Lyme disease, science, and society: Camp Other
Showing posts with label cdc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cdc. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

3 NOTES: House Subcommittee Hearing On Lyme Disease

Here are some very rough notes from today's hearing on Lyme disease in Washington, DC. Please be aware that notes on about 5 minutes of testimony are missing towards the end of the day's hearing. If the webcast is archived, viewers may wish to refer to it to make their own notes.

House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, & Human Rights hearing

2PM EDT
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
2172 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC, USA

"Global Challenges in Diagnosing and Managing Lyme Disease - Closing Knowledge Gaps"

OPENING REMARKS

CHRIS SMITH - CHAIR - NJ Rep

We have a missed decade on Lyme disease research
Chris mentions chronic Lyme disease controversy
Mentions bill to establish tickborne disease committee and take fresh look at all the scientific approaches to Lyme disease
Mentions some history about Lyme disease including Borreliosis in Europe and discovery in Lyme, CT
2010 - 20,000 cases reported, but actual number of maybe 300,000 cases in US in 2010
North America Borrelia burgdorferi s.s.
Different species = different manifestations of disease
Clinical manifestations come in three stages
Mentions two distinct views of Lyme and research conflicting
Hard to catch, easy to cure vs. easy to catch, hard to cure
IDSA states short course of abx ok - anything else is risky
ILADS says the science is unsettled
One or more cause of chronic Lyme disease symptoms is possible, including persistent infection
Persistent symptoms could be due to a combination of persistent infection and immune problems

Three areas we need to took at:
1) diagnostics
2) post treatment symptoms
3) available treatments in light of science

CDC: 2 tier serological testing, but should be used for surveillance not diagnosis -unfortunately it is used for diagnosis by some doctors instead of clinical diagnosis
Europe: 8 immunoblots were shown to have a wide range of sensitivity and specificity
Bolen/NIAID: Lyme multistage disease is difficult to diagnose at any stage
Dr. Eshoo: Has exciting info on new diagnostic tools

Persistence: IDSA says Lyme disease cannot be persistent
Chris Smith says there is plenty of evidence that it can persist past antibiotic treatment
Mentions Barthold's studies and persistence in animal model studies
Mentions possible mechanisms of persistence studies: morphological changes (cell wall deficient, biofilms, etc)

Counterargument by IDSA: there are no convincing arguments that post treatment persistent Lyme disease infection is possible.
Chronic Lyme disease is a misnomer according to IDSA.
IDSA treatment guidelines should be based on best science - Smith argues they don't take into consideration possibility of persistent infection and deny patients needed treatment.

Chris Smith reports that the IDSA, NIH, and CDC were invited to the hearing today. The IDSA representative had scheduling conflict, and they were requested to testify at a very near future date before the subcommittee.

MS. BASS

Mentions the serious concern of missing early diagnosis
States few cases of LD in CA - MS. Bass says she thinks Lyme disease is under reported in CA especially in Central Valley
"Deer ticks" aptly named, as deer can carry 1000 ticks on their back on average.
But white footed mice are now known to be major carriers of the disease.
Other animals are now suspected including birds.
Need new solutions and explorations.
Changes in temperature, weather, and precipitation and their role in spread of Lyme disease should be examined.
Improved detection of early disease is contributing to higher reported numbers to some degree.
Local health departments are increasing awareness in spring and summer.
How can we improve awareness with limited budgets and resources?
Work with WHO to prioritize the disease esp in emerging areas such as Asia.

Rep. GIBSON

This is constituent driven. Major issue in upstate NY. (After he retired from army, so many people are suffering from LD and are confused and medical community is divided over its treatment. A Lyme disease task force would resolve this. Need more awareness about disease and diagnosis. Need to make sure money goes to right place. Money has gone into similar place before and the results were the same.

Most encouraging is research to be published in next year about role of confections in persistent symptoms.

WITNESS TESTIMONY

DR. STEPHEN BARTHOLD, UC DAVIS

Borrelia persists normally in immune competent host
i.e. mice rats hamsters gerbils guinea pigs dogs nonhuman primates
antibiotics are likely to fail under some circumstances if not many circumstances
finds self in contentious field - is somewhat of a pariah
we know in pre-immune stage animals can be cured
in immune stage, animals are not easily cured by antibiotics
Only a few places are really studying post antibiotic treatment Lyme - my group, Finland, NY, Louisiana... [?]
Ceftriaxone, Tigecycline, Amoxicllin, Zithromax: spirochetes are shown to survive these antibiotics in animal models
clonal population of Lyme disease spirochetes -> given antibiotic treatment -> results in non cultivable but living spirochetes
Transcribing RNA = metabolically alive spirochetes
exoplant -> carries infection from Bb infected animal to naive animal

Completed study, hope to publish it soon: 12 month post treatment resurgence of spirochetes found in mice.
what is significance of these spirochetes?
viruses can re-ignite and cause disease - question is: can spirochetes?
The answer is not known yet; something unique is going on with Bb and needs further study

DR. RAPHAEL STRICKER
San Francisco, CA - LLMD

speciality in internal medicine, ILADS Vice President
has 2,000 LD patients
number of patients has grown exponentially in past 15 yrs
patients all over the world Canada Brunei Costa Rica UK even NJ
reflects an increasing rate of LD around the world
Lyme disease is the most common TBD

patients develop muscle, joint, neurological, and cardiac symptoms
despite common disease, doctors are ignorant of how to diagnose and treat:
a bulls eye rash may be absent (50% not seen)
patient may be unaware of tick bite (some bitten by poppy seed size tick)
patients have a wide range of symptoms - doctors are often unaware of this wide range

testing remains problematic (not standardized and insensitive)
treatment has evolved in haphazard fashion (IDSA guidelines only address acute infection; standard guidelines ignore more chronic and severe form)
LD has become international medical disaster
thousands of patients suffer from undiagnosed and untreated Lyme disease
and even though it is all over media
the IDSA sits by and does nothing

State of California is grateful to state health board for forming a state Lyme disease advisory board
for requiring mandatory laboratory reporting of Lyme disease to Department of Health just like system for reporting STIs
California has a physician protection law which allows doctors to treat Lyme disease patients as they deem appropriate
Stricker thinks a model for a Lyme disease national advisory board could stem from CA state model

We need CDC and NIH to abandon failed Lyme disease research programs
need them to have targeted research for better tests just as they did for AIDS
need to have more research on treatment of chronic Lyme disease
need to get them to look at evidence and discard dogma about what chronic Lyme disease is
we need for them to listen to patients and how they are affected

Almost 2 decades ago Dr. Joe Burrascano testified before the Senate. He said, "The very existence of 100s of LD support groups, etc underscores many problems which exist in real world of LD." Two decades later and it's the same story.

