Expanding Disease Definitions in Guidelines and Expert Panel Ties to Industry: A Cross-sectional Study of Common Conditions in the United States

English version České info

Background:
Financial ties between health professionals and industry may unduly influence professional judgments and some researchers have suggested that widening disease definitions may be one driver of over-diagnosis, bringing potentially unnecessary labeling and harm. We aimed to identify guidelines in which disease definitions were changed, to assess whether any proposed changes would increase the numbers of individuals considered to have the disease, whether potential harms of expanding disease definitions were investigated, and the extent of members' industry ties.

Methods and Findings:
We undertook a cross-sectional study of the most recent publication between 2000 and 2013 from national and international guideline panels making decisions about definitions or diagnostic criteria for common conditions in the United States. We assessed whether proposed changes widened or narrowed disease definitions, rationales offered, mention of potential harms of those changes, and the nature and extent of disclosed ties between members and pharmaceutical or device companies.

Of 16 publications on 14 common conditions, ten proposed changes widening and one narrowing definitions. For five, impact was unclear. Widening fell into three categories: creating “pre-disease”; lowering diagnostic thresholds; and proposing earlier or different diagnostic methods. Rationales included standardising diagnostic criteria and new evidence about risks for people previously considered to not have the disease. No publication included rigorous assessment of potential harms of proposed changes.

Among 14 panels with disclosures, the average proportion of members with industry ties was 75%. Twelve were chaired by people with ties. For members with ties, the median number of companies to which they had ties was seven. Companies with ties to the highest proportions of members were active in the relevant therapeutic area. Limitations arise from reliance on only disclosed ties, and exclusion of conditions too broad to enable analysis of single panel publications.

Conclusions:
For the common conditions studied, a majority of panels proposed changes to disease definitions that increased the number of individuals considered to have the disease, none reported rigorous assessment of potential harms of that widening, and most had a majority of members disclosing financial ties to pharmaceutical companies.

Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Vyšlo v časopise: Expanding Disease Definitions in Guidelines and Expert Panel Ties to Industry: A Cross-sectional Study of Common Conditions in the United States. PLoS Med 10(8): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001500
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001500

Souhrn

Zdroje

1. Welch HG, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S (2011) Overdiagnosed: making people sick in the pursuit of health. Boston: Beacon.

2. HoffmanJ, CooperR (2012) Overdiagnosis of disease: a modern epidemic. Arch Intern Med 172: 1123–1124.

3. MoynihanR, DoustJ, HenryD (2012) Preventing overdiagnosis: how to stop harming the healthy. BMJ 344: e3502.

4. BrodyH, LightD (2011) The inverse benefit law: how drug marketing undermines patient safety and public health. Am J Public Health 101: 399–404.

5. Lo B, Field MJ (2009) Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. Summary. Washington (D.C.): Institute of Medicine National Academies of Science.

6. NorrisSL, HolmerHK, OgdenLA, BurdaBU (2011) Conflict of interest in clinical practice guideline development: a systematic review. PloS One 6: e25153 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025153

7. CosgroveL, KrimskyS (2012) A comparison of DSM-IV and DSM-5 panel members' financial associations with industry: a pernicious problem persists. PLoS Med 9: e1001190 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001190

8. IOM (Institute of Medicine) (2011) Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington (D.C.): The National Academies Press.

9. KungJ, MillerRR, MackowiakPA (2012) Failure of clinical practice guidelines to meet institute of medicine standards: two more decades of little, if any, progress. Arch Intern Med 172: 1628–1633.

10. ChoudryN, StelfoxHT, DetskyA (2002) Relationships between authors of Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Pharmaceutical Industry. JAMA 287: 1–6.

11. Soni A (2011) Top 10 most costly conditions among men and women, 2008: estimates for the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized adult population, age 18 and older. Statistical brief #331. Rockville (Maryland): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Available: http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_files/publications/st331/stat331.pdf Accessed 13 February 2013.

12. IMS Institute (2011) Use of medicine in the United States Review of 2010. Available: http://www.imshealth.com/deployedfiles/imshealth/Global/Content/IMS%20Institute/Static%20File/IHII_UseOfMed_report.pdf Accessed 13 February 2013.

13. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (2007) Expert panel report 3: guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma. Full report. Washington (D.C.): US Department of Health and Human Services.

14. National Cholesterol Education Program (2002) Third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) Final Report. Bethesda (Maryland): National Institutes of Health. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

15. ReddelHK, TaylorDR, BatemanED, BouletL-P, BousheyHA, et al. (2009) An official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement: asthma control and exacerbations: standardizing endpoints for clinical asthma trials and clinical practice. Am J Resp Crit Care 180: 59–99.

16. JellingerPS, SmithDA, MehtaAE, GandaO, HandelsmanY, et al. (2012) American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists' guidelines for management of dyslipidemia and prevention of artherosclerosis. Endocr Pract 18: 1–78.

