Review Panel Says Lyme Treatment Guidelines Don't Need To Change
A special review panel for the Infectious Diseases Society of America announced Thursday that, after more than a year of work, it was recommending against making any changes to the society's controversial guidelines for treating Lyme disease.
The guidelines, developed in 2006, said most cases of Lyme disease can be cured with a short course of antibiotics and recommended against long-term antibiotic treatment.
The guidelines drew criticism from some patients and doctors who say Lyme disease can be a chronic condition that requires long-term antibiotic therapy. Members of the so-called chronic Lyme camp said the guidelines have been used to deny insurance coverage for long-term treatment and raised questions about the infectious disease society's process for developing the guidelines.
But the review panel voted unanimously to uphold the earlier guidelines, stating in its report that "In the case of Lyme disease, there has yet to be a single high quality clinical study that demonstrates comparable benefit to prolonging antibiotic therapy beyond one month."
The report said "the inherent risks of long-term antibiotic therapy were not justified by clinical benefit."
The review was prompted by an agreement with Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who raised concerns about the process used to develop the guidelines.
After an investigation, Blumenthal found that some members of the 2006 guidelines panels had conflicts of interest, such as financial stakes in companies involved in tests or treatments for Lyme disease.
Representatives of the infectious diseases society said the panelists had nothing to gain by recommending short-term treatment, but they agreed to the special review of the guidelines, calling it "an effort to clear the air."
The review was intended to determine whether the guidelines should stay in place, be partially revised or fully rewritten.
The review panel -- chosen by a jointly selected medical ethicist -- held a hearing in July. Even before the hearing, some chronic Lyme advocates raised concerns about the impartiality of the committee, but said they hoped the panel would be open-minded.
Posts: 123 | From Montana | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
feelfit
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 12770
posted
not surprised given the criteria for selecting review panel members.
If a doctor made over 15,000 per year from treating lyme, he/she could not serve on the panel. That makes everyone who treats Lyme properly exempt....
we didn't have a chance from the get go.
Posts: 3975 | From usa | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
Keebler
Honored Contributor (25K+ posts)
Member # 12673
posted
- the "so-called chronic Lyme camp" - ? ugh. big sigh. -
Posts: 48021 | From Tree House | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
Hoosiers51
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 15759
posted
Study showing SUSTAINED improvement in fatigue with 10 ADDITIONAL weeks of IV Rocephin:
There is another study that this doctor mentions, besides the Fallon one, that also shows improvements in fatigue.
I guess fatigue isn't disabling enough and costly enough (lost wages, quality of life) to merit 10 weeks of treatment? Just because their memory didn't improve, these patients didn't benefit? (eye roll).
Posts: 4590 | From Midwest | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
seekhelp
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 15067
posted
x 100
Posts: 7545 | From The 5th Dimension - The Twilight Zone | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can't test positive for Fatigue with a blood antibody test.
Posts: 571 | From Massachusetts | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
METALLlC BLUE
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6628
posted
Epic Failure on the part of this panel. There is nothing else to say but stare in awe of the ongoing train wreck that patients suffering with an infectious disease that is blatantly being minimized (or not even recognized), even worse, the abundant research supporting the clinical appreciation for potential persistent infection in humans and animals is *******ized and treated as null and void by these current guidelines.
-------------------- I am not a physician, so do your own research to confirm any ideas given and then speak with a health care provider you trust.
Amanda
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 14107
posted
well, like my mom use to say...
What do you expect from a pig, but a grunt.
The review panel did say that testing, under certain specific circumstances, can be unreliable...
"in clinical practice, the presence of certain classic complications of Lyme disease such as aseptic meningitis, AV nodal block, inflammatory arthritis, and cranial or peripheral nuropathies, in a patient with epidemiologic risk of Lyme disease and in whom alternative diagnoses have been excluded or are unlikely, may be sufficiently convincing as to constitute an exception to the statement in the Executive Summary "
I guess now the question is, what will be the next move ?
-------------------- "few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" - Mark Twain Posts: 1008 | From US | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
Topic Closed
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[bonk]](graemlins/bonk.gif)
![[loco]](graemlins/loco.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
x 100
Printer-friendly view of this topic