This is topic GRRRRR! Review Panel Says Lyme Treatment Guidelines Don't Need To Change in forum Medical Questions at LymeNet Flash.

To visit this topic, use this URL:

Posted by Imaginit (Member # 20399) on :,0,1097144.story

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.
Posted by feelfit (Member # 12770) on :
[Eek!] [bonk] [loco] [loco] [loco] 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.
Posted by Keebler (Member # 12673) on :
the "so-called chronic Lyme camp" - ? ugh. big sigh.
Posted by Hoosiers51 (Member # 15759) on :
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).
Posted by seekhelp (Member # 15067) on :
[Frown] x 100
Posted by 22dreams (Member # 17846) on :
You can't test positive for Fatigue with a blood antibody test.
Posted by METALLlC BLUE (Member # 6628) on :
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.
Posted by Amanda (Member # 14107) on :
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 "

go to

for more info.

I guess now the question is, what will be the next move ?
Posted by WildCondor (Member # 434) on :
It is a joke...

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3