Archive for the ‘Treatment’ Category

The Functional Medicine Approach to COVID-19: Virus-Specific Nutraceutical & Botanical Agents

https://www.ifm.org/news-insights/the-functional-medicine-approach-to-covid-19-virus-specific-nutraceutical-and-botanical-agents/

The Functional Medicine Approach to COVID-19: Virus-Specific Nutraceutical and Botanical Agents

Updated April 7, 2020

Background and Introduction

Health professionals and the public must be well informed about the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the disease it causes (COVID-19), and how it spreads. This information is readily available and not within the scope of this document. At this time, there are no specific vaccines or uniformly successful treatments for COVID-19. In this context of insufficient evidence, the scope of this document will be to assess the scientific plausibility of promising prevention approaches and therapeutic (nutraceutical and botanical) interventions and then to offer clinical recommendations. This article is part one of a series. Click here to view part two.

With respect to interventions, the practice of Functional Medicine emphasizes the primacy of safety, validity, and effectiveness. In the novel context of COVID-19, validity in the form of published evidence is lacking. Therefore, “validity” relies upon inferences from the mechanisms of action of individual agents and/or published outcomes data supporting their mitigating effects on illness from other viral strains. Likewise, data for the “effectiveness” of interventions targeting the viral mechanisms of COVID-19 are nascent and rapidly emerging. In this context, the following recommendations represent the Functional Medicine approach to the COVID-19 crisis:

  • Adherence to all health recommendations from official sources to decrease viral transmission.
  • Optimizing modifiable lifestyle factors in order to improve overall immune function (an introductory document on boosting immunity is available here). This should reduce progression from colonization to illness.
  • Personalized consideration of therapeutic agents that may:
    • Favorably modulate cellular defense and repair mechanisms.
    • Favorably modulate viral-induced pathological cellular processes.
    • Promote viral eradication or inactivation.
    • Mitigate collateral damage from other therapeutic agents.
    • Promote resolution of collateral damage and restoration of function.
  • Treatment of confirmed COVID-19 illness (as per conventional standards and practice):
    • May reduce the severity and duration of acute symptoms and complications.
    • May support recovery and reduce long-term morbidity and sequelae.

Additional references are being collated and will be made available in the future.

Clinical Recommendations and Mechanisms of Action

BACKGROUND AND MECHANISMS OF ACTION

We encourage practitioners to learn about the mechanism of invasion, replication, and pathophysiology of the COVID-19 virus. Much of what we know has been extrapolated from basic science research on SARS-CoV-2. Excellent resources are available online, including the free YouTube lectures through Dr. Roger Seheult: 

This document discusses the mechanisms of action of a number of different botanical and nutraceutical agents. These agents can be considered as immunoadjuvants, defined as substances that act to accelerate, prolong, or enhance antigen-specific immune responses by potentiating or modulating the immune response.[1]

A coronavirus such as SARS-CoV-2 can be deadly because of its ability to stimulate a part of the innate immune response called the inflammasome, which can cause uncontrolled release of pro-inflammatory cytokines, leading to cytokine storm and severe, sometimes irreversible, damage to respiratory epithelium.[2] The SARS-CoV-2 virus has been shown to activate the NLRP3 inflammasome.[3,4] A 2016 review article[5] entitled “Natural compounds as regulators of NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-beta production” notes that “resveratrol, curcumin, EGCG [epigallocatechin gallate], and quercetin are potent inhibitors of NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1beta production, typically acting at more than one element of the involved pathways. However, it should be noted that these polyphenols have an even much broader biological effect, as they influence a variety of pathways.” For example, these polyphenols modulate NF-kB upregulation, which is useful to counteract the COVID-19 ’hyper-inflammation.[6]

A preprint released on March 23, 2020, identified the ability of plant bioactive compounds to inhibit the COVID-19 main protease (Mpro),[7] which is necessary for viral replication. There is much excitement surrounding the recent identification of Mpro, and it is a current potential pharmaceutical drug target. Kaempferol, quercetin, luteolin-7-glucoside, demethoxycurcumin, naringenin, apigenin-7glucoside, oleuropein, curcumin, catechin, and epicatechin-gallate were the natural compounds that appeared to have the best potential to act as COVID-19 Mpro inhibitors. Though further research is necessary to prove their efficacy, this study provides the biologic plausibility and mechanistic support (SARS-CoV-2 protease inhibition) to justify their use.