DR. MARK ESHOO
IBIS Biosciences, Abbott Labs

Need to develop better diagnostic tests
number cases steadily increasing
Lyme disease is severely under reported
Babesiosis is also important
Babesiosis can be mistaken for malaria (Babesia looks similar to malaria under the microscope, too)
Other TBDs are also present

Lyme spread by ticks to mice, and then ticks infect more mice
mice become chronically infected with Lyme disease
bacteria evolved to evade immune system, especially immune privileged sites (e.g. skin, joints)
humans can have long lasting or chronic infection
those infected develop neurological and joint problems
best time to treat is early in infection
most typical early symptoms are bulls eye rash, flu-like, fatigue, aches

CDC 2 tier test - involves indirect detection of antibodies; has 3 problems:
1) can take Lyme patient more than 3 wks for immune system to detect infection
2) interpretation of 2 tier tests can be subjective and change outcome
3) even after treatment, patient can remain positive… controversy over how long to treat patient (weeks? months? years?)

Abbott Labs is looking directly at presence of DNA of pathogens
Sensitive direct assay of organism is historically very difficult because spirochetes are present in small numbers
Abbott made an assay with 8 independent tests to detect the presence of bacteria in blood
they use large volume of blood
and find way to amplify the presence of small numbers of bacteria (bacterial DNA) in blood

Eshoo et al did a study which could find organism very early in infection in doctor's office (refer to abstract) in 62% of patients

Another area of research Eshoo is working on:
variations of strains may determine type and severity of disease
need to study 100 different strains of Bb and what makes them different in terms of impact of disease

We need more government research and funding
- sensitive test for direct detection early in infection before dissemination (monitor responses to treatment
- find out cause of PTLDS. A direct diagnostic tool would be useful
- need to increase research into diff Borrelia strains differences and their role in human infection

PAT SMITH, LDA USA

LD called yuppie or housewife disease
patients have been referred to by some doctors as being paranoid, hysterical, hypochondriac, etc. without any evidence and without looking that something else could be wrong
many advocacy organizations in the world have been victimized in peer reviewed publications
Many patients confide they'd rather have cancer than Lyme disease due to the misunderstanding and controversy over the disease
Patients want studies which solve their dilemmas (such as doctors don't believe they're sick, answer the question "Why isn't the government doing anything?")
The outcome of small clinical trials/studies put a coffin the nail for treatment of chronic Lyme disease and for a number of reasons, these studies were inadequate.
The conclusion was that no treatment is effective for long term Lyme.

Lyme in the south - there are many myths. Myths that:
No lyme disease can be found in south or west
No reservoir hosts in the south
Deer ticks on lizards prevent Lyme disease in ticks all throughout the south
Deer ticks in south do not bite people (?!)
These claims are not scientifically backed.

Patients are overburdened with medical problems.
There are cutbacks in public health depts. so number of cases are unknown.
Pharmacists who won't fill prescriptions for Lyme disease patients in some places.
Munchausens by proxy charges are made toward mom's who treat kids with Lyme disease with long term antibiotics.

Guidelines that are written by researchers and not clinicians are problematic
IDSA is against any sort of treatment for CLD - either antibiotics, alternative treatment, or the use of supplements
CDC surveillance criteria for Lyme disease has formed basis of IDSA guidelines and this is problematic
patients can die of Lyme disease: study of 114 patients who had Lyme disease who died. After they died, most terminal events for which LD was known as the underlying cause have listed on their death certificate a reported cause of death which researchers stated were thought to be unrelated to Lyme disease. Only one patient was said to have died of complications of Lyme disease directly. Question that.

Has seen recorded 22 point IQ drop in kids with Lyme disease due to infection affecting brain
kids have killed themselves due to Lyme disease - due to pain and due to disbelief by peers and others of their having the disease

Pat Smith has had 2 daughters affected by Lyme disease

CDC, NIH, IDSA were absent at hearing and she thinks they are avoiding responsibility when they were invited to be part of the process to help patients.

EVAN WHITE, NYC
Patient - Had Chronic Lyme Disease

(wife just had baby, he is on SKYPE  - his life is now normal being part of point of his testimony)

20 yr advocate borne out of very tragic case of his own Lyme disease due to being given limited antibiotic treatment
at end he is now well because of conscientious doctors
today is father and practicing attorney and employer.

he says his case is an illustration: if not for long term treatment, none of this would be possible

so many people do not have benefits he had
if they had access to treatment, they would be contributing members of society
his story has happy ending
he is fighting for fellow Lyme patients to have same access to treatment
he is advocating for change in limited guidelines

his case study is that short term treatment did not work
long term treatment helped him recovered
he was ill at 11 yrs old
missed school due to flu-like symptoms
doctor did diagnose Lyme disease and he was given 1-2 wks of antibiotics
after 2 weeks he did not get better
the response to not recovering after 2 wks was that PT and psych therapy was needed after those 2 weeks
daily his condition deteriorated
he was a 12 yr old who trusted his doctor
but 6 months later so bad could not do anything
could not go to school, had trouble getting out of bed
blood test showed Lyme disease and confections were very much present months later

here is devastating result of un (or under treated) Lyme disease
6 months of no treatment sent him into tailspin
he vastly deteriorated, went from active athletic child to one who couldn't care for himself
had muscle atrophy, neurological problems
60 lbs at age 13, called a vegetable, and doctors were confused by his state
doctors put him in children's rehabilitation care
did brain scan
it revealed Lyme disease's affect in its passing the BBB: hypoperfusion
he had trouble reading and talking
and was surrounded by doctors who had no idea why he was in condition he was in
2 yrs bounced from hospital to hospital
6 months in children's hospital

went home and parents arranged for appt with LLMD
the LLMD "got it" and had their own personal experience with the disease - not just treating other patients
he had long road ahead for recovery but this was his turning point
he was on long term antibiotics coupled with supplements
2 year crawl to get out of that place
even if it were 10 yr crawl that would have been ok with him
stopped using wheelchair
got out of bed
began to take care of self
began to read again
began to be able to communicate again
got him on trajectory to become person he is today and fully recovered

hoping through this testimony that patients who are affected can get treatment they need to recover from chronic Lyme disease
the net effect of current guidelines restricting treatment deprives so many if not all from having health care option to seek long care treatment that does work for many patients so that they can recover and live long healthy lives

Rep. SMITH

intro Stella in UK

STELLA HUYSHE-SHIRES
Lyme Disease Action (UK)

UK doctors not taking patients seriously
Department of Health accreditation of Lyme Disease Action, Lyme Disease Action is now considered an unbiased source of information on Lyme disease in the UK
papers say Lyme Disease is overdiagnosed
public say it is underdiagnosed
what is the evidence?
we don't know incidence of Lyme disease in the UK
One GP practice finds it 20x greater than numbers which are reported
1300 cases found in one year may mean there are really more like 26,000 cases in UK

survey:
23% patients found ot have Lyme disease but the rest with similar symptoms were diagnosed with CFS
there is concern CFS patients are misdiagnosed and have Lyme disease
on the flip side maybe
100 people year in clinics in UK may be misdiagnosed with Lyme disease
But in a CFS clinic - 40% patients were misdiagnosed with CFS

Why is LD difficult to diagnose and what can be done about it?
we need unequivocal tests and clear guidelines
none exist in UK
most doctors haven't seen Lyme enough and rely on blood tests for diagnosis in UK

unreliable info on internet, certain labs, etc only part of story even if there is an element of truth in it
European challenge of more than one strain of Bb adds to complexity of test issue
Scotland uses more bands in its lab than other locations - leading to different line drawn for positive test results and access to treatment

Most treatment recommendations based on opinion not evidence
need other stakeholders to investigate Lyme disease
Lyme Disease Action (UK) is working with James Lind Alliance to engage doctors in more awareness of LD in patients and in general

The biggest challenge globally is recognition of unknowns in Lyme Disease
All across Europe there is a polarization of opinions along IDSA/ILADS poles
and there may be reluctance to climb out of one's entrenched view of Lyme disease

In Northern Europe doctors rely heavy on test results - similar issues found there.
In Central Europe, doctors have more experience: Lyme is a big problem, doctors say the tests are not good enough; doctors say they don't know how to effectively treat all patients.

