1-1banner
 
medpundit
 

 
Commentary on medical news by a practicing physician.
 

 
Google
  • Epocrates MedSearch Drug Lookup




  • MASTER BLOGS





    "When many cures are offered for a disease, it means the disease is not curable" -Anton Chekhov




    ''Once you tell people there's a cure for something, the more likely they are to pressure doctors to prescribe it.''
    -Robert Ehrlich, drug advertising executive.




    "Opinions are like sphincters, everyone has one." - Chris Rangel



    email: medpundit-at-ameritech.net

    or if that doesn't work try:

    medpundit-at-en.com



    Medpundit RSS


    Quirky Museums and Fun Stuff


    Who is medpundit?


    Tech Central Station Columns



    Book Reviews:
    Read the Review

    Read the Review

    Read the Review

    More Reviews

    Second Hand Book Reviews

    Review


    Medical Blogs

    rangelMD

    DB's Medical Rants

    Family Medicine Notes

    Grunt Doc

    richard[WINTERS]

    code:theWebSocket

    Psychscape

    Code Blog: Tales of a Nurse

    Feet First

    Tales of Hoffman

    The Eyes Have It

    medmusings

    SOAP Notes

    Obels

    Cut-to -Cure

    Black Triangle

    CodeBlueBlog

    Medlogs

    Kevin, M.D

    The Lingual Nerve

    Galen's Log

    EchoJournal

    Shrinkette

    Doctor Mental

    Blogborygmi

    JournalClub

    Finestkind Clinic and Fish Market

    The Examining Room of Dr. Charles

    Chronicles of a Medical Mad House

    .PARALLEL UNIVERSES.

    SoundPractice

    Medgadget
    Health Facts and Fears

    Health Policy Blogs

    The Health Care Blog

    HealthLawProf Blog

    Facts & Fears

    Personal Favorites

    The Glittering Eye

    Day by Day

    BioEdge

    The Business Word Inc.

    Point of Law

    In the Pipeline

    Cronaca

    Tim Blair

    Jane Galt

    The Truth Laid Bear

    Jim Miller

    No Watermelons Allowed

    Winds of Change

    Science Blog

    A Chequer-Board of Night and Days

    Arts & Letters Daily

    Tech Central Station

    Blogcritics

    Overlawyered.com

    Quackwatch

    Junkscience

    The Skeptic's Dictionary



    Recommended Reading

    The Doctor Stories by William Carlos Williams


    Pox Americana: The Great Smallpox Epidemic of 1775-82 by Elizabeth Fenn


    Intoxicated by My Illness by Anatole Broyard


    Raising the Dead by Richard Selzer


    Autobiography of a Face by Lucy Grealy


    The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks


    The Sea and Poison by Shusaku Endo


    A Midwife's Tale by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich




    MEDICAL LINKS

    familydoctor.org

    American Academy of Pediatrics

    General Health Info

    Travel Advice from the CDC

    NIH Medical Library Info

     



    button

    Saturday, January 04, 2003

    Measure for Measure: Yesterday, the London Times had a Q&A with their health editor about the trend for drug companies to take an active role in disease definition. The article was prompted by this essay in the British Medical Journal on efforts to define normal sexual behavior as dysfunctional. Here’s the Times’ editor on the various diseases whose definitions have been expanded lately:

    More often these days the development of disease descriptions come from "consensus conferences" where a group of experts, often with financial links to drug companies, meet to produce guidance for others. Once a diagnosis exists, the tendency is for doctors to employ it.

    The most obvious example of this is in autistic spectrum disorder - a wide-ranging diagnosis now used for many children who would previously have been diagnosed as subnormal. Another example is ADHD - attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. As soon as many patients are being diagnosed, it becomes possible to market treatments - such as Prozac for ADHD. So facilitating such conferences is a good way for drug companies to promote their wares.


    And to expand their markets. And it isn’t just psychological diseases whose definitions have been broadened lately. Obesity is more broadly defined now, hence the epidemic. So is diabetes, another disease that’s often labeled as an “epidemic.”

    These expansions can’t all be blamed on drug companies, though. In some cases, it’s a legitimate effort to improve health outcomes. This is the case with diabetes. By setting lower blood sugar levels for the diagnosis, the hope is that earlier treatment will delay even longer the complications of the disease, such as heart disease and kidney failure, and blindness. The same can be said of obesity, although the case is less clear-cut. Sometimes, as in autism, it’s the work of activists. The more people who can be counted as suffering from a disease, the more likely the government is to increase research funding, and other state-funded help for those suffering from it. Whether instigated by doctors, drug companies, or political activisits, however, the outcome is the same. As the BMJ article pointed out, we risk narrowing the definition of normal to such a degree that even the healthy are labeled sick.

    For Example: A good example of just that phenomenon is what has happened with autism in the past ten to twenty years. Once upon a time, autism meant a severe developmental disorder that rendered its victims completely unable to communicate or interact with other people in any way. Now, the definition has been substantially broadened. But even that broad definition wasn’t enough for the recent survey of the prevalence of autism published in JAMA. Not content with the DSM-IV criteria that are generally now used for the diagnosis, the authors included more general, less debilitating disorders:

    Throughout this article, the terms autism and autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) refer to autistic disorder, Asperger disorder, and pervasive developmental disorder - not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS).

    Pervasive developmental disorder, not otherwise specified is a waste-basket term, used to classify those who don’t fit into any of the other categories. Asperger's disorder, sometimes called “high functiong autism,” was only defined in the 1990’s. Before that, we called such people “eccentric” or ‘geeky.” Of course, “eccentric” and “geeky” aren’t the sort of labels that get schools special education funds, but Asperger syndrome, having the blessing of the medical profession, does. It’s no surprise that it has caught on as a diagnosis .

    Derek Lowe does a fine job of dissecting the media’s response to the JAMA article. In truth, the paper does not prove that autism itself has increased, only that the diagnosis of autism has increased, and it does that largely by including disorders that aren’t what most people think of as autism - that is the severe and disabling form of it. An accompanying editorial, although generally supportive of the claims that autism has increased, expresses reservations about them, nonetheless. One of those reservations is the way in which the classification of disabilities has changed:

    .... during 1987 to 1994, diagnostic substitution occurred; thus, while the prevalence of autism increased from 5.8 to 14.9 per 10,000, the prevalence for mental retardation decreased from 28.8 to 19.5 per 10,000. These trends then cancel each other. According to the authors, new federal legislation (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act15) mandating that states provide early intervention programs for toddlers with developmental delays played a role in the increasing use of the diagnosis of autism.

    The editorial also points out that there has been a disproportionate increase in spending on autism in relation to the scientific evidence of its prevalence:

    Although claims about an epidemic of autism and about its putative causes have the most weak empirical support, the subsequent controversy has put autism on the public agenda. In recent years, children with autism, their families, and professionals involved in their care and in research have seen welcome and legitimate increases in public funding. Yet, ironically, what has triggered substantial social policy changes in autism appears to have little connection with the state of the science. Whether this will continue to be the case in the future remains to be seen, but further consideration should be given to how and to why the least evidence-based claims have achieved such impressive changes in funding policy.

    Yes, indeed, we should give consideration to how and why claims of little evidence result in such impressive changes in public policy. Serious consideration.
     

    posted by Sydney on 1/04/2003 03:26:00 PM 0 comments

    0 Comments:

    Post a Comment

    This page is powered by Blogger, the easy way to update your web site.

    Main Page

    Ads

    Home   |   Archives

    Copyright 2006