Once relevant data have been obtained and reviewed, the panel members will vote on whether to sustain or revise each recommendation. Per the terms of the agreement, “Panel determinations/recommendations shall require a supermajority vote of 75% or more of the total voting members.” When each recommendation in the guidelines has been voted on, the panel can reach one of three conclusions: No revisions are necessary; partial revision is needed; or a complete rewrite/replacement of the guidelines is required.
“We are pleased that under this agreement, the proper diagnosis and treatment for Lyme disease will be decided in a medical forum, not a courtroom,” IDSA President Poretz said. “We hope this special review of the guidelines will help quell the unfortunate controversy surrounding the treatment of Lyme disease and ensure that patients receive advice and treatment based on the best available scientific and medical evidence.”
Victory for the “Other Side”?
Other Lyme disease groups, which support patients’ right to long-term antibiotic therapy (a primary bone of contention in Lyme disease treatment), were quick to claim a victory from the AG’s settlement with IDSA. Three organizations—the California Lyme Disease Association (CALDA), the national Lyme Disease Association (LDA), and Time for Lyme—jointly issued their own press release in response to the AG’s announcement.
“We congratulate Attorney General Blumenthal for exposing -IDSA’s conflicts of interest and helping reduce the suffering of Lyme disease patients everywhere,” said Patricia Smith, President of the LDA. Time for Lyme Co-President Diane Blanchard added, “The IDSA guidelines are dangerous for patients who suffer longer-term Lyme symptoms that do not fall within the IDSA’s narrow disease definition.”
According to Lorraine Johnson, Executive Director of CALDA, the agreement “marks an important victory for all patients who suffer [from] Lyme disease, but it is also a victory for anyone concerned about health care. Commercially driven guidelines that limit patient treatment options are a major issue today in health care, and this decision marks an important step toward addressing it.”