Journal Information
Vol. 32. Issue 12.
Pages 1053-1054 (December 2013)
Vol. 32. Issue 12.
Pages 1053-1054 (December 2013)
Recommended article of the month
Open Access
Comment on “Expanding Disease Definitions in Guidelines and Expert Panel Ties to Industry: A Cross-sectional Study of Common Conditions in the United States”
Visits
4343
Luís M. Moura
Membro do Corpo Redatorial da Revista Portuguesa de Cardiologia
This item has received

Under a Creative Commons license
Article information
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Full Text

Comentário a «Definições da doença nas recomendações clínicas (guidelines) e relação dos seus autores com a indústria: um estudo de prevalência de patologias frequentes nos Estados Unidos»

Moynihan RN, Cooke GP, Doust JA, et al. PLoS Medicine; 10(8):e1001500

Abstract

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 ties1.

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 standardizing 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.

Comentário

A maioria dos médicos nos Estados Unidos que participam nos comités das guidelines e que contribuem para as decisões acerca de definições ou critérios diagnósticos de patologias comuns têm ligações à indústria farmacêutica e às companhias de dispositivos médicos, de acordo com este estudo recentemente publicado.

Os investigadores utilizaram para a realização do estudo 16 publicações de comités de guidelines nacionais e internacionais, publicadas entre 2000-2013, sobre o diagnóstico de 14 patologias frequentes. Destas, dez propuseram o alargamento de algumas definições diagnósticas, uma delas o estreitamento das definições e o impacto das restantes não era claro1.

As patologias cujas definições foram alteradas incluíram a hipertensão arterial, doença de Alzheimer e a artrite reumatoide. Os comités dessas recomendações alargaram alguns conceitos através da criação das chamadas condições pré-doença, diminuição do limiar diagnóstico ou através de propostas de metodologias diagnósticas precoces diferentes das anteriormente estabelecidas. O rationale utilizado para justificar as alterações efetuadas incluíram a estandardização de critérios diagnósticos e as evidências recentes acerca do risco da população previamente considerada não doente.

Cerca de 75% dos membros de 14 dos comités das guidelines com conflito de interesses relatados admitiram ligações à indústria, habitualmente como consultores, membros de conselhos consultivos (advisory boards), palestrantes ou que receberam apoios para a investigação1.

O estudo publicado na PLoS Medicine não fez a comparação de resultados entre as guidelines, com e sem alteração das definições da doença, para determinar se as ligações à indústria eram mais frequentes entre os grupos de membros dos comités que alteraram as guidelines quando comparados com os grupos que não alteraram.

Finalmente, os autores do artigo afirmam que «existem conflitos financeiros, mas também não financeiros ou intelectuais (tais como a progressão académica) e não deverá haver a presunção de que ter um conflito significa ser antiético ou que um qualquer profissional tem necessariamente benefícios financeiros através da influência das suas opções».

Bibliografia
[1]
R.N. Moynihan, G.P. Cooke, J.A. Doust, et al.
Expanding disease definitions in guidelines and expert panel ties to industry: A cross-sectional study of common conditions in the United States.
PLoS medicine, 10 (2013), pp. e1001500
Copyright © 2013. Sociedade Portuguesa de Cardiologia
Download PDF
Idiomas
Revista Portuguesa de Cardiologia (English edition)
Article options
Tools
en pt

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos

By checking that you are a health professional, you are stating that you are aware and accept that the Portuguese Journal of Cardiology (RPC) is the Data Controller that processes the personal information of users of its website, with its registered office at Campo Grande, n.º 28, 13.º, 1700-093 Lisbon, telephone 217 970 685 and 217 817 630, fax 217 931 095, and email revista@spc.pt. I declare for all purposes that the information provided herein is accurate and correct.