For these reasons, we recommend the following compounds, at standard dosages, to prevent activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome, to decrease NF-kB activation, and to potentially inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication. There is no literature to support a regimen of a single vs. multiple agents. Our recommendation is to use higher dosing and/or multiple agents when patient contextual factors (e.g., patient desire, pre-existing inflammation, multiple co-morbidities, higher risk, etc.) and/or therapeutic decision-making warrant such use.

Download COVID-19: Nutraceutical and Botanical Recommendations for Patients

Recommended Interventions

QUERCETIN

Quercetin has been shown to have antiviral effects against both RNA (e.g., influenza and coronavirus) and DNA viruses (e.g., herpesvirus). Quercetin has a pleiotropic role as an antioxidant and anti-inflammatory, modulating signaling pathways that are associated with post-transcriptional modulators affecting post-viral healing.[8]

Intervention Quercetin
Suggested dose Regular: 1 gm po bid; phytosome 500 mg bid
Mechanism(s) of action against non-COVID-19 viruses Promote viral eradication or inactivation:[9],[10],[11],[12],[13]
•Inhibition of viral replication
Favorably modulate viral-induced pathological cellular processes:
•Modulation of NLRP3 inflammasome activation[5],[14],[15]
Mechanistically promote resolution of collateral damage and restoration of function:
•Modulation of mast cell stabilization (anti-fibrotic)
Outcomes data supporting their mitigating Reduction of symptoms
Strength of evidence Moderate
Risk of harm:[16],[17] Minimal

CURCUMIN

Curcumin has been shown to modulate the NLRP3 inflammasome,5 and a preprint suggests that curcumin can target the SARS-CoV-2 main protease to reduce viral replication.18

Intervention Curcumin
Suggested dose 500-1,000 mg po bid (of absorption-enhanced curcumin)
Mechanism(s) of action against non-COVID-19 viruses Favorably modulate viral-induced pathological cellular processes:
•Modulation of NLRP3 inflammasome activation[5],[19],[20],[21]
Outcomes data supporting their mitigating effects on illness from other viral strains No data available No data available
Strength of evidence Conditional
Risk of harm:[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27] Minimal

EPIGALLOCATECHIN GALLATE (EGCG)

Green tea, in addition to modulating the NLRP3 inflammasome and, based on a preprint, potentially targeting the SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro)7 to reduce viral replication, has also been shown to prevent influenza in healthcare workers.28

Intervention Epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG)
Suggested dose 4 cups daily or 225 mg po qd
Mechanism(s) of action against non-COVID-19 viruses Favorably modulate viral-induced pathological cellular processes:
•Modulation of NLRP3 inflammasome activation[5],[28],[29]
Outcomes data supporting their mitigating effects on illness from other viral strains No data available
Strength of evidence Conditional
Risk of harm:[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35] Significant (rare) – Hepatotoxicity

N-ACETYLCYSTEINE (NAC)

N-acetylcysteine promotes glutathione production, which has been shown to be protective in rodents infected with influenza. In a little-noticed six-month controlled clinical study enrolling 262 primarily elderly subjects, those receiving 600 mg NAC twice daily, as opposed to those receiving placebo, experienced significantly fewer influenza-like episodes and days of bed confinement.[36]

Intervention N-acetylcysteine (NAC)
Suggested dose 600-900 mg po bid
Mechanism(s) of action against non-COVID-19 viruses:[36] Favorably modulate cellular defense and repair mechanisms:
•Hypothetical: repletion of glutathione and cysteine
Outcomes data supporting their mitigating effects on illness from other viral strains Reduce progression from colonization to illness
Reduce the severity and duration of acute symptoms
Strength of evidence Limited
Risk of harm:[37],[38],[39],[40],[41] Minimal

RESVERATROL

Resveratrol, a naturally occurring polyphenol, shows many beneficial health effects. It has been shown to modulate the NLRP3 inflammasome.[5] In addition, resveratrol was shown to have in vitro activity against MERS-CoV.[43]

Intervention Resveratrol
Suggested dose 100-150 mg po qd
Mechanism(s) of action against non-COVID-19 viruses Favorably modulate viral-induced pathological cellular processes
•Modulation of NLRP3 inflammasome activation[5]
Outcomes data supporting their mitigating effects on illness from other viral strains MERS-CoV[43]
Influenza[44],[45]
Strength of evidence Conditional
Risk of harm:[46],[47],[48],[49],[50],[51],[52],[53] Minimal

