceftriaxone provides clinical benefit.
The guidelines committee had carefully considered clinical evidence on these topics, and concluded that there is no evidence Borrelia burgdorferi persists chronically following 10 to 28 days of antibiotic therapy.
Moreover, clinical trials have demonstrated that long-term ceftriaxone provides no objective benefit, and can cause obvious harm in terms of adverse effects of ceftriaxone and vascular access complications.
At IDSA's 2006 Annual Meeting, guideline committee representatives debated a spokesman from the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS) about these issues. ILADS produced no convincing data to indicate that our guidelines should be altered. ***************************************
Nothing Replaces Clinician's Judgement
Why is the Connecticut attorney general investigating IDSA? ILADS and others are unhappy that IDSA guidelines are used by the insurance industry as a basis for denying payment for chronic antibiotic therapy, thus depriving health care providers of income and depriving patients of therapy.
IDSA is proud that its guidelines are considered authoritative and are widely used. However, IDSA recognizes that every patient is different, and nothing can replace a clinician's judgment.
Guidelines are intended to help them reach decisions about the best course of treatment. They are suggestions based on the best available science--but they are by no means mandatory.
IDSA cannot and would not dictate an individual physician's actions.
Furthermore, the Society has no role in insurance company policy, and no insurance company has any role in the development of our guidelines.
There is no legal precedent for charging a professional society with antitrust violations for developing clinical practice guidelines, and legal experts tell us that an antitrust claim, if brought, would have little chance of success. *******************************************
Even if no claim is ever brought, this investigation will have an impact on IDSA.
IDSA has already spent tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees and many hours of staff time providing documents requested by the Connecticut attorney general.
Thus far, IDSA has cooperated fully with the attorney general. We have nothing to hide: Our process is rigorous and transparent.
We are concerned, however, that IDSA volunteers who serve on committees not be harassed, and not be hurt financially. *******************
We will vigorously resist requests that are intrusive and time-consuming for members if these requests seem frivolous.
The debate on how best to treat Lyme disease is a scientific one, and we believe it is best resolved scientifically.
Unfortunately, those who are unhappy with our scientific conclusions have made it political.
In some states, advocates have pressured the legislature to endorse long-term antibiotic therapy despite the evidence.
In Connecticut, they have found a sympathetic ally in the attorney general, who has initiated this investigation.
We are immensely sympathetic to frustrated patients who have diverse symptoms, and who are frustrated that we cannot identify a cause for their symptoms.
However, our Society is committed to management strategies that rely on data, interpreted by experienced clinicians and researchers, to formulate recommendations for what approaches are effective and safe.
If therapies are used which have been demonstrated to be ineffective or unsafe, we cannot shy away from discouraging the use of such practices.
IDSA is facing an unprecedented challenge from the attorney general of Connecticut that threatens the role of all professional societies to educate their members and the public about best medical practices.
We will do our best to educate the attorney general and his advisors, and other lawmakers and policymakers, about the merits of evidence-based practice guidelines.
We also are working to educate the media and the public about Lyme disease and its proper treatment.
However, we will resist any efforts to prevent the dissemination of objective, science-based recommendations.
638 voted to date; rating 1.4 i think i remember!
annick, we were alerted promptly to this disasterous letter this so-called dr. wrote..
many of us replied; if you get a chance use search, found under NEW POST.
TYPE the name of the article MEDICAL SUBJECT LINE ANY DATE
LEAVE MEMBERSHIP NO. BLANK! click send; red all replies you get!
never too late to get another 352 people to sign for 1000 members
![[bonk]](graemlins/bonk.gif)