Chronic Lyme Article from 1987...?

Topics with information and discussion about published studies related to Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases.
X-member
Posts: 9846
Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 18:18

Re: Chronic Lyme Article from 1987...?

Post by X-member » Fri 20 Mar 2015 19:20

http://www.lymeneteurope.org/forum/view ... 721#p41716

A quote:
The 3rd case occurred during 8/83--1/84. Overt ACA was treated with 4wk of oral pen. Subsequent complications occurred between 3/85--5/85 and were resolved with iv pen.
Interesting!

Edit to add:

If I understand this correct, this person was first diagnosed with ACA (= chronic Lyme borreliosis) and later (after 4wk oral treatment) this person also developed chronic Lyme neuroborreliois and was given IV-treatment for this. No information about how long the IV-treatment was?

X-member
Posts: 9846
Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 18:18

Re: Chronic Lyme Article from 1987...?

Post by X-member » Fri 20 Mar 2015 23:17

This link was posted by hv808ct earlier in this thread:

A case revealing the natural history of untreated Lyme disease

http://www.nature.com/nrrheum/journal/v ... 0.209.html

A quote:
Furthermore, this case also demonstrates that infection with Borrelia burgdorferi can persist for years in untreated patients; however, antibiotic therapy is still likely to be effective, despite long-term infection
Likely?

velvetmagnetta
Posts: 469
Joined: Sun 23 Feb 2014 22:47

Re: Chronic Lyme Article from 1987...?

Post by velvetmagnetta » Sat 21 Mar 2015 7:03

Martian wrote:
velvetmagnetta wrote: It is unclear if this article concluded the encephalitis is from an ongoing infection or the after-effects of one. It certainly looks like they are talking about a chronic, ongoing, relapsing infection!
I think that the article refers to late stages of Lyme disease, with patients who were not treated for Lyme disease yet, and one can say that the patients had a chronic ongoing infection.

Note that the term "chronic Lyme" has two meanings:

1. a synonym for "late Lyme", which has been used since the 1980s.

2. a name for symptoms caused by a persistent Borrelia infection, which persists despite supposedly adequate antibiotic treatments. Even years of antibiotics supposedly fail to eradicate the infection in thousands of patients.

Meaning 2 seems to be invented by the "llmds" and Lyme activists/patients somewhere during the 1990s. That's when the Babylonian confusion of tongues started regarding "chronic Lyme disease".

Regarding statement number 1:

No, I think the authors would have used the term "Late Lyme" if that is what they meant. The use of "chronic" indicates ongoing, recurring, and/or relapsing symptoms. Note that, according to hv808ct, at least one patient was treated with penicillin, but relapsed and had to be re-treated later with another course of antibiotics...

hv808ct wrote:
Regarding the 1987 article, it reports 3 untreated cases that were eventually diagnosed and treated.
The first case occurred during 3/82—6/85 and was treated with 2wk of iv pen.
The 2nd case occurred during 9/83--3/86 and was treated with 2wk of iv pen.
The 3rd case occurred during 8/83--1/84. Overt ACA was treated with 4wk of oral pen. Subsequent complications occurred between 3/85--5/85 and were resolved with iv pen.
I wonder how they are doing now? Did their symptoms resolve completely? I would be especially interested to know how the patient who had Lyme for 5 years before treatment is doing, although a 5 year infection may have a very different outcome from that of a 30 year infection.

Thank you Lorima, for that information. It is taking me a while to read everything, but so far, it looks like doctors used to have no problem assuming an antibiotic-treated patient still showing symptoms was still infected.

X-member - I have been keeping up with your "Late Lyme versus Chronic Lyme" thread for a while. I read all the info you post in English! Thank you for doing that!

I hope and pray with all my being that Lyme disease is not a chronic infection because the anitbiotics I took for what I now am sure is neuroborreliosis just about killed me. And I am not exaggerating when I say that. There is now evidence from an MRI showing that I should probably be dead.

But, here I am! Still here to debate the "chronic/not chronic" issue!

So, I am really really really looking for evidence that Lyme is not chronic because if it is, there is nothing I can do about killing it off until SOMEBODY, I don't care who - the IDSA doctors, LLMDs, the CDC - anyone - addresses the so-called "Herxheimer" reaction that is known to sometimes be fatal. Unless there is some way to block the pain and destruction from that reaction, some of us could not even take long courses of antibiotics if we had to.

I do still have plenty of symptoms, though. And, although I am ecstatic that i have finally found a group of doctors willing to help me try and figure out what is wrong with me (and then fix it!), they have asked me if I think more antibiotics would help. They are not even LLMDs! So that means that our plight has finally reached the ears of the mainstream doctors!

They were not aware of the extent of the chronic Lyme debate and came at my situation with fresh eyes, ears, and minds. And, in their view, the view of well-educated medical health professionals completely outside the realm of the Lyme debacle, they believed it was possible that since I still have so many severe symptoms, I may still be infected.

Wow. Yeah, I know, rocket science. Well, no, just medical science.

X-member
Posts: 9846
Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 18:18

Re: Chronic Lyme Article from 1987...?

Post by X-member » Sat 21 Mar 2015 12:38

The word "chronic" stands for "late". Just like Miklossy said in the quote I posted here:

http://www.lymeneteurope.org/forum/view ... 721#p41705

Edit to add:

And this (posted earlier in this thread by Martian) is correct:
Note that the term "chronic Lyme" has two meanings:

1. a synonym for "late Lyme", which has been used since the 1980s.
The 3 persons in the article in the first post was diagnosed with late (Lyme) neuroborreliosis.
Last edited by X-member on Sun 22 Mar 2015 15:27, edited 1 time in total.

duncan
Posts: 1370
Joined: Wed 5 Sep 2012 18:48

Re: Chronic Lyme Article from 1987...?

Post by duncan » Sat 21 Mar 2015 13:04

That is only partly accurate. The reality is that late stage is late stage everywhere, but chronic is used differently by some, and that difference is mostly defined by whether or not a person is from North America. In North America, in particular the United States, "chronic" for many takes on an additional meaning of persistence post-treatment. Even the NIH has been known to embrace this interpretation.

It's not necessarily a matter of right or wrong; these appear to be mostly geopolitical differences in definitions. But for the simple sake of standardization, it would be better if only one was accepted.

It is similar to the debate of whether it should be ME or CFS, or even ME/CFS. The world over, it was historically ME, until in the 80's when the United States unilaterally introduced the name Chronic Fatigue Syndrome - CFS - and simultaneously altered the definition of ME in the US - virtually eliminating reference to ME - effectively thumbing its nose at the WHO and the rest of the world, and caused a storm of controversy and confusion.

That terminology debate continues to this day. In fact, recently it got that much crazier when the IOM recommended deep-sixing both ME and CFS and replacing them with SEID.

So. Yeah. Definitions can sometimes boil down to a proximity kinda thing.

X-member
Posts: 9846
Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 18:18

Re: Chronic Lyme Article from 1987...?

Post by X-member » Thu 26 Mar 2015 1:59

Perhaps this belong in this thread?

Overview of Lyme Borreliosis

http://www.merckmanuals.com/vet/general ... iosis.html

A quote:
Clinical and research data indicate that low-level infection in animals, including people, may persist despite antibiotic therapy. In dogs, standard antibiotic doses and treatment for 4 wk have been demonstrated to be effective. If clinical signs recur, the antibiotics mentioned above can be used again, because persistent infection is not the result of acquired antibiotic resistance. Prolonged antibiotic therapy (>4 wk) may be beneficial for animals with continuing disease signs.

Post Reply