VITAMIN D

Activated vitamin D,1,25(OH) D, a steroid hormone, is an immune system modulator that reduces the expression of inflammatory cytokines and increases macrophage function. Vitamin D also stimulates the expression of potent antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), which exist in neutrophils, monocytes, natural killer cells, and epithelial cells of the respiratory tract.[54] Vitamin D increases anti-pathogen peptides through defensins and has a dual effect due to suppressing superinfection. Evidence suggests vitamin D supplementation may prevent upper respiratory infections.[55] However, there is some controversy as to whether it should be used and the laboratory value that should be achieved. Research suggests that concerns about vitamin D (increased IL-1beta in cell culture) are not seen clinically. The guidance we suggest is that a laboratory range of >50 and < 80ng/mL serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D may help to mitigate morbidity from COVID-19 infection.

Intervention Vitamin D
Suggested dose 5,000 IU po qd in the absence of serum levels
Mechanism(s) of action against non-COVID-19 viruses[55],[56],[57],[58],[59],[60],[61],[62],[63],[64],[65],[66],[67],[68],[69],[70],[71],[72],[73],[74],[75],[76],[77],[78] Favorably modulate cellular defense and repair mechanisms:
•Activation of macrophages
•Stimulation of anti-microbial peptides
•Modulation of defensins
•Modulation of TH17 cells
Favorably modulate viral-induced pathological cellular processes:
•Reduction in cytokine expression
•Modulation of TGF beta
Outcomes data supporting their mitigating effects on illness from other viral strains Reduce progression from colonization to illness Reduce the severity and duration of acute symptoms and complications
Strength of evidence Limited
Risk of harm:[79],[80],[81],[82] Minimal

MELATONIN

Melatonin has been shown to have an inhibitory effect on the NLRP3 inflammasome.[94] This has not gone unnoticed by the COVID-19 research community, with two recent published papers proposing the use of melatonin as a therapeutic agent in the treatment of patients with COVID-19.[84],[85]

Intervention Melatonin
Suggested dose 5-20 mg qd
Mechanism(s) of action against non-COVID-19 viruses .[83],[84] Favorably modulate viral-induced pathological cellular processes
• Modulation of NLRP3 inflammasome activation .[83],[84]
Outcomes data supporting their mitigating effects on illness from other viral strains Research in progress
Strength of evidence Conditional
Risk of harm:[86],[87],[88],[89],[90],[91],[92],[93],[94] Minimal

VITAMIN A

Vitamin A is a micronutrient that is crucial for maintaining vision, promoting growth and development, and protecting epithelium and mucus integrity in the body. Vitamin A is known as an anti-inflammation vitamin because of its critical role in enhancing immune function. Vitamin A is involved in the development of the immune system and plays regulatory roles in cellular immune responses and humoral immune processes through the modulation of T helper cells, sIgA, and cytokine production. Vitamin A has demonstrated a therapeutic effect in the treatment of various infectious diseases.[95]

Intervention Vitamin A
Suggested dose Up to 10,000-25,000 IU/d
Mechanism(s) of action against non-COVID-19 viruses [95],[96] Favorably modulate cellular defense and repair mechanisms:
• Modulation of T helper cells
• Modulation of sIgA
Favorably modulate viral-induced pathological cellular processes:
• Modulation of cytokine production
Outcomes data supporting their mitigating effects on illness from other viral strains No data available
Strength of evidence Conditional
Risk of harm:[97],[98],[99],[100],[101],[102] Minimal if does not exceed this dose; caution: pregnancy

ELDERBERRY

Elderberry (Sambucus nigra) is seen in many medicinal preparations and has widespread historical use as an anti-viral herb.[103] Based on animal research, elderberry is likely most effective in the prevention of and early infection with respiratory viruses.[104] One in-vitro study reported an increase in TNF-alpha levels related to a specific commercial preparation of elderberry[105] leading some to caution that its use could initiate a “cytokine storm.” However, these data were not confirmed when the same group performed similar studies, which were published in 2002.[106]Therefore, these data suggest it is highly implausible that consumption of properly prepared elderberry products (from berries or flowers) would contribute to an adverse outcome related to overproduction of cytokines or lead to an adverse response in someone infected with COVID-19.

