Call for your appointment today 914-666-4665 | Mt. Kisco, New York

When Standard Lyme Treatment Falls Short
Some patients respond well to a short course of antibiotics for Lyme disease. Others don’t. That’s when precision Lyme treatment becomes essential.
They’re left with fatigue, brain fog, joint pain, dizziness, or POTS-like symptoms. Many are told they have “Post Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome” (PTLDS), but not what to do next. Others are told it’s anxiety, aging, or just bad luck.
But in my clinical experience, these patients are not resistant to treatment—they’re resistant to standardized, one-size-fits-all protocols.
That’s where precision Lyme treatment comes in.
What Is Precision Lyme Treatment?
Precision Lyme treatment means adapting care to the patient’s unique symptom pattern, stage of illness, and treatment response. It includes:
-
Extending antibiotics when symptoms persist
-
Changing medications when initial treatment fails
-
Considering co-infections, immune dysfunction, and autonomic issues
-
Supporting recovery with symptom-specific adjuncts
-
Tracking and adjusting based on clinical progress
This is not over-treatment—it’s clinical judgment informed by years of experience with patients who don’t follow textbook patterns.
Why Precision Treatment Helps in Practice
When Lyme disease becomes persistent, personalization can make the difference between ongoing decline and meaningful improvement.
In my practice, I’ve seen patients improve when we move away from a rigid model and embrace:
-
Longer or combination therapies
-
Targeted symptom management
-
Supportive care for nervous system dysfunction, sleep, or mood
-
Frequent re-evaluation and patient-centered planning
Recovery is often slow and non-linear—but possible. When treatment is guided by response—not just protocol—patients often make progress that standard care missed.
What the NIH Trials Got Right—and Missed
Some physicians point to four trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to argue against re-treatment for Lyme disease. This means – 1 course of antibiotics and that’s it. But the truth is, the results were mixed, and none of these studies evaluated a precision Lyme treatment approach.
-
Two trials (Klempner et al., 2001) showed no benefit in persistent symptoms following 90 day course of antibiotics.
-
Two others (Krupp et al., 2003; Fallon et al., 2008) demonstrated significant improvements in fatigue and cognitive functioning.
Importantly, these trials:
-
Used rigid, fixed-duration protocols
-
Enrolled patients years into illness
-
Did not adapt treatment to individual patient needs
-
Did not include personalized regimens based on clinical judgment
“The NIH trials didn’t fail—they just didn’t ask the right question. Precision Lyme treatment wasn’t on the table.”
An Emerging Clinical Model That Deserves Research
Precision Lyme treatment is more than a shift in tactics—it’s an emerging clinical model rooted in real-world experience. It proposes that personalized care, based on symptom presentation and treatment response, may improve outcomes where protocol-driven care has not.
This model has not yet been tested in large-scale clinical trials. But it’s grounded in the reality of patients who remain ill after standard therapy. These are the patients who are often told there’s nothing left to do—when in fact, we may just need to look more carefully.
Ongoing research is needed to validate this approach and explore where personalized medicine can make the greatest difference in Lyme disease recovery.
The Bottom Line on Precision Lyme Treatment
When Lyme disease doesn’t respond to standard therapy, we must ask a better question—not assume there’s no answer.
Precision Lyme treatment is that better question. And as an emerging clinical model, it deserves to be explored—not dismissed.
Aug 29, 2012 L Johnsin in lymepolicywonk ” New Study Reveals Fatal Flaws in NIH Klempner Trial Statistical Analysis. Is this Error Human Incompetence or Worse?”
The Klempner trials had a very small number of participants 129. Yet it set the fate for hundreds of thousand of Lyme patients that Klempner admitted had “considerable impaient.” It is considered unethical in the research methods. Some reasons below.
Klempner set a high bar for antibiotics of 9-13, not the usual bar of 2-5 to indicate improvent in a chronically ill population as per SF-36 scale.. It did not adjust antibiotics or extend time of antibiotics.
Klempner did not acknowledge any of the weaknesses as ethical guidelines require. He served on IDSA panel
I have worked with Johnson in drafting the 2014 ILADS evidence based guideline. I agree. I also addressed the issue in a published paper https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19268485/