Discussions By Condition: I cannot get a diagnosis.

Lyme medical guidelines are being reviewed...

Posted In: I cannot get a diagnosis. 1 Replies
  • Posted By: taniaaust1
  • May 7, 2008
  • 01:29 PM

I had following in email from co-cure so thought I'd post the following latest lyme news for any here eg blaze.. who may be interested.



http://www.the- scientist. com/blog/ display/54627/

The Scientist

Antitrust probe spurs disease review
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~

Posted by Elie Dolgin
Entry posted at 2nd May 2008 07:37 PM GMT]

The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)
has agreed to reassess controversial treatment
guidelines for Lyme disease after an unprecedented
antitrust investigation was launched against the
group last year, according to the Wall Street Journal
Health Blog:

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
launched the investigation into the IDSA's 2006
guidelines on treating a severe form of the disease
known as chronic Lyme disease, or CLD. Those
guidelines recommended against long-term antibiotic
treatment, because the group doesn't recognize the
chronic form of the disease. But some physicians say
the tick-borne bacteria can linger in the bloodstream
for years, and requires antibiotic treatment for six
months or longer.

Announcing the results of the investigation in
Hartford yesterday (May 1), Blumenthal said that
some IDSA members who wrote the guidelines had
financial stakes in companies that develop Lyme
disease tests and treatments, according to the
Hartford Courant. The IDSA has now agreed to form a
new panel to determine whether the 2006 guidelines
should be revised.

In a statement released yesterday, the IDSA said:
"anel members had no financial interests that
would have affected, or been affected by,
recommendations in the guidelines."

In his own statement, Blumenthal accused IDSA
members of "refus to accept or meaningfully
consider information regarding the existence of
chronic Lyme disease," and he stated that the
guidelines are "commonly applied by insurance
companies in restricting coverage for long-term
antibiotic treatment."

````````

http://blogs. wsj.com/health/ 2008/05/01/ guidelines- for-lyme- disease-treatmen t-go-back- for-review/ ?mod=WSJBlog

THE WALLSTREET jOURNAL

HEALTH BLOG

May 1, 2008, 5:01 pm

Guidelines for Lyme Disease
Treatment Go Back for Review
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

Posted by Jacob Goldstein

Two years ago the Connecticut attorney general went
after a national medical society he believed had used
a flawed process in coming up with guidelines for
treating Lyme disease. The group, the Infectious
Disease Society of America, said its hands were
clean. They settled the investigation today, and both
sides basically declared victory.

The backstory here is a fight over a constellation of
symptoms referred to as "chronic Lyme disease," or
CLD, which some doctors and patients say is a
debilitating condition that results from Lyme
disease. But this NIH explainer says "no clear
evidence has emerged to support the contention that
CLD results from a past or persistent Lyme disease
infection. For that reason, the majority of physicians
and scientists do not support a diagnosis of CLD."

The Connecticut case concerned guidelines the IDSA
published in 2006, recommending against long-term
antibiotic treatment. The guidelines said that when
when people initially diagnosed with CLD "have been
carefully reevaluated at university-based medical
centers, consistently, the majority of patients have
had no convincing evidence of ever having had Lyme
disease."

In a statement today, the Connecticut AG said the
guidelines are "commonly applied by insurance
companies in restricting coverage for long-term
antibiotic treatment."

The statement said the IDSA didn't check up on
conflicts of interest among the members of the panel
that created the guidelines, and that the panel
"refused to accept or meaningfully consider
information regarding the existence of chronic Lyme
disease."

This New England Journal of Medicine article,
published last year, lists the financial interests of a
few committee members, which include testifying in
lawsuits related to Lyme disease and doing some
work for Metropolitan Life Insurance and several drug
companies including Merck and Sanofi-Aventis.

In its own statement, IDSA wrote that:

anel members had no financial interests that
would have affected, or been affected by,
recommendations in the guidelines. The guidelines
recommend generic drugs and generic diagnostic
tests. Panel members do not stand to profit from any
recommendation in the guidelines. In fact, the panel
members denied themselves and their colleagues an
opportunity to generate a significant amount of
revenue when they recommended against expensive,
repeated, long-term antibiotic therapy.

Under the terms of the settlement, the IDSA will
convene a review panel to determine whether the '06
guidelines should be revised. There are lots of rules
and regs about how the panel will be selected and
how it is to complete its tasks. If you want all the
details, read Exhibit 1, which is tacked onto the end
of the agreement and posted online here:
http://www.ct. gov/ag/lib/ ag/health/ idsaagreement. pdf

````````````

Reply Flag this Discussion

1 Replies:

  • Thanks also for posting this. It's sad that many people can't get the help they need because of this mess with the IDSA. I hope they start allowing local doctors to treat chronic lyme....it's too bad that the doctors who are treating it have to take such a huge risk.
    Writer53 10 Replies Flag this Response
Thanks! A moderator will review your post and it will be live within the next 24 hours.