Politics are a problem.
Uncertainty of the science is a problem.
Politics prevents recognition of the uncertainties.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION (Rep Smith/Rep Gibson ask questions)

HUYSHE-SHIRES

A: HPA guidelines come from IDSA
Worse thing when patients are told symptoms are in their head
IDSA only recognizes visible arthritis then patient may get further tx
HPA does follow IDSA guidelines
indiv doctors sometimes make indiv clinical decision
case studies London school of hygiene (4-5 yr period) - some patients did not recover after initial course of abx, then some not after second, then some had a third. Between each treatment, patients were believed and found rising antibody levels.
Doctors will say adequate tx occurred, but it's adequate in terms of meeting guidelines but not in terms of effectively treating patient

BARTHOLD

Q: Are proposals being rejected for research at NIH?

A: Peer review is an issue. Peers are divided just are anyone else in Ld community
have direct exp in prejudicial statements in grant application reviews - peer view of applications does not get over the barrier
NIH is struggling to fund investigators
young people are not entering science, old people are leaving
in that environment combination of things - anything controversial having difficulty being funded
made NIH call for application on research on persistence after antibiotic treatment
only suggestion is his
we scientists are always looking for money. Follow the money.
NIH invests in biodefense then people gravitate towards biodefense research.

STRICKER

Q: Rep.brings up conflicts of interest and suppression of data in IDSA guidelines review.

A: IDSA hearing was organized by IDSA and no treating physicians were on the committee
Even though guidelines were flawed they were ruled acceptable.
Stricker encouraged by Dr Eshoo's research and development of advanced early testing.

["To date no antibiotic treatment treats biofilms." - attribution?]

Q: Rep comments to Barthold: issue of "mopping up" after antibiotics
host immune system must mop up remaining spirochetes... Explain.

BARTHOLD

A: using biofilm analogy: there is a population of microorganisms, some of which are dormant
dormant non-dividing bacteria are universally tolerant of antibiotics and are not dividing or active metabolically
Borrelia: we know it is dividing and disseminating and susceptible to antibiotics early on but during the immune phase in animals there is a 10 fold reduction in population (not necessarily in biofilms) and what is found are non-dividing spirochetes; they are dormant and antibiotics are not touching them
What is unique is they grow out but they cannot be cultured - they may be attenuated.


STRICKER

A: Borrelia has molecular machinery to make biofilms according to Dr. Stricker.
Stricker states cell wall deficient form evades antibiotics and it needs to be researched more.

Q: Rep. Asks Dr. Eshoo: How close are you to coming up w new test and why is Big Pharma not getting further involved?

ESHOO

A: It's a small market according to BP and takes lots of money and time to invest.
Lot of people in medical community say current test is good enough.

Eshoo thinks sensitivity needs to be improved and tests need to be improved to end the controversy.

Who wants to be infected for 3 weeks or more untreated waiting for a positive blood test? Nobody.

Rep. Q to Stricker:

Are there people outside the IDSA guidelines panel who notice there's a problem [with testing]?
Does Dr. Francis Collins (NIH director) say "What is wrong here? Why is this a persistent bone of contention?"

STRICKER

A: Blumenthal investigation found there are 14 people in the IDSA who control guidelines, testing, and diagnostic guidelines of Lyme Disease. The rest of the IDSA (8,000 people) defer to this group.

PAT SMITH, Lyme Disease Association

LDA has Scientific and professional review board
It is voluntary board
If issues need to be addressed or LDA is considering funding research, the board is asked to comment on it using their expertise
CALDA, LRA, etc also rely on this board

STRICKER

Q: Rep. [?]: you have 2,000 patients. What is your takeaway from this huge patient number and how are they when they find you?

A: Number of patients exceeds CDC reporting. That's one thing it tells me. Number of those affected may be 10 fold higher.
Many come after yrs of misdiagnosis and no treatment.
70% of patients get better. He finds this gratifying and he turns a deaf ear to the controversy because of outcome.
Uses long term antibiotic treatment.
Published study last year on neurological patients needing 6-12 months of antibiotic treatment to improve.

[5-6 minutes of testimony notes missing]


COMMENTS NEAR END

8.75 million dollar research fund Chris Smith says has been put forward. Chronic Lyme is supposed to be included in this research. How should the wording for the law be improved and how can there be better oversight to get money to the right place?

Barthold said: Follow the money.
If you enlarge the pot and spend it on research that's already been done, we get nowhere.
If we and NIH recognize persistence after treatment as an issue, then new research would be done on this issue.
A more narrowly focused call for applications would help if NIH would agree with that - research on chronic symptoms and the biology/pathology of the organism.

Dr. Eshoo said the field needs support to get off the ground and that RFAs must be specifically targeted toward solving narrowly defined problems.

PAT Smith has concern research money goes to post Lyme disease syndrome and not chronic Lyme disease - which is a different condition.
Patient perspectives on issues of the disease is important and knowing how it's affecting them is important.
Advocates, treating physicians, and patients need to be involved in the process of determining what needs to be researched.

Q: Rep. Gibson: How do you expand Lyme literacy among old and new doctors?

STRICKER

A: ILADS has preceptorship program. Can learn about diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease. Program is funded privately. Mentor doctors who want to get involved sign up.

Stricker has trouble finding physicians willing to get involved due to controversy. This has had a chilling effect on mentorship.


Q: Rep Gibson: is that because state med board may censor them?

A: Yes. Though state has protection law, the risk censoring by board and other doctors may still go on.

Has 27 studies in table in written testimony (table 2) showing persistence in humans after IDSA guidelines-based treatment.

BARTHOLD

We need to know what is happening in humans but animals allow us to extrapolate models. Many people are using animals but looking only at acute early phase of infection. Not many people are looking at chronic persistent infection in animals. Fewer than five labs worldwide are studying this but it is the most important aspect of the disease.

