scholarly journals Diagnosis and Treatment of Lyme Disease

2008 ◽  
Vol 83 (5) ◽  
pp. 566-571 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert L. Bratton ◽  
John W. Whiteside ◽  
Michael J. Hovan ◽  
Richard L. Engle ◽  
Frederick D. Edwards
BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. e021367 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annemarie G Hirsch ◽  
Rachel J Herman ◽  
Alison Rebman ◽  
Katherine A Moon ◽  
John Aucott ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 59 (5) ◽  
pp. 547-554
Author(s):  
B. S. Belov ◽  
L. P. Ananyeva

Lyme disease (LD) or tick-borne borreliosis affects thousands of people every year in different regions of the world, primarily the United States and Europe. In endemic areas, early LD is a common disease that requires high medical vigilance. Considering the extreme relevance of this problem for public health, in November 2020, the committee of experts of three American scientific societies published an updated version of the clinical guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of LD, the main provisions of which are presented in this article. It is emphasized that in the absence of vaccines, the risk of LD and other diseases transmitted by ticks can be reduced by using personal protective equipment and repellents. Antibiotic prophylaxis is carried out by a single oral administration of doxycycline. In the laboratory diagnosis of LD, the determination of antibodies to B. burgdorfery in the blood serum is a first-line study. At the second stage, serum samples are examined using an immunoblot for IgM and IgG. The basis of treatment of LD is rational antibiotic therapy. The choice of an antibiotic depends on a number of factors, including the presence of extracutaneous manifestations of LD (neuroborreliosis, carditis, arthritis). The most commonly used are doxycycline, amoxicillin, cefuroxime-axetil and ceftriaxone.


2014 ◽  
Vol 40 (11) ◽  
pp. 194-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
TF Hatchette ◽  
I Davis ◽  
BL Johnston

2020 ◽  
pp. 251484862092359
Author(s):  
Brent Z Kaup ◽  
Matthew Abel ◽  
Amanda Sikirica

Doctors, patients, and public health professionals widely recognize that certain physical environments are more conducive to the emergence and spread of Lyme disease. However, ecological solutions to the spread of the disease are rarely pursued. Drawing on interviews with Lyme activists, politicians, and state and local administrators dealing with Lyme disease related issues as well as an analysis of Lyme disease legislation in the state of Virginia, we examine why solutions to Lyme disease most often focus on expanding individual choices for diagnosis and treatment over changing the environments that enhance the risk of Lyme disease. We argue that the emergence of Lyme disease in a neoliberal society pushed debates on how to best deal with the disease away from its underpinning environmental causes and into individual human bodies.


Author(s):  
Marie-Pascale Pomey ◽  
Paula L. Bush ◽  
Olivier Demers-Payette ◽  
Audrey L'Espérance ◽  
Louis Lochhead ◽  
...  

Abstract Context The Ministry of Health in Québec requested the National Institute of Excellence in Health and Social Services to produce clinical and implementation recommendations for the prophylaxis, diagnosis, and treatment of Lyme disease. Objectives (i) Describe the process of trialing different modalities of patient engagement as a means to integrate a diversity of patient perspectives and (ii) Describe the learning process of INESSS regarding the integration of the patient perspective. Methodology All documents were analyzed, and a survey with all advisory committee members and semi-structured interviews with stakeholders were conducted. Each interview was transcribed verbatim and imported into QDA miner software for the purposes of analysis. Data analysis was carried out concurrently with data collection to allow for an iterative approach between data collection and analysis. Results Five methods to integrate the perspectives of patients were used: (i) interviews with patients, (ii) inclusion of patient partners within the advisory committee, (iii) literature review, (iv) focus groups with one patient association, and (v) feedback from patient associations on recommendations intended for decision makers and other targeted stakeholders. The patient partners influenced decisions by sharing their experiential knowledge. The patient interviews and the literature review added an in-depth perspective on the disease and experience with the healthcare system. The patient association members shared their perspectives and helped disseminate the recommendation to sustain a practice change. Conclusion The combination of methods to collect and integrate patients’ knowledge and patient associations’ perspectives helped develop a comprehensive understanding of a controversial object of evaluation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document