Intervention Elderberry
Suggested Dose 500 mg po qd (of USP standard of 17% anthocyanosides)
Mechanism(s) of action against non-COVID-19 viruses[103],[107],[108],[109],[110],[111],[112] Favorably modulate cellular defense and repair mechanisms
Favorably modulate viral-induced pathological cellular processes
Outcomes data supporting their mitigating effects on illness from other viral strains No data available
Strength of evidence Strong
Risk of harm:[103],[107],[113],[114] Minimal; caution with autoimmune disease; uncooked/unripe plant parts toxic; USDA GRAS

PALMITOYLETHANOLAMIDE (PEA)

PEA is a naturally occurring anti-inflammatory palmitic acid derivative that interfaces with the endocannabinoid system. There was a significantly favorable outcome in five of six double blind placebo-controlled trials looking at acute respiratory disease due to influenza.[115] Dosing was generally 600 mg three times daily for up to three weeks. There are multiple mechanisms of action associated with PEA, from inhibition of TNF-alpha and NF-kB to mast cell stabilization. In influenza, it is thought that PEA works by attenuating the potentially fatal cytokine storm.

Intervention Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA)
Suggested dose 300 mg po bid to prevent infection, 600 mg po tid x two weeks to treat infection
 Mechanism(s) of action against non-COVID-19 viruses[115] Favorably modulate cellular defense and repair mechanisms
Favorably modulate viral-induced pathological cellular processes
Outcomes data supporting their mitigating effects on illness from other viral strains No data available
Strength of evidence PEA = conditional (treatment)
PEA = strong (prevention)
Risk of harm:[116],[117],[118],[119] Minimal

VITAMIN C

Vitamin C contributes to immune defense by supporting various cellular functions of both the innate and adaptive immune system. Vitamin C accumulates in phagocytic cells, such as neutrophils, and can enhance chemotaxis, phagocytosis, generation of reactive oxygen species, and ultimately microbial killing. Supplementation with vitamin C appears to be able to both prevent and treat respiratory and systemic infections.[120] Vitamin C has been used in hospital ICUs to treat COVID-19 infection.

Intervention Vitamin C
Suggested dose 1-3 grams po qd
Mechanism(s) of action against non-COVID-19 viruses[120] Favorably modulate cellular defense and repair mechanisms
Favorably modulate viral-induced pathological cellular processes
Outcomes data supporting their mitigating effects on illness from other viral strains No data available
Strength of evidence Strong
Risk of harm[121] Minimal

ZINC

Zinc contributes to immune defense by supporting various cellular functions of both the innate and adaptive immune system. There is also evidence that it suppresses viral attachment and replication. Zinc deficiency is common, especially in those populations most at risk for severe COVID-19 infections, and it is challenging to accurately diagnosis with laboratory measures. Supplementation with zinc is supported by evidence that it both prevents viral infections and reduces their severity and duration. Moreover, it has been shown to reduce the risk of lower respiratory infection, which may be of particular significance in the context of COVID-19.

Intervention Zinc
Suggested dose 30–60 mg daily, in divided doses
Zinc acetate, citrate, picolinate, or glycinate orally
Zinc gluconate as lozenge
Mechanism(s) of action against non-COVID-19 viruses120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127 Favorably modulate innate and adaptive immune system
Favorably modulate viral-induced pathological cellular processes, attachment, and replication
Outcomes data supporting their mitigating effects on illness from other viral strains Prevention, reduced severity of symptoms, reduced duration of illness, prevention of lower respiratory tract infection
Strength of evidence Strong
Risk of harm128 Minimal

Evaluative Criteria

In the recommendations above, the following criteria are used to identify strength of evidence and risk of harm.

Strength of Evidence Risk of Harm
Strength of EvidenceConditionalClinical experience and/or expert opinion and/or conflicting studies; biological mechanism at least partly explained. Risk of HarmMinimalRisk of self-limited symptoms; no risk of loss of function or corrective intervention anticipated; observation only.
Strength of EvidenceLimitedOne study showing correlation between intervention and outcome; compelling ATMs and/or PCFs; biological mechanism at least partly explained. Risk of HarmMildRisk of symptoms; no risk of loss of function or quality of life; minor evaluative and/or therapeutic intervention needed.
Strength of EvidenceModerateTwo independent studies (one of which is LOE = 1 or 2) showing correlation between intervention and outcome; biological mechanism at least partly explained. Risk of HarmSignificantRisk of temporary loss of function or quality of life; significant evaluative and/or therapeutic intervention needed.
Strength of EvidenceStrongTwo independent studies (both LOE = 1 or 2) showing correlation between intervention and outcome; biological mechanism fully explained or partly explained and having one additional correlative study. Risk of HarmSevereRisk of permanent symptoms, loss of function, quality of life, or death; long-term evaluative and/or therapeutic intervention needed.

