610 – IDSA
The Infectious Disease Society of America recommends treating suspected Lyme cases with a short course of antibiotics and, if the symptoms persist, for another four weeks of antibiotics.
From the IDSA guidelines: “Randomized controlled studies of treatment of patients who remain unwell after standard courses of antibiotic therapy for Lyme disease are in progress. To date, there are no convincing published data that repeated or prolonged courses of either oral or IV antimicrobial therapy are affective for such patients. The consensus of the IDSA expert-panel members is that there is insufficient evidence to regard ‘chronic Lyme disease’ as a separate diagnostic entity.”
IDSA Lyme disease guidelines’ panel
Excerpted from PRWEB Patient groups voiced concern and disappointment about the new Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Lyme disease guidelines’ panel, which excludes physicians who treat patients with chronic Lyme disease.Greenwich, CT (PRWEB) February 2, 2009 — Patient groups voiced concern and disappointment about the new Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Lyme disease guidelines’ panel, which excludes physicians who treat patients with chronic Lyme disease. In May 2008, the Connecticut Attorney General found the IDSA Lyme disease treatment guidelines’ panel had conflicts of interest, engaged in exclusionary conduct, and suppressed scientific evidence. The investigation resulted in a settlement forcing the IDSA to reconstitute a balanced panel free of conflicts of interest under the oversight of an ombudsman to monitor conflicts of interest. No input from patients or treating physicians was permitted in selection.”This situation is déja vu all over again,” said national Lyme Disease Association president Pat Smith about the newly created guidelines’ panel. “All Lyme disease treating physicians who applied for a seat were denied, based on having a “conflict” if they made over $10,000 treating Lyme disease. They have confused helping patients get better with ‘real’ competing conflicts such as interests in testing and vaccines, and relationships with insurers−a profile found in the original panel. Physicians who treat understand what makes patients well.”
Attorney Lorraine Johnson of the California Lyme Disease Association points out “The problem is that guidelines conclusions generally reflect panel composition. That is why it is critical that a panel be balanced and include different points of view. Excluding the point of view of physicians who treat chronic Lyme disease makes no sense and biases this panel.”
Attorney General’s Investigation Reveals Flawed Lyme Disease Guideline Process, IDSA Agrees To Reassess Guidelines, Install Independent Arbiter
History of the IDSA Guidelines Investigation