HUYSHE-SHIRES

Borrelia has been isolated in patients after initial treatment - there are some cases recorded in published papers.
Some people improve after longer treatment
We need more investigation to determine how to better diagnose and treat Lyme disease

IDSA guidelines are accepted in the UK
Summary of recommendations for treatment by European Federation of Neurology Specialists (organization name needs fact checking) - make the point that in neurological Lyme there are no good trials of more than 28 days antibiotic treatment for neuroborreliosis.
They base this on opinion because there is no trial in Europe for longer term treatment of neuroborreliosis.

There are some trials which show good recovery, but at most 60-70% patients experience a good response. A patient does not consider 7 of 10 people responding to treatment as being a rate that is excellent.

PAT SMITH

Children are most affected by Lyme. They have more complications and are greatly impacted by their peers and teachers and what they are saying about them.

It is appalling what comments are being made about students who are ill with Lyme who cannot make it to school because they are too sick. No one wants to stay at home with their mother from school for four years.

One problem is inadequate early antibiotic treatment may lead to a poor antibody response and negative tests, which then put child at further risk for being disbelieved for having Lyme disease.

Some family services will take kids away from parents if those parents treat one child with antibiotics for chronic Lyme disease. This is serious and kids are psychologically damaged by the disease as well as the response from society and their community towards their illness.

We have the knowledge and tools in this country to stop this.

HUYSHE-SHIRES

1-3 people in UK are believed to have expertise on Lyme in UK, and those 1-3 apply IDSA guidelines and support them
NHS did not make any needed changes to their guidelines even though they should be made to suit the UK patient population

ETHAN WHITE

If sick, seek out people who will lead you to knowledgeable doctors who will offer treatment for Lyme disease.

SOME CLOSING COMMENTS

Barthold thinks people on both sides are good people, and he thinks we need to move past contentiousness and work together to help those affected by Lyme disease.

We need to work to get out of entrenched positions and get to the bottom of what's happening using science.

It's time for people to get together and show their cards and be willing to act in the best interest of patients and work past this contentiousness.



Comments:

Will be adding links relevant to this testimony soon.

If anyone who gave testimony at the hearing reads these notes and sees a correction that needs to be made, please request correction in comments and I will revise this post.

UPDATE - July 17:

Original testimonies are now available for download including additional materials from each of the witnesses. Scroll down this page for pdf files: http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/hearings/view/?1455

UPDATE - July 19:

Ustream has two streaming video archives of the hearing available at the following links:

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/24058724

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/24060689


Read More

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

0 The Wall Street Journal On The Increase Of Tickborne Diseases

Today, Laura Landro of the Wall Street Journal published an article in its Life & Culture section on "This Season's Ticking Time Bomb: Warm Weather Means Ticks Will Be Out Early; A 'Horrific' Season for Lyme and Other Diseases."

It sounds like a sensationalized piece from the title at first - but it's not. It's straightforward reporting on how this year the number of tickborne diseases will be on the rise due to earlier warm temperatures and how to protect your yourself and your family through interactive advice.

Laura's article outlines the typical topics around Lyme disease: symptoms, the difficulty of early diagnosis and treatment, the rising number of cases reported to the CDC over the past decade, and the steps one can take to prevent contracting Lyme disease.

There is also mention of a CDC study on the use of sprays to limit tick population and how a Connecticut scientist sets Japanese barberry on fire to remove it as a source of ticks' sheltering habitat.

For more information, check out Laura's article on the WSJ here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303404704577305630267988716.html?mod=WSJ_LifeStyle_Lifestyle_6

In addition to this article, Laura Landro also wrote a blog entry in the Health section, "Doctors Clash Over Best Treatments for Lyme Disease", which discusses the IDSA's treatment guidelines approach (short, and possibly not sweet) and ILADS treatment approach (in for the long haul) for patients with persisting symptoms.

In the blog, Paul Mead of the CDC, Leo J. Shea III of ILADS, and Kristin Schofield, founder of a central New York chapter of the Empire State Lyme Disease Association, are all interviewed.

Read and comment on her blog entry here, as I did:

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2012/03/27/doctors-clash-over-best-treatments-for-lyme-disease/tab/comments/#comment-1553317


Read More

Friday, August 12, 2011

7 Tracking Lyme Disease in Dogs May Help Protect Humans: MedlinePlus

For the study,  a team led by Dr. Paul Mead, a CDC medical epidemiologist, used data from 46 states on human and canine Lyme disease prevalence.

Comparing the data, Mead's team found that when 1 percent or less of the dogs tested positive for Lyme disease, the risk of people becoming infected was low. However, when more than 5 percent of the dogs were infected, the risk to people was high.


Read More Here: Tracking Lyme Disease in Dogs May Help Protect Humans: MedlinePlus


Comment:

This is the kind of low cost surveillance data I think should have been collected all along - and let the vets do the data collection and reporting. I think it makes sense to use dogs to determine potential risk to humans because dogs roam around more and get in the tall grass - they go where the ticks are whereas people try to stay away from them. I consider a dog another potential piece of dragging white flannel flag.

Read More

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

19 Commentary: A Letter From The CDC To Lyme Patients

I came across this letter online. Presumably, it was a letter in response to a letter from a patient with Lyme disease/Post Lyme Syndrome sent to the CDC - but there is no identifying information on the email, and I do not have any verification of its origin.

However, I want to post it along with a few comments, taking it at face value that it is what it appears to be and is real.

I have some questions to ask on the content as well as some criticisms about it. If this were an actual letter I had received from the CDC, I would have been disappointed by it.



-----Original Message----- From: NCID/VBI BZB Public Inquiries (CDC)
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 3:18 PM
To: XXXXXXXXX
Subject: RE: Lyme disease inquiry

Hello,

Your inquiry was forwarded to CDC's Division of Vector-Borne Diseases. We are sorry to hear of your health issues. Please be assured that CDC is constantly reviewing the scientific literature and makes recommendations according the quality of the scientific evidence. At this juncture, the risk of extended antibiotic treatment well outweighs any perceived benefits. As a public health agency, we are concerned not just about those with true Lyme disease, but also the multitudes of people being misdiagnosed with Lyme disease and treated for a disease that is not the cause of their symptoms.

Many of the statements that you make in your email are not accurate, and are examples of the type of misinformation that is spread through the internet and many advocacy groups regarding Lyme disease. In fact, if someone is not diagnosed until later stages of illness, IV antibiotics are recommended (not oral). That may not have been the case back then, but scientific evidence has demonstrated that to be the case. Unfortunately, there are a small number of people, who receive appropriate treatment, still continue to have symptoms. The cause of this is unknown, but there has been no evidence to support the idea that these people are still actively infected. There is a lot of current research on this front, and the leading hypothesis at this time is that it is an autoimmune response (this is not that unusual in infectious diseases). The mainstream medical community has searched for the cause for these symptoms, and there have been 4 placebo controlled clinical trials to assess whether continued antibiotic treatment was helpful for these patients. No long lasting improvement was shown over placebo. Anecdotes of recovery with nonstandard treatments are shared widely, but you can't base scientific recommendations on anecdotes. It is incumbent upon the proponents of continued and nonstandard treatment for Lyme disease to do the research needed to demonstrate the position that they so strongly believe in. In the meantime, there are many doctors and laboratories that operate a "for profit" business diagnosing anyone with Lyme disease. The reason some clinicians have been brought up on disciplinary charges is not because they operate outside the mainstream, it is because patients have suffered dire consequences from their experimental treatments, and some have even died.