*This resource is only intended to identify nutraceutical and botanical agents that may boost your immune system. It is not meant to recommend any treatments, nor have any of these been proven effective against COVID-19. None of these practices are intended to be used in lieu of other recommended treatments. Always consult your physician or healthcare provider prior to initiation. For up-to-date information on COVID-19, please consult the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at www.cdc.gov.

SPECIAL THANKS
We would like to thank the IFM COVID-19 Task Force, members of the IFM staff, and consultants working with IFM for their contributions to this article.

________________________

**Comment**

There is also a live presentation with Joel Evans, MD, and Robert Rountree, MD, with moderator Patrick Hanaway, MD, whom answer attendee questions. Download Slides Here  (Click on initial link for video)

For more:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/06/14/potential-interventions-for-novel-coronavirus-in-china-a-systematic-review/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/06/05/azithromycin-hydroxychoroquine-accelerate-recovery-of-outpatients-with-mild-moderate-covid-19/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/22/new-study-hcq-zinc-greatly-reduces-covid-19-health-risk/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/08/natural-supplements-vs-coronaviruses/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/03/15/herbal-treatment-for-coronavirus-infections-buhner/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/03/20/herbal-treatment-for-covid-19-addendum-buhner/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/04/06/a-plausible-penny-costing-effective-treatment-for-corona-virus-ozone-therapy/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/04/07/covid-19-integrative-support-in-prevention-early-interventions/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/03/12/convalescent-plasma-therapy-tested-on-critically-ill-covid-19-patients/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/02/28/coronavirus-how-bad-can-it-get-includes-treatments-disulfiram-is-one/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/02/13/washington-doctors-successfully-treat-coronavirus/

 

Potential Interventions for Novel Coronavirus in China: A Systematic Review

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/jmv.25707  Full Paper Here

Potential interventions for novel coronavirus in China: A systematic review

Lei Zhang | Yunhui Liu

Department of Neurosurgery, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China

Correspondence:  Yunhui Liu, Department of Neurosurgery, Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, No. 36 Sanhao Street, Heping, Shenyang, 110004 Liaoning, China.

Email: liuyh@sj-hospital.org

Funding information:  Project of Key Laboratory of Neurooncology in Liaoning Province, China,
Grant/Award Number: 112‐2400017005

Abstract

An outbreak of a novel coronavirus (COVID‐19 or 2019‐CoV) infection has posed significant threats to international health and the economy. In the absence of treatment for this virus, there is an urgent need to find alternative methods to control the spread of disease. Here, we have conducted an online search for all treatment options related to coronavirus infections as well as some RNA‐virus in- fection and we have found that general treatments, coronavirus‐specific treatments, and antiviral treatments should be useful in fighting COVID‐19. We suggest that the nutritional status of each infected patient should be evaluated before the administration of general treatments and the current children’s RNA‐virus vaccines including influenza vaccine should be immunized for uninfected people and health care workers. In addition, convalescent plasma should be given to COVID‐19 patients if it is available. In conclusion, we suggest that all the potential interventions be implemented to control the emerging COVID‐19 if the infection is uncontrollable.

___________________

**Comment**

This abstract is brief and doesn’t do the paper justice.  Please see the full paper in the link as the authors literally go through vitamins, minerals, Chinese medicine, various inhibitors, anti-virals, chloroquine, and much more.  This is a great resource.  I also appreciate the fact they state the patient’s nutritional status should be evaluated.  Very few scientific studies mention such an important aspect of health.

