the Academy of Medicine disapproves the recommendations of the High Authority of Health

The controversy surrounding Lyme disease is not about to go out. While last June 20, the High Authority of Health (HAS) made public its conclusions on the treatment of Lyme borreliosis in order to put an end to the wandering of the diagnosis which affects many patients, the new statement of position of the Academy of Medicine revives the debate around this infectious disease caused by tick bites.

In a statement dated July 2, the Academy of Medicine denounces indeed the ambiguity of the HAS which, while baderting that it is necessary to take care of Lyme patients, refuses to recognize a chronic form of the disease, as claimed by badociations.

A controversial disease

Long underdiagnosed, the disease of Lyme has benefited for a handful of years from an over-media that, while forging a collective awareness, at the same time conveys false ideas about the disease.

We know sormais that Lyme borreliosis is an infectious vector-borne disease, transmitted by the bite of a tick. The infection may appear within 30 days after the sting, first as a red and round plate that extends in a circle (erythema migrans) from the sting area. The lesion of the skin can be accompanied by muscular and articular pains, or fever. With early treatment, it disappears in a few weeks to a few months but can, if left untreated, lead to neurological disorders and facial paralysis.

In its recommendations, the High Authority of Health cuts the Pear in two, recognizing that people with recurrent pain and fatigue are far from imaginary patients, while refusing to endorse the existence of a chronic form of Lyme disease. Instead, HAS created the terminology of SPPT (for symptomatology / persistent polymorphic syndrome after a possible tick bite) to explain the "situation of patients who may have been exposed to ticks and who have signs polymorphic, persistent and unexplained clinics, which may be disabling. "

A terminology that" does not satisfy anyone "

However, for the Academy of Medicine, this terminology is" far from clarifying the situation ". According to her, the HAS "recognizes implicitly the existence of such a pathology without the slightest proof with, as a result, proposals for heavy management involving numerous investigations, expensive and often unnecessary". Expressing her "deep disappointment", she regrets that the HAS has yielded to the "blackmail of pressure groups" that are the patient badociations. "In wanting to please everyone," she "does not satisfy anyone," says the Academy of Medicine.

The Academy is not the only one to be moved by the creation of such a terminology. At the end of June, the learned society of infectiology (Spilf) had refused to validate the text of the HAS by declaring in a statement that "this ill-defined set of symptoms does not exist in the international medical literature and could lead to excess diagnoses that may lead patients to inadequate care. "