Sincerely,

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Division of Vector-Borne Diseases
Bacterial Diseases Branch
Fort Collins, Colorado
email:dvbid@cdc.gov



My first comment on this is that I wish it were posted alongside the original emailed letter which was sent to the CDC so I could see which statements were made which may have been considered inaccurate - and I would have liked to have seen further detailed response from the CDC officer who would have fielded these statements and responded.

My second comment is that while it is good that the officer showed sympathy for the original letter writer's poor health, what follows is not in any way supportive or helpful to the person who has been suffering from persisting symptoms related to Lyme disease - regardless of what anyone thinks the cause is.

Beyond this, I'm going to comment on parts of this letter piece by piece.

"Please be assured that CDC is constantly reviewing the scientific literature and makes recommendations according the quality of the scientific evidence."

It would be helpful if the CDC set aside a web site with links to all the scientific literature they think is supportive of their approach to Lyme disease - as well as a ranking of the quality of the evidence supplied (how much of it is opinion-based, how much is based on case studies, how much is based on random controlled double blind studies, etc.).

"At this juncture, the risk of extended antibiotic treatment well outweighs any perceived benefits."

It would be helpful if the respondent clarified what this juncture is - I can only guess context from the content in the rest of the letter. While I'm fairly certain this is a response to a question about long term antibiotic treatment for Lyme disease, I'm not sure which specific juncture the writer is talking about in terms of timeline or symptoms.

But right now, my first question without any context is this: What happens when a patient has treatment failure?

How does the risk of extended antibiotic treatment for Lyme disease compare against extended antibiotic treatment for other conditions such as acne, ulcerative colitis, reactive arthritis, Hansen's disease, and tuberculosis?

How do the benefits of extended antibiotic treatment for Lyme disease compare against extended antibiotic treatment for other conditions?

"As a public health agency, we are concerned not just about those with true Lyme disease, but also the multitudes of people being misdiagnosed with Lyme disease and treated for a disease that is not the cause of their symptoms."


Why do they assume that so many people are being misdiagnosed with Lyme disease - versus there are a lot more cases of Lyme disease that are being diagnosed?

On the whole, it seems this statement is focused more on "the multitudes of people being misdiagnosed with Lyme disease and treated for a disease that is not the cause of their symptoms" rather than those with a history of true Lyme disease. This becomes more apparent by reading the rest of the letter.

The assumption being stated here is that multitudes of people are being misdiagnosed with Lyme disease and treated for a disease that is not the cause of their symptoms.

What evidence do they have that this is true?

Why do they assume that so many people are being misdiagnosed with Lyme disease - versus there are a lot more cases of Lyme disease that are being diagnosed?

Every year the general trend has been an increase of official reported and probable cases reported by doctors and state health departments to the CDC.

The CDC itself knows this and acknowledges that in highly endemic areas the number of actual Lyme disease cases is 6-12 times higher than those which are reported, where are these multitudes of which they speak which are misdiagnosed?

"In fact, if someone is not diagnosed until later stages of illness, IV antibiotics are recommended (not oral). That may not have been the case back then, but scientific evidence has demonstrated that to be the case."

This is true to a degree.

Refer to the 2006 Lyme panel guidelines and you will see that use of IV antibiotics only applies to late (and early) neurological Lyme disease cases and not in the case of Lyme arthritis and other Lyme disease manifestations.

Addendum Aug. 28, 2011: Dr. Allen Steere is recommending an additional month of IV antibiotics for patients with chronic Lyme arthritis if the first two months of oral antibiotics are insufficient. (How is this determination made?)
"Unfortunately, there are a small number of people, who receive appropriate treatment, still continue to have symptoms."
Hey, this is me.

At least I think so?

I did receive a standard amount of appropriate treatment at first, but it was not the first line antibiotic choice due to allergies. Could that be the cause of treatment failure in me?

What happens if I have had neuroborreliosis and it wasn't diagnosed all this time? I never received any IV antibiotics for Lyme disease. So in that case, according to the CDC I would not have had appropriate treatment until I have had IV antibiotics for a month.

By their definition, was I treated properly?

"The cause of this is unknown, but there has been no evidence to support the idea that these people are still actively infected. There is a lot of current research on this front, and the leading hypothesis at this time is that it is an autoimmune response (this is not that unusual in infectious diseases)."

Why do they state there is no evidence to support the idea that some patients are still actively infected after standard treatment with antibiotics?

I wish the CDC officer who responded would have stated why the evidence of persistent infection in human and animal studies is considered scientifically unacceptable to the CDC. It would be informative to hear their perspective on this research.

The author says the cause of persistent symptoms is unknown - but then later goes on to state that the leading hypothesis at this time is that it is an autoimmune response.

To which I have to ask:

What is the evidence in favor of an autoimmune response, especially within 30 days after initial infection? Why does this hypothesis have greater weight than other hypotheses?

If some patients  develop an autoimmune disorder after contracting Lyme disease - does that eliminate the possibility that some portion of the patient population which has been diagnosed and treated for Lyme disease may have treatment failures and need additional or different antibiotics - or need to switch from oral to IV form?

Is this patient population going to be so uniformly homogenous in outcome that every patient who continues to have symptoms after 21 days of oral antibiotic treatment has an autoimmune disorder?

How quickly does an autoimmune disorder develop and what are the necessary conditions for its development?

This is requires evidence. Right now it's a hypothesis, and even if it's the leading hypothesis - it can still be wrong or not apply to all patients.

"The mainstream medical community has searched for the cause for these symptoms, and there have been 4 placebo controlled clinical trials to assess whether continued antibiotic treatment was helpful for these patients. No long lasting improvement was shown over placebo."

Three different statements are packed into this one.

1) The mainstream medical community has searched for the cause of these symptoms.

and

2) There have been 4 placebo controlled clinical trials to assess whether continued antibiotic treatment was helpful for these patients.

and

3) No long lasting improvement was shown over placebo.

In response to #1, my questions are: What does the CDC mean by "the mainstream medical community" in this statement?

It would be helpful to name names, offer specific citations for research which has been conducted, and see what has been done - as well as mention research that is in the pipeline and currently being conducted. As a patient, I would want to know what is currently being done to help address my issues and find more effective treatment for my condition.

In response to #2, there has been much discussion in the Lyme patient community about 4 placebo controlled clinical trials as well as criticism about them. Those within the community already know which 4 trials this CDC officer is likely to be using as references. However, this should not be assumed and it would have been useful to at least specifically offer citations for these studies to confirm this fact.

