Vector-Borne Infection Research-Analysis-Strategy
November 2017

Analysis of the NICE Lyme disease draft Guideline 'Research Recommendations'

Introduction

The number and nature of NICE's recommendations for "high priority" research can lead to only one conclusion: attempting to produce a guideline with so much missing evidence, was an exercise in futility which should not have been undertaken. NICE have wasted thousands of pounds of public money in the production of advice which at best will cause confusion and at worst will harm patients and doctors. NICE have chosen to ignore the clinical evidence of doctors who have treated thousands of patients, but have included some biased and low quality clinical trials as 'evidence'.

NICE do not fund research and they can call for any and every investigation they can think of, and none of it will ever have to be delivered. Aside from the sheer scale of the research that they have recommended, some of the projects conceal hidden agendas. When analysed critically, some of these projects would predictably harm patients and obstruct their proper medical care, and some would be either pointless or even impossible to complete.

When reading the NICE research recommendations, please remember that all of these are supposedly "high priority" for England and Wales. Combined, these two countries have around 1,000 officially reported cases of Lyme disease per year. This equates to an incidence of 1.75 cases per 100,000 population. It is notable that much of the research that NICE recommend has not been done by nearby countries, even though they have incidence rates up to 170 times higher than England and Wales. Yet NICE believe that UK scientists are going to spend millions, researching a disease which Dr Matthew Dryden of Public Health England claims has a 100% cure rate with a short course of antibiotics, and where 'recurrence or relapse' is 'extremely unusual'.


NEXT: RECOMMENDATION #1

PREVIOUS: VIRAS COMMENT

VIRAS Main Page