Carol Baker appointed chair of national CDC advisory committee on immunization practices.

HOUSTON, TX (Oct. 19, 2009) – Carol J. Baker, M.D., the executive director of Texas Children's Center for Vaccine Awareness and Research, has been appointed to serve as Chair of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) by Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services. Dr. Baker previously served as a member of the committee; her appointment is effective immediately and continues through June 2010.

Well known for her work in both immunization research and education, Dr. Baker serves as professor of pediatrics and of molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine and is the Texas Children's Hospital Foundation Chair in Pediatric Infectious Diseases.

"I am honored to accept this important position at a time when continued education and research on immunization practices in our country is so imperative," said Dr. Baker. "Vaccines have significantly diminished the impact of numerous serious diseases, yet many children and adults are under-immunized and exposing themselves to unnecessary health risks. It is vital that the medical community continues research on vaccine delivery methods and education programs on vaccine safety – all working toward increasing immunization levels in the U.S."

Among her responsibilities as Chair of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), Dr. Baker will lead the committee's annual three meetings and represent ACIP at federal advisory meetings including the National Vaccine Advisory Committee and the Board of Scientific Councilors to CDC.

Dr. Baker's work has focused on all aspects of pediatric infectious diseases, particularly all aspects of group B streptococcal infections including research to develop a vaccine. Her policy work in the early 1990s led to the U.S. recommendations for intrapartum chemoprophylaxis to prevent early-onset group B streptococcal disease in neonates. In 1997, Dr. Baker was the recipient of the Distinguished Service Award and in 2007 of the Distinguished Physician Award, each from the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society. In 2001 she served as President of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. In 2008 she received the Distinguished Alumna Award from Baylor College of Medicine and in 2009 the John P. Utz Leadership Award from National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

A widely published researcher in pediatrics and infectious diseases, Dr. Baker has authored or co-authored more than 300 published studies, reviews and book chapters. She is also an associate editor of the 2000, 2003, 2006 and 2009 Red Book published by the American Academy of Pediatrics and an editor of Infectious Diseases of the Fetus and Newborn Infant (6th edition).

Most recently, Dr. Baker co-authored the book Vaccine-Preventable Disease: The Forgotten Story published this year.

Dr. Baker received her medical degree, completed her residency and held fellowships in the department of pediatrics, infectious disease section at Baylor College of Medicine. She was a research fellow in medicine at Harvard Medical School and a clinical fellow in medicine at Boston City Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Baker received her undergraduate degree from the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, California.

Article located HERE

Carol Baker Quotes

"For each of these recommendations our review panel found that each was medically and scientifically justified in light of all the evidence and information and required no revision," she said. For all but one of the votes the committee agreed unanimously, Baker added."

"Particularly on the continued use of antibiotics, the panel had concerns that prolonged use of these drugs puts patients in danger of serious infection while not improving their condition, Baker said."

Full article HERE

Review Panel Leaves Controversial Lyme Disease Guidelines Unchanged

Experts dismiss need for long-term antibiotic therapy, but opponents call decision a 'rubber stamp'

By Steven Reinberg

HealthDay Reporter

THURSDAY, April 22 (HealthDay News) -- After more than a year of study, a specially appointed panel at the Infectious Diseases Society of America has decided that controversial guidelines for the treatment of Lyme disease are correct and need not be changed.

The guidelines, first adopted in 2006, have long advocated for the short-term (less than a month) antibiotic treatment of new infections of Lyme disease, which is caused by Borrelia burgdorferi, a bacteria transmitted to humans via tick bites.

However, the guidelines have also been the focus of fierce opposition from certain patient advocate groups that believe there is a debilitating, "chronic" form of Lyme disease requiring much longer therapy.

The IDSA guidelines are important because doctors and insurance companies often follow them when making treatment (and treatment reimbursement) decisions.

The new review was sparked by an investigation launched by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, whose office had concerns about the process used to draft the guidelines.

"This was the first challenge to any of the infectious disease guidelines" the Society has issued over the years, IDSA president Dr. Richard Whitley said during a press conference held Thursday.

Whitley noted that the special panel was put together with an independent medical ethicist, Dr. Howard Brody, from the University of Texas Medical Branch, who was approved by Blumenthal so that the committee would be sure to have no conflicts of interest.

The guidelines contain 69 recommendations, Dr. Carol J. Baker, chair of the Review Panel, and pediatric infectious diseases specialist at Baylor College of Medicine, said during the press conference.

"For each of these recommendations our review panel found that each was medically and scientifically justified in light of all the evidence and information and required no revision," she said. For all but one of the votes the committee agreed unanimously, Baker added.

Particularly on the continued use of antibiotics, the panel had concerns that prolonged use of these drugs puts patients in danger of serious infection while not improving their condition, Baker said. "In the case of Lyme disease, there has yet to be a single high-quality clinical study that demonstrates comparable benefit to prolonging antibiotic therapy beyond one month," the panel members found.