17. The Mood Disorders Work group of the fifth edition of the DSM. Membership, proposed changes and disclosures. Available: http://www.dsm5.org/MeetUs/Pages/MoodDisorders.aspx Accessed 19 October 2012.

18. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (2011) Global Strategy for the diagnosis management and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Updated 2011. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease, Inc.

19. ADHD and Disruptive Behavior Disorders Work Group of fifth edition of the DSM. Membership, proposed changes, and disclosures. Available: http://www.dsm5.org/MeetUs/Pages/ADHD.aspx. Accessed 19 October 2012.

20. ThygesenK, AlpertJS, JaffeAS, SimoonsML, ChaitmanBR, et al. (2012) Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. Circulation 126: 2020–2035.

21. VakilN, van ZantenSV, KahrilasP, DentJ, JonesR (2006) The Montreal definition and classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a global evidence-based consensus. Am J Gastroenterol 101: 1900–1920.

22. The International Expert Committee (2009) International Expert Committee Report on the Role of the A1C Assay in the Diagnosis of Diabetes. Diabetes Care 32: 1327–1334.

23. National High Blood Pressure Education Program (2004) The seventh report of the joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Complete report. Bethesda (Maryland): US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

24. HodgkinsonJ, MantJ, MartinU, GuoB, HobbsFDR, et al. (2011) Relative effectiveness of clinic and home blood pressure monitoring compared with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in diagnosis of hypertension: systematic review. BMJ 342: d3621–d3621.

25. AaronSD, VandemheenKL, BouletL-P, McIvorRA, FitzgeraldJM, et al. (2008) Overdiagnosis of asthma in obese and nonobese adults. CMAJ 179: 1121–1131.

26. MorrowRL, GarlandEJ, WrightJM, MaclureM, TaylorS, et al. (2012) Influence of relative age on diagnosis and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children. CMAJ 184: 755–762.

27. HardieJA, BuistAS, VollmerWM, EllingsenI, BakkePS, et al. (2002) Risk of over-diagnosis of COPD in asymptomatic elderly never-smokers. Eur Respir J 20: 1117–1122.

28. McKhannGM, KnopmanDS, ChertkowH, HymanBT, JackCR, et al. (2011) The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer's disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement 7: 263–269.

29. AlbertMS, DeKoskyST, DicksonD, DuboisB, FeldmanHH, et al. (2011) The diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement 7: 270–279.

30. SperlingRA, AisenPS, BeckettLA, BennettDA, CraftS, et al. (2011) Toward defining the preclinical stages of Alzheimer's disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement 7: 280–292.

31. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (2010) Global strategy for the diagnosis management and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Updated 2010. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease, Inc.

32. Rationale for Changes in ADHD in DSM-5 from the ADHD and Disruptive Behavior Disorders Workgroup Updated May 3, 2012. Available: http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=383# Accessed 19 October 2012.

33. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline for Anemia in Chronic Kidney Disease (2012) Kidney International 2(4) August (2) (Supplements).

34. LurieP, AlmeidaC, StineN, StineA, WolfeS (2006) Financial conflict of interest disclosure and voting patterns at food and drug administration advisory committee meetings. JAMA 295: 1921–1928.

35. SchottG, PachlH, LimbachU, Gundert-RemyU, LudwigW-D, LiebK (2010) The financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and its consequences. Dtsch Arztebl Int 107: 279–285.

36. LundhA, SismondoS, LexchinJ, BusuiocOA, BeroL (2012) Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev 12: MR000033.

37. BekelmanJE, LiY, GrossCP (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. JAMA 289: 454–465.

38. Fletcher S (2008) Continuing education in the health professions: improving healthcare through lifelong learning: chairman's summary of the conference. Josiah Macy Jr Foundation. Available: http://macyfoundation.org/docs/macy_pubs/Macy_ContEd_1_7_08.pdf Accessed 13 February 2013.

39. WangAT, McCoyCP, MuradMH, MontoriVM (2010) Association between industry affiliation and position on cardiovascular risk with rosiglitazone: cross sectional systematic review. BMJ 340: c1344–c1344.

40. SchwartzLM, WoloshinS (1999) Changing disease definitions: implications for disease prevalence. Analysis of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994. Effective Clinical Practice 2: 76–85.

41. About the consensus development program. Office of Disease Prevention, National Institutes of Health. Available: http://prevention.nih.gov/cdp/about.aspx Accessed 13 February 2013.

42. PolmanCH, ReingoldSC, BanwellB, ClanetM, CohenJA, et al. (2011) Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol 69: 292–302.

43. AletahaD, NeogiT, SilmanAJ, FunovitsJ, FelsonDT, et al. (2010) 2010 Rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheum 62: 2569–2581.