MOVED POST LYME STUDY (NEW) short term treatment on acute vs lat

Discussion in 'Lyme Disease Archives' started by Sharon, May 2, 2008.

  1. Sharon

    Sharon New Member

    LYME STUDY (NEW) short term treatment on acute vs late 03/09/08 03:05 PM

    If I'm not totally brain-fogged today from herxing to who knows whatever I have in total...

    this new study shows that short-term treatment doesn't necessarily work for 'acute' nor, especially, late-determined Lyme cases...

    AND, yet again how diverse one's symptoms can be!

    ==============
    Linking Human Animal Biomedical Research To Benefit Both

    Persistence of Borrelia burgdorferi (Lyme)
    Following Antibiotic Treatment in Mice
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01050-07

    Emir Hodzic, Sunlian Feng, Kevin Holden, Kimberly J. Freet, and Stephen W. Barthold

    Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, published online ahead of print on 3 March 2008

    *Abstract*

    The effectiveness of antibiotic treatment was examined in a mouse model of Lyme borreliosis.

    Mice were treated with ceftriaxone or saline for one month, commencing during the early (3 weeks) or chronic (4 months) stages of infection with Borrelia burgdorferi. Tissues from mice were tested for infection by culture, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), xenodiagnosis, and transplantation of allografts at 1 and 3 months after completion of treatment. In addition, tissues were examined for spirochetes by immunohistochemistry.

    In contrast to saline-treated mice, mice treated with antibiotic were consistently culture-negative, but tissues from some of the mice remained PCR-positive, and spirochetes could be visualized in collagen-rich tissues. Furthermore, when some of the antibiotic treated mice were fed upon by Ixodes scapularis ticks (xenodiagnosis), spirochetes were acquired by the ticks, based upon PCR, and ticks from those cohorts transmitted spirochetes to naïve SCID mice, which became PCR-positive, but culture-negative.

    Results indicated that following antibiotic treatment, mice remained infected with non-dividing but infectious spirochetes, particularly when antibiotic treatment was commenced during the chronic stage of infection.

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01050-07
    Copyright © 2008 by the American Society for Microbiology.

    =====
    AND

    A profile of Stephen Barthold, co-author of the above study
    =====

    LINKING HUMAN ANIMAL BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH TO BENEFIT BOTH
    UCDavis Medicine, Spring 2008

    A University of California-Davis School of Medicine publication for alumni, friends and physicians

    ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/ucdavismedicine/issues/Spring2008/features/3.html

    No one knew what Lyme disease was when Stephen Barthold's daughter was diagnosed with it in 1978. At the time, Barthold and his family were living in Connecticut, the state where the cause of the tickborne disease would be identified four years later.

    While a course of antibiotics for an unrelated infection cured his daughter, the father remained intrigued. Today, with 30 years of research and more than 100 papers on Lyme disease under his belt, Barthold, a veterinary pathologist with a joint appointment in the schools of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, is recognized as one of the leading authorities on how the Lyme bacterium interacts with the hosts it infects.

    ...But, says Barthold, "our work has shown that in the absence of antibiotic treatment, 100% of animals infected with Lyme bacteria remain infected even though they have a perfectly functional immune response."

    Working with mice, Barthold has found that the bacteria, Borrelia burgdorferi, "literally integrate themselves into collagen tissue. They colonize little spots here and there: one joint, but not another; nervous tissue; the heart. It varies from individual to individual, which explains the disease's highly variable clinical manifestations."

    In a study to be published later this year, Barthold outlines his discovery that even after long-term antibiotic treatment, bacteria hidden in collagen tissue are still viable and infectious. "We're trying to be careful in what we claim," he says, "but these findings will be controversial."

    ---------------------

    I wonder what would happen if he'd added in Flagyl to break up cysts AND extended treatment time for later-treated mice. Hope he does that next!

    Again, this certainly shows that short-term treatment doesn't work for late-determined Lyme AND yet again how diverse one's symptoms can be!

    I've a feeling the same sorts of things could be shown with treating the other 'stealth pathogens' like mycoplasma, cpn, babesia, HHVs...

    all the best,
    Victoria






    Alert us BACK | REPLY - EDIT - DELETE - BAN



    Victoria


    bumping 03/09/08 10:16 PM

    up!




    BACK | REPLY - EDIT - DELETE - BAN



    mollystwin


    Very Interesting Victoria 03/10/08 07:24 AM

    This is fascinating. I wonder how long will it take for the mainstream medical community to understand Lyme??? And all the other stealth infections out there??

    dar


    BACK | REPLY - EDIT - DELETE - BAN



    Victoria


    likely 03/10/08 08:28 PM

    forever and a day...




    BACK | REPLY - EDIT - DELETE - BAN



    Slayadragon


    victoria 03/15/08 08:22 AM

    So are you saying that with that sort of long-term antibiotics + Flagyl, some people get rid of chronic lyme entirely?

    I was under the impression that driving it underground was the most that could be done.


    BACK | REPLY - EDIT - DELETE - BAN



    RatsWife


    Foggy bad today... 03/15/08 10:45 AM

    Am I reading this right? Long-term infection goes into small pockets of activity or small pockets of dormancy? If it's small pockets of activity, then illness is active within the host, but because of the "pocketed" bacteria, antibiotics are ineffective or just less than effective? How do I mark this thread so I can later re-visit it after this horrid headache I mean? Thanks. Peace, RsW


    BACK | REPLY - EDIT - DELETE - BAN



    Victoria


    Lisa & RsW - imho, my analysis is - 03/15/08 11:44 AM

    I would think all of the possibilities you raised are possible...

    From reading others' stories about long-term treatment or even short-term,
    - some never get symptoms again
    - some get partial remission
    - some never do better
    - some do well as long as they pulse meds occasionally after beating it into submission (timetables vary per person)
    - and other varying scenarios between the above

    I think the differences and difficulties are likely because of our individual genetics/susceptibilities and other pathogens (and if they're treated or not.

    For instance, typical co-infections like ehrlichiosis, babesia, bartonella, mycoplasma, CPn, ad infinitum).

    Most abx do work on more than one type of infection happily, but often trying different abx is needed to see what works best.

    I really hope they follow up with more research on variations...

    I'm satisified as is my son if he just beats it into submission 99.9% even if he has to pulse abx ultimately every 6-12 months for the rest of his life even...