It’s important to note that the flu vaccine increases coronavirus infection by 36%nothing to sniff at:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/03/23/flu-vaccine-increases-coronavirus-infection-risk-36/

The flu vaccine has many serious side-effects and fails most of the time:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/07/10/cdc-admits-flu-vaccine-failed-91-of-the-time-against-current-flu-strain/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2015/11/08/flu-vaccine-causes-the-flu/

Cochrane founder also warns that flu vaccine research is corrupted: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/02/26/cochrane-founder-warns-flu-vaccine-research-is-corrupted/

 

 

Oral Penicillin For Lyme Patients With EM Rash in the U.S.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32473319/?

. 2020 Apr 28;97(4):115071.

doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2020.115071.Online ahead of print.

Evaluation of the Role of Oral Penicillin for Treating Lyme Disease Patients With Erythema Migrans in the United States

Affiliations

Abstract

Clinical trials of oral penicillin preparations in the United States for treating Lyme disease patients with erythema migrans are limited to 2 studies. The results of these studies demonstrated a less than optimal outcome of this treatment. However, there were serious methodologic concerns in both studies precluding the interpretation that phenoxymethylpenicillin specifically should be regarded as ineffective. Therefore, additional clinical trials should be conducted in the United States with close attention to the dose and duration of treatment that have been used very successfully in Europe.

____________________

**Comment**

I got news for you: there are serous methodologic concerns with most studies on Lyme – particularly regarding treatment. To hear it from the very people in charge of those studies is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

The next all important question is why are they even attempting to treat the rash?  The rash is just an outward sign of a inner systemic infection and just because you eliminate the rash doesn’t mean the inner systemic infection is gone.  So, no, we don’t need more research on this.  What we need is research on how to clear the infection once and for all.  Please note Wormser and Strle are behind this continuing focus on the rash and the acute phase of Lyme.

Move on gentlemen, this is a waste of money and time, and doesn’t help patients one iota.  

ILADS Rebuttal to British Medical Journal

https://www.ilads.org/ilads-responds-to-british-medical-journal-bmj-dismissal-of-ilads-guidelines/

The ILADS Clinical Guidelines Committee submitted this response to the British Medical Journal on behalf of ILADS:
June 10, 2020
Dear Editor,

As authors of the International Lyme and Associated Disease (ILADS) guidelines, which address the usefulness of antibiotic prophylaxis for known tick bites, the effectiveness of erythema migrans (EM) treatment and the role of antibiotic retreatment in patients with persistent manifestations of Lyme disease,[1] we are appreciative that Kullberg et al included our recommendations in their State of the Art Review in the British Medical Journal.[2] However, their assertions regarding the credibility of our guidelines cannot go unchallenged.

We encourage readers to study ILADS guidelines and render their own judgment regarding their validity. The guidelines were transparently produced under the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system and conform to the National Academy of Medicine standards for trustworthy guidelines and until its recent demise were listed on the National Guidelines Clearinghouse. They were rigorously peer-reviewed and published in a journal not controlled by our medical society. Although faulted by some for making treatment recommendations on low or very low- quality evidence,[3] we utilized the same trial evidence as the IDSA[4] but reached different conclusions regarding the strength of that evidence. In our view, their inflation of the strength of the evidence cannot be supported. We are not outliers in determining that the evidence quality was low or very low; other GRADE-based assessments, including the exquisitely detailed National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) assessments and another by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) epidemiologists also found that the evidence was of low or very low quality.[5,6]

The low quality of evidence reflects the existing evidence base in Lyme disease, which is inadequate. Despite the high incidence and severity of Lyme disease, little research has been done regarding treatment of those with persistent manifestations of Lyme disease. The result has been a stagnant research environment— in the US, only three grants have been funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to assess treatment response in patients who remained ill after a short course of antibiotics—the last was funded over 20 years ago.

In the absence of accurate diagnostic testing for patients with persistent manifestations of Lyme disease, the caution regarding the potential of diagnostic anchoring bias is not unfounded. Given the exclusion of some pertinent evidence and a one-dimensional discussion of other evidence regarding persistent infection and the utility of antibiotic retreatment, we are concerned that the authors have fostered the potential for confirmation bias. Specifically, Kullberg et al fail to inform readers regarding the growing body of evidence that documents, via positive culture and/or PCR, persistent infection in humans following antibiotic therapy, evidence which is discussed in detail in ILADS’ paper on chronic Lyme disease.[7] They failed to acknowledge recent research findings such as the National Institutes of Health xenodiagnostic study[8] or the work of Feng et al, which now includes a mouse model of persistent infection, suggesting the need for antibiotic combination therapy,[9-11] that would have helped physicians in their decision making.