In response to #3, there has been reported improvement in patients while they were on antibiotic treatment during trials and that improvement stopped after antibiotics were stopped. One must consider that the antibiotics may have some positive effect on patients, whether that is antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, or some other effect. It deserves more investigation.

Providing evidence that a particular long-term antibiotic treatment helps alleviate symptoms is a separate issue to test than a trial which provides evidence that a patient has persistent infection.
From my point of view, providing evidence that a particular long-term antibiotic treatment helps alleviate symptoms is a separate issue to test than a trial which provides evidence that a patient has persistent infection.

Certain kinds of antibiotics work better for certain pathogens than others due to their pharmacokinetics and if Borrelia burgdorferi is at least partly intracellular and has other survival mechanisms which may make it easier to evade antibiotics, then not only does the organism's pathogenesis require closer study - but more wide scale treatment trials could be designed for late stage and chronic Lyme patients which address specific treatments in relation to research about the organism's behavior in vivo (rather than continue longer courses of the same antibiotics which are already outlined in the guidelines).


"Anecdotes of recovery with nonstandard treatments are shared widely, but you can't base scientific recommendations on anecdotes."

This is true.

However, one can look at well-documented and detailed case studies of patients and use those to develop larger scale studies and clinical trials. There are already doctors out there who have such case studies who could help develop and design these trials.

Why don't we have some additional trials, rather than beat around this obvious bush?

And why not begin conducting trials for treatments which address immune dysregulation due to Lyme disease infection?

This would help patients without using antibiotics and could prevent them from developing an autoimmune disorder.

And maybe perhaps also conduct studies and trials with a two-pronged approach that handles infection and dysregulated immune responses?

"It is incumbent upon the proponents of continued and nonstandard treatment for Lyme disease to do the research needed to demonstrate the position that they so strongly believe in."

What does this statement mean? The assumption I would make in reading this is that it is that proponents = patients suffering with persisting symptoms (of which some have found some relief using antibiotics longer term, regardless of what mechanism is at work in their use), the doctors who are willing to treat them longer term, organizations which support such patients and doctors (Lyme disease advocacy groups), and some researchers who have studied Bb and think it can persist in the host post-antibiotic treatment.

Does this mean that the CDC's expectation is that such proponents fund their own research for chronic Lyme disease (or what they'd call Post Lyme disease) rather than having other major research institutions look into the cause of persisting symptoms and treatment for patients with such symptoms?

"In the meantime, there are many doctors and laboratories that operate a "for profit" business diagnosing anyone with Lyme disease."

And?

If I would have received a letter with this statement, I would have been expecting some additional notice about which laboratories and doctors these are and what evidence they have that they diagnose anyone with Lyme disease. Instead, as a patient I am left wondering who these doctors and laboratories are and what evidence the CDC has against them.

"The reason some clinicians have been brought up on disciplinary charges is not because they operate outside the mainstream, it is because patients have suffered dire consequences from their experimental treatments, and some have even died."

Again, if I would have received a letter with this statement, I would have been expecting some additional notice about which clinicians were brought up on charges and what the evidence was for such charges. I would be concerned about the circumstances of other patients' deaths, and in general, wonder why I had received a letter from the CDC mentioning this without further qualification or details.

If the purpose of the letter was to inform me out of concern, it hasn't because it hasn't supplied such information in order to educate me about such laboratories and clinicians. It has only served to try to instill fear in me about potential unknown doctors I haven't seen and laboratories I know nothing about.

I'm already sitting here, having known I was bitten by a tick, even saved said tick, and had a textbook case of Lyme disease; I've already been tested by a certified laboratory for Lyme disease and coinfections.

I'm not "one of the multitudes who was misdiagosed with Lyme disease and treated for a disease I never had" - whoever they are.

I don't know how many people actually do fall under this category - I have no data on this, though I would like to know about the specific data the CDC has on this population. It would be most informative.

Anyway, if I had gotten this letter, I would have found it dismissive of my condition and of me as a patient - whether my condition was labeled Chronic Lyme disease, Post-Lyme disease syndrome, Post-treatment Lyme disease, or something else entirely.

I would have found it scientifically useless, as there are no citations and explanations to back the CDC officer's claims.

I would have found it medically useless, as it doesn't point me to any effective treatments and clinical trials that have just finished along with an opportunity to sign up for a current or future clinical trial or study.

I would have found it lacking in hope and denigrating, as it is blatantly telling me and others (disabled, many unable to work - not to mention broke and without microbiology labs or training) that we must somehow conduct our own research for the condition that the mainstream medical community has coined for me (either Post-Lyme disease syndrome or Chronic Lyme disease).

To top it off, I would be pissed off I'm being warned about certain labs and doctors without any more information concerning who they are and without any evidence they have done something wrong.

As a patient, all this would do would provide me with the additional work of having to do the difficult job of investigating every single doctor and laboratory out there who tests for Lyme disease - a job which no patient should be expected to do.

This is, by and large, a shitty and useless letter to receive as a patient.

In tone and purpose, it starts out with a statement of sympathy, only to move through self-informed justification for its own position and onto assumptions about the patient population - then onto trials with negative outcomes and instilling fear about unidentified doctors and laboratories.

If I were working for the CDC and had to write a letter to a Lyme disease patient (acute, late stage, chronic, or post-Lyme) - even with inherent differences in position between the official CDC/IDSA Lyme disease guidelines perspective on Lyme disease and that of the Lyme patient community - I would have done it differently.

If any CDC officer happens to see this and read this, I want them to know that if the above letter is in fact an official and genuine email that was sent to a patient by your institution, that you could have written it differently and with more compassion for the patient who receives it.

You are writing to a person who may have been entirely devastated by their illness (whatever it is) and has lost everything - their health, their marriage, their job - and they took the time to ask you for feedback and help.

If your hypothesis is so strongly supported, what research are you doing that shows support?
If your autoimmune hypothesis is so strongly supported, what research are you doing which helps those patients who are suffering from this condition?
What they need to hear about is what is right and true, high quality evidence backing such claims, and to be offered information that is helpful and supportive. They need specifics about what is being done to investigate their condition further and improve their quality of life. And they really don't need some ludicrous suggestion that they need to investigate it themselves.

It's scientists' job to educate people and light a candle in the darkness. To solve controversies. To provide a clear trail of supportive evidence for a hypothesis, and then provide high quality evidence to support that hypothesis for those who are affected by that hypothesis which provides the current foundation for patient treatment decisions.

If your hypothesis is so strongly supported, what research are you doing that shows support?

If your autoimmune hypothesis is so strongly supported, what research are you doing which helps those patients who are suffering from this condition?

Where are the positive outcomes from random double blind controlled studies?

If this is for real, I'm asking these questions for the person who wrote the original letter, whatever erroneous information may have been in it. I'm asking for other patients I don't even know. And finally, because I have some self-interest in this, I'm asking for me.

Read More

Monday, May 30, 2011

0 Paper: Factors Affecting Duration of CFS in Pediatric Patients

Indian J Pediatr. 2011 May 27. [Epub ahead of print]

Factors Affecting Duration of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome in Pediatric Patients.
Petrov D, Marchalik D, Sosin M, Bal A.

