IDSA Letter on Tickborne Advisory Committee Bills

Another example of Lyme "activists" getting what they asked for--IDSA
endorses more money for research (Since it ALL goes to them) and IOM
study (the vaccine folks asked for one of those too and sure didn't
like it).

The IDSA however does oppose the tickborne advisory committee (If they
were smart they'd support that too so they could control it).

Question: Will Lyme patients EVER learn?

==============================================================
http://www.idsociety.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=13730


August 18, 2005 The Honorable Joe Barton Chairman Committee on Energy
and Commerce 2125 Rayburn House Office Building House of
Representatives Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Chairman
Barton: I write on behalf of the Infectious DiseasesSociety of America
(IDSA), a national medical society representing more than 8,000
board-certified infectious diseases physicians and scientists, to
communicate the Society's position concerning two Lyme and tick-borne
diseases bills recently introduced in the House. The bills of concern
include H.R. 2877, the "Act for Lyme Education and Research and
Tick-Borne Diseases" and H.R. 2526, the "Tick Borne Diseases Advisory
Committee Act." We understand that a number of Lyme disease advocacy
groups are supporting these bills. IDSA and the infectious diseases
specialists that we represent understand and are sympathetic to the
plight of individuals who seek treatment for Lyme and other tick-borne
diseases.

As such, we support the need for additional funding for Lyme and
tick-borne diseases research as proposed in the bills. We also support
H.R. 2877's requirement that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the
National Academies conduct a review of Lyme disease. Specifically, we
believe that the IOM should study diagnostic standards, the adequacy of
current treatment guidelines, treatment optionsfor post-Lyme disease
disorder, effectiveness of current prevention methods, and the
controversies associated with chronic Lyme disease. However, IDSA does
not support the idea of establishing a tick-borne diseases advisory
committee, unless the IOM, upon conclusion of its study, recommends
that such a committee is necessary. In this way, an impartial group can
assess the need for and composition of such a committee. If the IOM
deems a committee desirable, the IOM should set clear, specific
mandates and objectives for the committee as well as make
recommendations for the committee's composition to ensure impartial and
scientifically sound deliberations.

Page Two -


If House leaders decide that the composition of the advisory committee
is to be formed through legislation, as contemplated by the two House
bills, established organizations representing scientific and
practitioner groups working on tick-borne diseases should be named,
such as IDSA, the American College of Rheumatology, the American
College of Physicians, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. In this
way, the advisory committee would be comprised of established experts
in the field of Lyme and tick-borne diseases and its recommendations
would promote sound medical practice and not the desires of special
interest groups.

One special interest group of concern is the International Lyme and
Associated Diseases Society (ILADS), which represents a few physicians
who advocate unconventional treatments based on testimonials rather
than scientifically sound clinical trials. ILADS treatment guidelines
support the prolonged use of antibiotics for the treatment of Lyme
disease. These guidelines do not represent the views of most infectious
diseases specialists and other physicians who treat patients for
tick-borne diseases and often contradict IDSA's Practice Guidelines for
the Treatment of Lyme Disease (available at www.idsociety.org).
Controlled clinical trials have shown no benefit from prolonged
antibiotic therapy for the treatment of Lyme disease, and, thus, this
practice is not compatible with the federal government's move toward an
evidence-based model for the practice of medicine. In addition,
prolonged antibiotic therapy may cause unnecessary patient discomfort,
inconvenience and expense, but most alarmingly, it may be harmful,
resulting in adverse drug reactions. Besides these problems for
individual patients, the public health consequence of prolonged
antibiotic courses may be to promote the emergence of antibiotic
resistance in the community--an issue of concern to both congressional
policymakers and infectious diseases physicians.

IDSA, its leaders, and staff would be happy to work with the sponsors
of both bills as well as other House leaders to produce and pass strong
Lyme and tick-borne diseases legislation this year. In particular, we
would like to discuss in more detail the scope of a possible IOM study
and the composition of any advisory committee being considered. We also
would be pleased to talk with you or your staff further about the
appropriate treatment of Lyme and other tick-borne diseases as well as
any other aspect of the legislation whenever it may be convenient to do
so. Please feel free to contact IDSA staff at 703-299-0200. Sincerely,
Walter E. Stamm, MD President

.

Relevant Pages