The value of antibiotic retreatment has been demonstrated in EM trials conducted in Europe and the US,[12-17] in the Logigian studies of chronic Lyme disease and Lyme encephalopathy,[18,19] and the randomized controlled trials of antibiotic retreatment by Krupp and Fallon.[20,21] Although the authors’ discussion mirrors others’ beliefs regarding the US retreatment trials,[4] we think it was incomplete and potentially deceptive. These trials relied on average treatment effects, employed small samples (ranging from 37-129), and excluded over 89% of patients who sought to enroll.[20-22] Additional issues of trial design and the interpretation of the results have been highlighted by others.[23,24] As a result, the trials’ findings and conclusions are not generalizable to most patients seen clinically, and are too small for subgroup analysis which would permit more targeted treatment approaches. While it is true that neither Krupp nor Fallon made a generalized recommendation for IV ceftriaxone in this patient population, both found the improvement in fatigue encouraging and recommended additional studies of less expensive and invasive therapies.[20,21] Furthermore, in a subsequent paper, Fallon supported the use of antibiotic retreatment on a case-by-case basis.[24]

Evidence-based medicine is defined as “the integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values”.[25] In the absence of high-quality evidence, evidence-based medicine holds that therapeutic decisions should strongly consider clinician expertise and patient values.[25] The National Academy of Medicine (NAM) reaffirms the role of clinical judgment and patient preferences, as does the widely used evidence assessment scheme, GRADE.[26,27] As NAM notes, conflicting guidelines most often arise when evidence is weak, organizations use different assessment schemes, or when evidence developers place different values on the benefits and harms of intervention.[27]

Such is the case here. Using the same evidence base, the IDSA overstates the quality of the evidence and based on its values provides no care for patients who remain ill. ILADS recognizes the heterogeneity of patients’ prior treatment history, ongoing manifestations, comorbidities and therapeutic responses as well as the heterogeneity of their values and goals.[1] ILADS and NICE guidelines share concerns about the limitations of the current testing, the low quality of evidence, and recognize the role of clinical judgment when assessing whether to treat or to continue treatment.[1,5] The ILADS guidelines encourage clinicians to individualize care by engaging in shared decision-making with their patients and to closely monitor patients during retreatment, adjusting therapies when necessary.[1] Perhaps this is why only 6% of US patients with persistent Lyme disease report being treated by IDSA clinicians,[28] with the rest choosing to be treated by clinicians who are more willing to provide further treatment utilizing innovative approaches.

1. Cameron DJ, Johnson LB, Maloney EL. Evidence assessments and guideline recommendations in Lyme disease: the clinical management of known tick bites, erythema migrans rashes and persistent disease. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2014;12(9):1103-1135.

2. Kullberg BJ, Vrijmoeth HD, van de Schoor F, Hovius JW. Lyme borreliosis: diagnosis and management. BMJ. 2020;369:m1041.

3. Naktin JP. “Late You Come: Legislation on Lyme Treatment in an Era of Conflicting Guidelines”. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2017;4(4):ofx152.

4. Wormser GP, Dattwyler RJ, Shapiro ED, et al. The clinical assessment, treatment, and prevention of lyme disease, human granulocytic anaplasmosis, and babesiosis: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;43(9):1089-1134.

5. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. [L] Evidence review for the management of ongoing symptoms related to Lyme disease. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng95/evidence/l-management-of-ongoing-symptoms- related-to-lyme-disease-pdf-172521756184 last accessed 6/4/20.

6. Hayes E, Mead P. Lyme disease. Clin Evid. 2004(12):1115-1124.

7. Shor S, Green C, Szantyr B, et al. Chronic Lyme Disease: An Evidence-Based Definition by the ILADS Working Group. Antibiotics (Basel). 2019;8(4).

8. Marques A, Telford SR, 3rd, Turk SP, et al. Xenodiagnosis to detect Borrelia burgdorferi infection: a first-in-human study. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58(7):937-945.

9. Feng J, Auwaerter PG, Zhang Y. Drug combinations against Borrelia burgdorferi persisters in vitro: eradication achieved by using daptomycin, cefoperazone and doxycycline. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0117207.