Source
UMDNJ/Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:
To determine factors affecting duration of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) in pediatric patients.

METHODS:
This Retrospective cohort consisted of patients with CFS at the regional referral infectious disease clinic for evaluation of fatigue in children and adolescents. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were analyzed to identify the impact on duration and severity of pediatric CFS.

RESULTS:
A total number of 53 predominantly white (98.1%) patients with CFS, aged 9-18 years, were included in the study. Other than fatigue, headaches and sleep disturbance were the most common symptoms of pediatric CFS. Seropositive status for Borrelia burgdorferi (B. burgdorferi) and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) was identified in 66% of the patients with the diagnosis of CFS by CDC criteria. No association was found between the CFS symptoms, gender, or age at diagnosis and duration of fatigue symptoms. Duration of CFS was associated with high Body-Mass Index (BMI) in a regression model after adjustment for patient's age, gender, and seropositive status for B. burgdorferi and/or EBV (0.34 ± 0.15, P < 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS:
BMI is significantly associated with prolonged duration of CFS.

CO Comments:

I really need to get hold of the full text of this paper.

Interesting how they pointed out that 66% of their patients were seropositive for Borrelia burgdorferi and Epstein-Barr Virus by CDC criteria, but the emphasis in the paper abstract conclusion is only on the correlation between Body-Mass Index and duration of CFS in patients.

What percentage of patients had Lyme disease versus EBV infections? The breakdown isn't clear.

And here comes an additional question: What relationship is there - if any - between BMI and duration of illness?
Read More

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

0 Repost: Lyme Disease: Money & Chronic Mayhem

The following is a repost of an entry from yesterday's Daily Kos.

This past February, the Republican-led House of Representatives proposed a budget that would have cut millions of dollars from science agencies that fund Lyme disease research as well as research for other infectious diseases. These cuts would have not only lead to funding levels well below those proposed by Obama when he tabled his budget request more than a year ago, but also well below the 2010 levels they have been operating under since October.

At the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a cut of just over 1% amounts to a loss of $323 million, including $50 million that Congress has specified will come out of funding for buildings and facilities on the agency's campus in Bethesda, Maryland.[1]

At the same time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in Atlanta, Georgia will have its budget cut this year by 11.5%, or $742 million.

These two agencies, NIH and CDC, are largely responsible for nationally funded surveillance and research on Lyme disease in the United States today. They are at risk for the more serious proposed cuts to be carried out in 2012, which is likely to have a major impact on Lyme disease research since there is very little privately funded research on tickborne diseases.

Lyme Disease Surveillance, Diagnosis, and Funding

The following chart depicts the steady increase of Lyme disease cases which are reported to the CDC by state health departments and physicians across the country.


It should be noted that back in 2002, the CDC stated that in highly endemic areas, for every case you see depicted on this chart, there could be at least six to twelve times more cases which are not reported.[2]

If one were to extrapolate that each case reported came from an endemic area, that would mean anywhere from 180,000 to nearly 480,000 actual cases of Lyme disease were contracted in 2009, and the number is growing.

Given there are variations in which tickborne diseases are most likely to be contracted nationwide, the average number of unreported cases may be more than twelve times higher in highly endemic regions and less than six times higher in regions which are not as suitable for tick habitat expansion.

But this misses a point.

Even at the baseline of roughly 40,000 reported cases (through testing, both confirmed and considered probable) per year, that is a LOT of cases of Lyme disease.

That's almost up there with how many people get the flu every year - 43,696 cases of Novel A influenza were reported in 2009.[3]

That's right up there with HIV - of which 36,870 diagnosed cases were reported in 2009.

But the actual reported cases are only a slice of the whole - it only documents instances where people have been TESTED for Lyme. Just as with the flu and HIV, what the actual number of people is who contract Lyme disease is not entirely known.

Even the CDC has stated in its own report:

"Between 2008 and 2009 there was a 3.6% increase in confirmed cases and 35.6% increase in probable cases. Much of the increase can be attributed to variability in surveillance practices, although evidence of true emergence exists in certain areas. Because of the burden on endemic states posed by Lyme disease surveillance, some states have modified surveillance protocols to better manage limited resources. States using modified methods, including case estimation, might report decreased case counts."[3]

Also, it is important to note that reporting of nationally notifiable diseases to CDC by the states is voluntary. Reporting is currently mandated (i.e., by state legislation or regulation) only at the state level, so the list of diseases that are considered notifiable varies slightly by state.

There are reasons why getting a grip on the scope of the problem is elusive for patients as well - it's not just an issue of surveillance and affects people individually:

Some tickborne diseases which look like Lyme disease in all respects may not show up in current standard Lyme disease blood tests.

For example, Borrelia lonestari produces a disease very similar to Lyme disease known as Master's Disease - which most Lyme disease patients just lump under "Lyme disease" on support groups because it pretty much causes the same symptoms for people. They get a rash, but test negative on standard Lyme disease blood tests.

Some tickborne diseases which look like Lyme disease in all respects may never have a rash.

In a similar scenario, investigators in southern Spain identified several patients with atypical Lyme borreliosis, who were serologically reactive with Borrelia burgdorferi antigens, but who lacked classical erythema migrans skin lesions and who originated from a region of the country where the recognized tick vector of Lyme borreliosis was distributed sparsely. Indeed, blood cultures subsequently revealed a relapsing fever Borrelia sp., genetically distinct from B. burgdorferi and transmitted by an entirely different tick species. In this case, discovery of a novel disease agent occurred because these patients did not meet the established case definition for Lyme borreliosis (Anda, et al., 1996; Guy, 1996).

If people contract a tickborne illness and no EM rash is seen, and they get a blood test that does not meet the CDC case definition for Lyme disease - they aren't reportable even if history and symptoms match.

This is important for anyone reading along to know: If you or a loved one is bitten by a tick and gets sick with symptoms of Lyme disease, you need to know that Lyme disease is ultimately a clinical diagnosis. In other words, if you or a loved one does not meet criteria for surveillance purposes that does not mean you do not have Lyme disease. See: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbi/lyme/ld_humandisease_diagnosis.htm

In a number of cases, a doctor will see that a patient has a rash and just treat the patient for a skin infection - not knowing that it is Lyme disease.

Not all Lyme disease EM rashes look exactly like a bull's eye. They can come in somewhat different shapes, be solid up to the bite mark, and even be somewhat bluish or look like a bruise. [4] (See: Variations on Lyme disease rashes.)

Not all cases of Lyme disease which are treated are reported.

A person could be sick with all the symptoms except an obvious EM rash and have a history of a tick bite - but still have a negative blood test. This can happen early in infection with a hidden rash - it can also happen due to recent antibiotic treatment for something else.

Some people are misdiagnosed with other conditions in the first place.

