Untold thousands of Lyme patients across the United States are denied access to appropriate medical care because of Lyme treatment guidelines put forth by the Infectious Diseases
Society of America (IDSA) and endorsed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The IDSA is a private medical association that doesn't have to answer to anybody. The CDC is a federal agency that essentially allows the IDSA to set its policy regarding Lyme disease.
Medical treatment guidelines are tremendously important. Guidelines for most diseases are listed by the National Guidelines Clearinghouse (NGC), which is part of the US Department of Health and Human Services. It's the government's way of providing updated information to health care professionals. Doctors consult guidelines to help them determine how best to treat their patients and insurance companies use them to decide what treatments to pay for.
The current IDSA Lyme guidelines misrepresent science and restrict access to care.
The IDSA defines the illness so narrowly that many people otherwise determined to have Lyme disease are denied access to medical care. Even those given treatment are usually limited to a "standard course" of antibiotics (often 2-3 weeks) even when they remain ill. Furthermore, insurance companies often won't pay for anything beyond what's stipulated in the guidelines.
Examples of how the IDSA guidelines misrepresent or ignore science:
- They state that only "a few" patients remain ill after standard treatment while the true figure is 25 to 50 percent. (Stricker & Johnson 2011)
- They say the NIH-funded trials prove definitively that longer treatments are not effective DESPITE THE FACT that only four such human studies have been conducted. (Delong et al. 2012). Each of these trials used highly selective patient samples that are not like those seen in clinical practice. The sample sizes were very small, with only 55 patients treated in the largest trial. Trials this small constitute pilot studies designed to suggest future research and cannot be used to support broad definitive treatment conclusions.
- Two recent studies by members of the IDSA have found that the majority of the recommendations in the IDSA guidelines are based more on "expert opinion" than on scientific evidence. (Khan et al. 2010; Lee et al. 2011; Johnson & Stricker 2010a).
- Forty percent of the studies cited are written by the authors of the guidelines, who ignore other studies that don't support their viewpoint. (Johnson & Stricker 2010a).
Why we want the IDSA guidelines removed from the National Guidelines Clearinghouse
The NGC's own rules require that guidelines be updated every 5 years in order to remain listed. This has not happened with the IDSA's Lyme guidelines, which were published in 2006 and have not been updated. The IDSA guidelines are out of date, missing important scientific studies that have been subsequently published.
Examples of outdated assertions that hurt Lyme patients:
- IDSA guidelines claim that a) persistence of the Lyme spirochete after treatment is "not plausible," b) antibiotic treatment is ineffective for chronic Lyme, and c) single-dose antibiotic is effective to prevent Lyme. (Wormser et al. 2006).
All of these assertions have been discredited in subsequent monkey and mouse model trials.
- Subsequent monkey and mouse studies have found persistence of Lyme spirochetes after treatment, even after 90 days of treatment. (Embers et al. 2012).
- The monkey trial found that antibiotics were effective and cleared spirochetes 25% of the time when treated for 90 days.
- A mouse study demonstrated failure of single dose preventive antibiotics.
- IDSA guidelines rely heavily on a single human trial conducted by one of the guidelines authors (Klempner 2004), which has subsequently been found to be statistically flawed. (DeLong et al. 2012).
- IDSA's own guideline review panel recommended over 25 modifications to the guidelines, which have not been incorporated into the guidelines. (IDSA 2010).
- In 2008 the IDSA itself adopted a rigorous evidence assessment process, which has not been applied to the Lyme guidelines. (IDSA 2011).
Lee, D. H. and O. Vielemeyer (2011). "Analysis of Overall Level of Evidence Behind Infectious Diseases Society of America Practice Guidelines." Arch Intern Med 171(1): 18-22.
Johnson, L. and R. B. Stricker (2010a). "The Infectious Diseases Society of America Lyme guidelines: a cautionary tale about the development of clinical practice guidelines." Philos Ethics Humanit Med 5: 9.
Atkins, D., J. Siegel, et al. (2005). "Making policy when the evidence is in dispute." Health Aff (Millwood) 24(1): 102-113.
Sniderman, A. D. and C. D. Furberg (2009). "Why guideline-making requires reform." JAMA 301(4): 429-431.
Wormser, G. P., R. J. Dattwyler, et al. (2006). "The clinical assessment, treatment, and prevention of lyme disease, human granulocytic anaplasmosis, and babesiosis: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America." Clin Infect Dis 43(9): 1089-1134.
Stricker RB, Johnson L. Lyme disease: The next decade. Infect Drug Resist 2011:4:1-9.
Delong, A. K., B. Blossom, et al. (2012). "Antibiotic retreatment of Lyme disease in patients with persistent symptoms: A biostatistical review of randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trials." Contemp Clin Trials.
Embers, M. E., S. W. Barthold, et al. (2012). "Persistence of Borrelia burgdorferi in Rhesus Macaques following Antibiotic Treatment of Disseminated Infection." PLoS ONE 7(1): e29914.
Sackett, D., et al., Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. 2nd ed. 2000, Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
Klempner, M., L. Hu, et al. (2001). "Two controlled trials of antibiotic treatment in patients with persistent symptoms and a history of Lyme disease." N Engl J Med 345(2): 85-92.
Johnson, L., A. Aylward, et al. (2011). "Healthcare access and burden of care for patients with Lyme disease: a large United States survey." Health Policy 102(1): 64-71.
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) (2004) "Classifying recommendations for clinical practice guidelines." Pediatrics 114, 874-877 DOI: 10.1542/peds.2004-1260 114/3/874 [pii].
Institute of Medicine (2011). Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington, DC, National Academies Press.
Maes, E., P. Lecomte, et al. (1998). "A cost-of-illness study of Lyme disease in the United States." Clin Ther 20(5): 993-1008; discussion 1992.
Khan AR, Khan S, Zimmerman V, Baddour LM, Tleyjeh IM. Quality and strength of evidence of the Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guidelines. Clin Infect Dis 2010;51(10):1147-56.
Infectious Diseases Society of America (2011) "Grading the Evidence."
Infectious Diseases Society of America (April 22, 2010) "Final Report of the Lyme Disease Review Panel of the Infectious Diseases Society of America."
World Medical Association, Declaration of Helsinki (adopted 1964; revised 1975, 1983; and 1989). Available at http://history.nih.gov/about/timelines/helsinki.html.
AMA, Principles of Medical Ethics, Principle VIII (adopted 1957; revised 1980 and 2001). Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/principles-medical-ethics.page.
Fallon, B. A. (2006). "Lyme borreliosis: Neuropsychiatric aspects and neuropathology." Psychiatric Annals 36(2): 120-128.
Tabarrok, A. T. (2000, Summer). "Assessing the FDA via the Anomaly of Off-Label Drug Prescribing." The Independent Review V(1): 25-53.
State of Connecticut Attorney General. (May 1, 2008). "Press Release: Attorney General's Investigation Reveals Flawed Lyme Disease Guidelines Process, IDSA Agrees to Reassess Guidelines, Install Independent Arbiter." from http://www.ct.gov/AG/cwp/view.asp?a=2795&q=414284.
Johnson, L. and R. B. Stricker (2010b). "Final report of the Lyme disease review panel of the infectious diseases society of america: a pyrrhic victory?" Clin Infect Dis 51(9): 1108-1109.
Auwaerter, P. G., J. S. Bakken, et al. (2012). "Lyme disease antiscience ? Authors' reply." The Lancet Infectious Diseases 12(5): 362-363.