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

Bond University, Robina, Australia.
PLoS Medicine (Impact Factor: 14.43). 08/2013; 10(8):e1001500. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001500
Source: PubMed


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.
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.
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.

Download full-text


Available from: Paul Glasziou,

  • BMJ (online) 08/2013; 347:f4998. DOI:10.1136/bmj.f4998 · 17.45 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: : This article discusses the relationship between disease-advocacy groups and the revision process for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. We discuss three examples in which patient-advocacy groups engaged with the DSM-5 revision process: Autism Speaks' worries about the contraction of the autism diagnostic category, the National Alliance on Mental Illness's support for the inclusion of psychosis risk syndrome, and B4U-ACT's critique of the expansion of pedophilia. After a descriptive examination of the cases, we address two prescriptive questions. First, what is the ethical basis for patient and advocate influence on DSM diagnoses? Second, how should the American Psychiatric Association proceed when this influence comes into conflict with other goals of the revision process? We argue that the social effects of, and values embedded in, psychiatric classification, combined with patient and advocates' experiential knowledge about those aspects of diagnosis, ethically justify advocate influence in relation to those particular matters. However, this advocate influence ought to have limits, which we briefly explore. Our discussion has implications for discussions of disease categories as loci for social movements, for analyses of the expanding range of processes and institutions that advocacy groups target, and for broader questions regarding the aims of the DSM revision process.
    Harvard Review of Psychiatry 11/2013; 21(6):334-44. DOI:10.1097/HRP.0000000000000010 · 1.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Overdiagnosis is the diagnosis of 'illnesses' that would never have caused patients harm but potentially exposes them to treat-ments where the risks outweigh the benefits. The problem of overdiagnosis is affecting an increasing proportion of the population. Overdiagnosis is occurring in several different ways: by changes in the definition or threshold of disease, labelling of risk factors as diseases, early detection from both deliberate screening programs and incidental detection ('incidentalomas'), and the medicalisation of life, particularly in psychiatry. General practitioners often carry the burden of care for patients who have been overdiagnosed. It is important that general practi-tioners are aware of the potential harm of overdiagnosis, particularly through early detection and aggressive management of early disease.
    Australian family physician 12/2013; 42(12):856-9. · 0.71 Impact Factor
Show more