As to the existence of a chronic, persistent form of Lyme disease, the panel concluded that "symptoms that are commonly attributed to chronic or persistent Lyme, such as arthralgias, fatigue and cognitive dysfunction, are seen in many other clinical conditions and are, in fact, common in the general population. It would thus be clinically imprudent to make the diagnosis of Lyme disease using these nonspecific findings alone."

Baker noted that so far there has been no comment from Attorney General Blumenthal on the panel's decision.

"I think the attorney general was misguided by the [Lyme disease] activists," Whitley said. "I do not think his contention against the Infectious Diseases Society was either justified or warranted," he added.

Whitley noted that the Society will be reviewing these guidelines again in another two years and at the same time the U.S. Institute of Medicine is working on its own report on the disease.

However, the committee's affirmation of the guidelines is seen by some to be a whitewash because, they claim, the review process was biased.

Dr. Robert Bransfield, president of the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society, said: "How can there be such total consensus with any scientific issue? It's beyond comprehension."

Bransfield added, "It makes me wonder about the accuracy of the process. This is what everybody was expecting that they would do: a process that would rubber-stamp it and basically validate what was there before. It's a concern because it does compromise the best interest of patients."

Another critic, Dr. Raphael B. Stricker, a San Francisco physician who treats chronic Lyme disease, said that "when the panel votes eight-nothing on almost every single recommendation, that suggests that there is something wrong with the process.

"Until we get a really objective review by an objective panel that's not all in Infectious Diseases Society of America's pocket, you are going to get the kind of thing you see with this, and that's a problem," Stricker said.

On the other side of the issue, Phillip J. Baker, executive director of the American Lyme Disease Foundation, said he was pleased by the outcome.

"I have always felt, and so did many of my colleagues, that the guidelines are based on firm and established evidence," Baker said.

Baker has sympathy for people suffering from the pain and fatigue associated with chronic Lyme disease.

"These people are suffering from something and no doubt they need proper medical care," he said. "But they are not suffering from a persistent infection that can be treated by long-term antibiotic therapy. They have something serious that needs to be treated, but it's not due to Lyme disease."

More information

For more information on Lyme disease, visit the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

SOURCES: Phillip J. Baker, Ph.D., executive director, American Lyme Disease Foundation; Raphael B. Stricker, M.D., physician, San Francisco; Robert Bransfield, M.D., president, International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society; April 22, 2010, teleconference with: Richard Whitley, M.D., president, Infectious Diseases Society of America, Carol J. Baker, M.D., chair of the Review Panel, pediatric infectious diseases specialist at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston

Full article HERE

NEWS RELEASE

For Release: Thursday, July 30, 2009

Contact on July 30: Kathleen Boylan, (312) 558-1770,kboylan@pcipr.com

Contact after July 30: Diana Olson, (703) 299-0201,dolson@idsociety.org

Statement by Carol Baker, MD, Chair, Special Lyme Disease Review Panel

“The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) established this special review panel to examine whether the Society’s 2006 Lyme disease guidelines should be revised or updated based on a rigorous review of the medical evidence. In one sense, this panel’s job is standard practice, because all guidelines must be reviewed periodically to make sure they keep pace with science. But this panel’s job is unique, because our focus goes beyond the usual approach to guidelines review by soliciting input from the general public, as well as the scientists who study Lyme disease and the physicians who treat it.

There is a wide range of strongly held views on the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease, and we are hosting this public forum so that the spectrum of views can be heard.

After the hearing, the panel will review the medical literature and other materials submitted by the public. When we issue our final report, we will recommend one of the following: no change in the guidelines is required, revision to certain sections, or a complete re-write of the 2006 IDSA guidelines. Should our review panel recommend a change, then IDSA will convene a separate panel to carry out that task.

We hope to move forward as quickly as possible, while allowing adequate time to review all the medical evidence and other information submitted by the public. Our goal is to release the final report by the end of the year. We are all committed to seeing that people with Lyme disease get the best possible care and that the recommendations in IDSA’s guidelines are safe, effective, and based on sound medical evidence.”

Background:

IDSA is conducting this review as part of its voluntary agreement with the Attorney General of Connecticut, who had questioned the process used by IDSA’s 2006 guidelines panel but made no claims about the validity of IDSA’s medical recommendations. Members of the review panel were jointly selected through an open application process to ensure that the panel reflects a balanced variety of perspectives and experience. A medical ethicist/ombudsman reviewed conflict of interest disclosures for every member of the review panel and every individual who is testifying today. IDSA worked closely with the attorney general’s office and the ombudsman to develop a process that allows for all points of view to be heard. For more information, seewww.idsociety.org.