Their doctors either think they have a viral infection, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, or some other condition which is not Lyme disease. This diagnosis could lead to another uncounted case as Lyme disease was not suspected and no tests were conducted - maybe no rash was found nor a tick bite recalled. Later blood tests may reveal the disease once it has already moved to the late stage when it is harder to treat effectively.

Knocking On Neuroborreliosis' Door

To add to the troubles of diagnosing garden variety Lyme disease in its acute stage, it is estimated that in the United States and Europe, roughly 12-20% of Lyme disease patients will go on to develop neurological complications of Lyme disease or neuroborreliosis (IOM Report; HPA, 2011).

The actual number of people who develop neuroborreliosis is less certain because of the same factors listed above - and lumbar puncture tests are only somewhat accurate at detecting Lyme disease within the first two weeks of infection, which is much earlier than blood tests detect it.

I've speculated that the reason why so many patients complain of neurological and cognitive symptoms with Lyme disease is that they were misdiagnosed or undertreated for Lyme disease early on, when the infection already affected the central nervous system and brain.

Data on Lyme disease with persisting symptoms would be good to have in this instance -especially if one can look at case histories, symptoms, and serology and determine if roughly 4,000-8,000 people a year (or more, not knowing actual cases) who are projected to get neuroborreliosis are, in fact, those who are most likely to suffer with persisting symptoms.

Early detection and treatment of neuroborreliosis in specific (which requires higher doses of antibiotics and IV treatment for a month is recommended) may prevent the number of people who have developed persisting symptoms and eliminate a lot of suffering, pain, and hardship for thousands of individuals and families.

During the time of the 2010 Institute of Medicine conference on tickborne infection, Dr. Brian Fallon, head of Columbia University's Lyme and Tick-borne Disease Research Center stated:

"The NIH does not fund trials on treating chronic Lyme disease and the IOM are hesitant to push for further studies on antibiotic treatments, because the jury is still out on whether chronic Lyme disease results from an extended inflammatory reaction to the Lyme bacteria Borrelia burgdorferi in the United States after it has been eradicated by a short course of antibiotics."[5]

This - even though as mentioned in a previous diary here - animal studies have found Lyme disease bacteria DNA through PCR and spirochetes in autopsies performed on animals after antibiotic treatment. And those were just a fraction of the studies.

In the most recent Institute of Medicine report on tickborne illnesses ([6] p.7-15), it stated:

"Turning to the literature pertaining to patients with chronic persistent symptoms, Fallon noted a number of areas need additional research. A European study compared patients with neurologic Lyme disease to those with erythema migrans 3 years later and found that 50 percent of those with neuroborreliosis experienced persistent symptoms versus 16 percent of the EM patients (Vrethem et al., 2002). These results suggest that follow up studies on chronic symptoms, rather than focusing solely on early EM, should focus on the subpopulation of patients who present with neurologic or other disseminated symptoms."

So perhaps my speculation is worth following up on.

$$$$$

But all of this takes money. All of this takes a concerted effort from researchers to look at Lyme disease not just from a position where they are encouraged to improve vaccine development and tests - but encouraged to look at how the infection affects hosts and treatment.

The majority of Lyme disease studies conducted by federal agencies are by the NIH-NIAID.

The NIH-NIAID has funded the greatest amount of tick-borne disease studies - a total of 404 studies comprising 85% of the funding from all agencies and organizations. The CDC has funded 19 tick-borne disease studies from 2006 to 2010, 7% of the funding from all agencies and organizations. NIH-NIAMS has funded 15 tick-borne disease studies all between 2006 and 2009. The remaining agencies USDA-ARS, NSF, NIH-NINDS, US Army Public Health Command, and USDA-NWRS have each funded five or less studies between 2006 and 2010.[6 (B-1)]



The above chart shows that after 2009, funding for all tickborne disease research was combined - so how research funds were allocated for different purposes in 2010 is unclear based on this report which was included in the Institute of Medicine's October 2010 workshop on tickborne diseases.[6]

What is known is how spending for tickborne disease research has been allocated in the recent past, and that requested budgetary increases or even requesting funding at the same rate is threatened by budget cuts.

In 2009, in terms of tickborne infections, Francisella studies received the most funding at $190m (52%) followed by Borrelia studies at $122m (33%). [6 (B-7)]

In 2010, Borrelia research (Lyme disease plus other Borrelia bacterial infections) ate the largest portion of the NIH research pie for the first time in history.

While $122m would take care of all my financial worries (and a good portion of yours!) for my lifetime, when it comes to your research dollar - $122m does not go very far - and really not that far for certain populations and subjects if you slice it a certain way.

In terms of the total tickborne diseases pie:


Microbiological studies received the most amount of funding at $210m (57%) with a total of 304 studies. The next highest study type was Prevention/Education studies, which were allocated $83.8m in funding (23%) for a total of 73 studies. Combination of study types were allocated $47.2m (13%), Treatment studies were allocated $17.1m (5%), Environmental studies were allocated $5.8m (1%), and Surveillance studies were allocated $3.5m (1%).

So looking at this, keep in mind that those treatment studies are aimed at acute cases of all tickborne diseases - and not aimed at studies for treatment of those with Lyme disease who have persisting symptoms. $17m on the face of it is not that much of a budget. This is our national program for study on tickborne infections... and it might run a few high schools for a year.

And in terms of surveillance studies - getting an accurate count of probable and confirmed cases for all tickborne infections in United States - funding surveillance is only 1% of the budget. That's only $3.5m (which is about what it costs for some guy's sweet brownstone in New York City or a fine little Victorian in San Francisco).

While I could never afford that - especially after having my health ruined by Lyme - surely there can be more funding allocated for accurate surveillance, including followup studies to ensure those with chronic symptoms are evaluated for neuroborreliosis? Surely there is more money that could be reallocated for studies to help Lyme disease patients with persisting symptoms?



References:
[1] Nature News: US budget a taste of battles to come Nature 472, 267-269 (2011)
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110419/full/472267a.html
[2] CDC: Lyme Disease -2001-2002 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5317a4.htm
[3] CDC Summary of Notifiable Diseases (MMWR) - 2009 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5853a1.htm
[4] Lyme Disease Foundation: Variations on Lyme disease rashes. http://www.lyme.org/gallery/rashes.html
[5] Nature News: Scientists push for Lyme disease trials http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101014/full/news.2010.542.html
[6] Institute of Medicine. Critical Needs and Gaps in Understanding Prevention, Amelioration, and Resolution of Lyme and Other Tick-Borne Diseases.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13134.html

Addtional References:
Dr Pedro Anda PhD, Waldo Sánchez-Yebra PhD, Maria del Mar Vitutia Dvm, Esperanza Pérez Pastrana Bsc, Isabel Rodríguez BA, Nancy S Miller MD, P Bryon Backenson MSc, Jorge L Benach PhD. A new Borrelia species isolated from patients with relapsing fever in Spain. The Lancet. Volume 348, Issue 9021, Pages 162 - 165.


Read More

The Camp Other Song Of The Month


Why is this posted? Just for fun!

Get this widget

Lyme Disease

Borrelia

Bacteria

Microbiology