10. Feng J, Shi W, Zhang S, Sullivan D, Auwaerter PG, Zhang Y. A Drug Combination Screen Identifies Drugs Active against Amoxicillin-Induced Round Bodies of In Vitro Borrelia burgdorferi Persisters from an FDA Drug Library. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:743.

11. Feng J, Li T, Yee R, et al. Stationary phase persister/biofilm microcolony of Borrelia burgdorferi causes more severe disease in a mouse model of Lyme arthritis: implications for understanding persistence, Post-treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome (PTLDS), and treatment failure. Discov Med. 2019;27(148):125-138.

12. Strle F, Preac-Mursic V, Cimperman J, Ruzic E, Maraspin V, Jereb M. Azithromycin versus doxycycline for treatment of erythema migrans: clinical and microbiological findings. Infection. 1993;21(2):83-88.

13. Weber K, Wilske B, Preac-Mursic V, Thurmayr R. Azithromycin versus penicillin V for the treatment of early Lyme borreliosis. Infection. 1993;21(6):367-372.

14. Massarotti EM, Luger SW, Rahn DW, et al. Treatment of early Lyme disease. Am J Med. 1992;92(4):396-403.

15. Nadelman RB, Luger SW, Frank E, Wisniewski M, Collins JJ, Wormser GP. Comparison of cefuroxime axetil and doxycycline in the treatment of early Lyme disease. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117(4):273-280.

16. Luft BJ, Dattwyler RJ, Johnson RC, et al. Azithromycin compared with amoxicillin in the treatment of erythema migrans. A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124(9):785-791.

17. Eppes SC, Childs JA. Comparative study of cefuroxime axetil versus amoxicillin in children with early Lyme disease. Pediatrics. 2002;109(6):1173-1177.

18. Logigian EL, Kaplan RF, Steere AC. Chronic neurologic manifestations of Lyme disease. N Engl J Med. 1990;323(21):1438-1444.

19. Logigian EL, Kaplan RF, Steere AC. Successful treatment of Lyme encephalopathy with intravenous ceftriaxone. J Infect Dis. 1999;180(2):377-383.

20. Krupp LB, Hyman LG, Grimson R, et al. Study and treatment of post Lyme disease (STOP-LD): a randomized double masked clinical trial. Neurology. 2003;60(12):1923-1930.

21. Fallon BA, Keilp JG, Corbera KM, et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of repeated IV antibiotic therapy for Lyme encephalopathy. Neurology. 2008;70(13):992-1003.

22. Klempner MS, Hu LT, Evans J, et al. Two controlled trials of antibiotic treatment in patients with persistent symptoms and a history of Lyme disease. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(2):85-92.

23. Delong AK, Blossom B, Maloney EL, Phillips SE. Antibiotic retreatment of Lyme disease in patients with persistent symptoms: a biostatistical review of randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012;33(6):1132-1142.

24. Fallon BA, Petkova E, Keilp JG, Britton CB. A reappraisal of the u.s. Clinical trials of post-treatment lyme disease syndrome. Open Neurol J. 2012;6:79-87.

25. Sackett D, Straus S, Richardson W, Rosenberg W, Haynes R. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM, 2nd ed.; Churchill Livingstone: Edinburgh, 2000. last accessed 6/4/20.

26. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7652):1049-1051.

27. Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines., Graham R. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.

28. Johnson L, Shapiro M, Mankoff J. Removing the Mask of Average Treatment Effects in Chronic Lyme Disease Research Using Big Data and Subgroup Analysis. Healthcare (Basel). 2018;6(4).

 

 

Bishop’s Stortford Woman Blogs About Life With Lyme & Coronavirus

https://www.bishopsstortfordindependent.co.uk/lifestyle/living-with-lyme-disease-helped-me-cope-when-i-came-down-with-covid-19-

Bishop’s Stortford woman Jo Doyle blogs about life with Lyme disease AND coronavirus


A Bishop’s Stortford woman recovering from suspected Covid-19 has written a blog to help others with underlying health conditions who catch the virus.
Jo Doyle, 44, suffers from a number of complications including chronic pain as a result of Lyme disease, which she contracted in the United States – but its impact did not become truly apparent until after the arrival of second daughter Eva, now eight. She and husband Nick, 45, an accountant, are also parents to 10-year-old Isabella. (See link for article)
____________________
**Comment**
Doyle blogs about her approach to supporting the body if you have COVID.  Make sure to discuss everything with your physician: