Re: IDSA GUIDELINES ATTEMPT TO NARROW THE DEFINITION OF LYME DISEASE AND PROMOTE A LEGAL STANDARD OF CARE THAT CAN BE USED BY INSURANCE COMPANIES AND STATE MEDICAL BOARDS


pmerv@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Post-Lyme Disease Syndromes

There is no well-accepted DEFINITION of post-Lyme disease
syndrome. This has contributed to confusion and controversy and to a
lack of firm data on its incidence, prevalence, and pathogenesis. In an
attempt to provide a framework for future research on this subject and
to reduce DIAGNOSTIC ambiguity in study populations, a DEFINITION for
post-Lyme disease syndrome is proposed in these guidelines. Whatever
definition is eventually adopted, having once had OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE of
B. burgdorferi infection must be a condition sine qua non. Furthermore,
when laboratory testing is done to support the original DIAGNOSIS of
Lyme disease, it is essential that it be performed by well-qualified
and reputable laboratories that use recommended and APPROPRIATELY
VALIDATED TESTING methods and interpretive criteria. Unvalidated test
methods (such as urine antigen tests or blood microscopy for Borrelia
species) should not be used.

There is NO CONVINCING BIOLOGIC EVIDENCE for the existence of
symptomatic chronic B. burgdorferi infection among patients after
receipt of recommended treatment regimens for Lyme disease. Antibiotic
therapy has not proven to be useful and is not recommended for patients
with chronic (⩾6 months) subjective symptoms after recommended
treatment regimens for Lyme disease (E-I).
...


In many patients, posttreatment symptoms appear to be more related
to the aches and pains of daily living rather than to either Lyme
disease or a tickborne coinfection. Put simply, there is a relatively
high frequency of the same kinds of symptoms in "healthy" people.

...

Unfortunately, it is apparent that the term "chronic Lyme disease" is
also being applied to patients with vague, undiagnosed complaints who
have never had Lyme disease. When adult and pediatric patients regarded
as having chronic Lyme disease have been carefully reevaluated at
university-based medical centers, consistently, the majority of
patients have had no convincing evidence of ever having had Lyme
disease, on the basis of the absence of objective clinical,
microbiologic, or serologic evidence of past or present B. burgdorferi
infection [253, 268, 295-298].

...



the 3rd Man wrote:

See this, Cod?

"OBJECTIVE

The objectives of these practice guidelines are to provide
clinicians and other health care practitioners with recommendations for
treatment of patients in the United States with suspected or
established Lyme disease, HGA (formerly known as human granulocytic
ehrlichiosis), or babesiosis.
<SNIP>

See, for you and the LDA and others who are reading impaired...what
that says is that the objective here is to provide GUIDELINES for the
TREATMENT of LYME DISEASE and other tickborne diseases.

Understand?

Treatment.

.