Pre-Osteoarthritis: Do we really need another "Pre-" disease?

This Spring, Dr Annemarie Jutel (RN, BPhEd(hons), PhD) from the Victoria University of Wellington shared with m some of her work on Social Issues in Diagnosis.

Dr Jutel is a social theorist and clinician interested in finding an understanding of just how diagnosis works, whether from the historical, linguistic, social, literary, clinical, or other angle. 

She explained: 

I am most interested in the “diagnostic moment” and the power of the diagnostic utterance; there is nothing that fundamentally changes in your soma from the moment you walk in to the doctor’s rooms, and the moment you get your diagnosis, but at the same time, if the diagnosis is a difficult one, everything has changed. 

I started following her posts on the Facebook Group, Social Issues in Diagnosis, which explores why and how we create these labels and what impact they have on patients and the course of medicine.

The most recent post is about pre-diagnosis, stimulated by this 2015 paper in Cartilage. If we can detect osteoarthritis before it starts, maybe we can stem the epidemic. Or, maybe we can turn a bunch of healthy, naturally aging, well-people into frightened patients?

In response to the article, Jutel asks:

What is a prediagnosis and what are its consequences? 

If pre-diagnosis states are, potentially, windows of opportunity, wherein individuals can adopt healthy, disease-avoidance behaviours, is there an advantage to calling these states "pre-whatever" as opposed to identifying them as healthy states, wherein health can be further improved?

What are the consequences of being given a pre-diagnosis? For some it may be a scary moment which marks their identity forever more. For others, it may be a wake-up call.

What would it be for you?

Take a look on the FB Group to participate or to learn more, see her book, Social Issues in Diagnosis.

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26175...

BCMJ Book Review: The Patient Paradox: Why sexed-up medicine is bad for your health

At the Preventing Overdiagnosis conference last year in Oxford, I heard Dr Margaret McCartney speak. This is a passionate woman, one who advocates tirelessly for patients and follows the motto "Think critically and demand evidence." She is an outspoken leader, holding the NHS, her patients, her peers, and herself to high standards, eschewing conflict of interest and junk science.

I was lucky to meet her and when we talked further, Margaret handed me a copy of her book, The Patient Paradox: Why sexed-up medicine is bad for your health. Travel and work got in the way of me opening it, but when I did, I devoured it, underlining and folding and marking key points that resonated with me.

I have read many essays and a few books in the area of "too much medicine," and agreed with most of what they had to say. This book was different. It gained my trust by talking about things I already knew and accepted (more is not always better in medicine) and pushed me just outside my comfort zone, to question things I take for granted (eg the importance of pap tests). I admire the bold way in which she can push the already skeptical to challenge assumptions we didn't even know we had. Since I felt the need to share this book with others, I wrote it up.

You can read my piece about the book and its message in the July/August copy of the British Columbia Medical Journal (BCMJ).
 

You can buy the book from the publisher, Pinter and Martin here. If you want to read other reviews or get a copy on Kindle, Amazon.ca can help.* 

If you like the idea of reading more on the subject of "Less is More in Medicine," there are about 20 books in the Read section of the site, ranging in focus from cancer screening or overdiagnosis in psychiatry to patient-centered care, achieving evidence-based medicine, and turning healthy people into sick.

 

 

 

* I don't receive any kickbacks here, just hoping to make it easy to get the book in your hands

Source: http://www.pinterandmartin.com/the-patient...

Physicians are also squeamish about Advance Care Planning discussions!

The Vancouver Sun featured an article, "Refusal to face reality of death leads to increased use of aggressive, futile health-care efforts: Doctor calls on Canadians to 'normalize conversations' about end-of-life care"

It's great to see this kind of story popping up across the news. The more we talk about it, the less scary it is to discuss; the end result is that we'll provide less futile care and offer better palliation, sooner, meaning that patients can have the best possible quality of life until the end.

The title of the video basically says it all; cardiologist Dr Heather Ross talks about the challenges that physicians face when they need to talk with patients about end of life care. It's interesting that she should remark on her discomfort with these kinds of discussions, as that was not something that came up in the study that prompted this Sun feature. 

The study in JAMA Internal Medicine is Barriers to Goals of Care Discussions With Seriously Ill Hospitalized Patients and Their Families: A Multicenter Survey of Clinicians. You at al. surveyed 1256 Canadian health care providers to identify some of the major challenges with discussing end of life situations and they identified the following:

  • family members' or patients' difficulty accepting a poor prognosis

  • family members' or patients' difficulty understanding the limitations and complications of life-sustaining treatments

  • disagreement among family members about goals of care

  • patients' incapacity to make goals of care decisions

Clinicians did not view system factors as significant barriers to these discussions, which I find surprising since we usually talk about underfunding, overcrowding, paperwork, communication errors, and bureaucracy whenever we have a tough problem to solve.

Interestingly, health care providers did not feel that their own skills presented major barriers to having care planning discussions. Well! I find that hard to believe. Clinician factors probably contribute greatly and we seem to have a blind spot for our own weaknesses!  

Fortunately Dr You acknowledges this:

“Overall, the sense from the clinicians is that patients and families tend to get in the way” of making concrete decisions about a patient’s care plans, You said. “This is what they perceive,” You said. 
“But I think it reflects that if patients and families are having a difficult time, then one of the solutions clearly has to be that physicians need to be skilled communicators — they need to know how to navigate these sometimes emotional or difficult discussions and be sensitive,” he said

A clinician's personal discomfort, uncertainty about prognosis, fear of not being liked, and other individual factors are definitely contributors to the difficulty of talking about dying with patients. A lot of the things that make it hard for doctors and nurses to talk with patients about planning for death and dying also contribute to the more general problem of inappropriateness in health care. 

So what can we do? Start here: It's Time to Talk: Advance Care Planning in BC. 

I'm proud to be a part of the Doctors of BC Council for Health Economics and Policy (CHEP), which is where Dr. David Attwell  spearheaded the creation of this policy paper.

Take a look. It's never too late to start talking about it!

Disutility: Finding the balance between benefit and hassle

James McCormack (@medmyths, The Best Science Medicine Podcast) sent me a great article: "Patient-Accessible Tool for Shared Decision Making in Cardiovascular Primary Prevention."

The UK group looked at the problem of patients discontinuing medication and focussed in particular on statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular events. A lot of research assumes that the 'burden' of taking a pill is a negligible factor in medication adherence, but these researchers thought otherwise. They surveyed 360 people to see how they might balance their potential cardiac risk with the 'disutility' of a preventative, once a day medication as intervention. Paraphrasing, they wanted to know:

how much longer would a person need to live (thanks to a medication) in order to make it worth the hassle of taking the medication

The article is worth sharing because it introduced a few new ideas to me:

  • "disutility" : a word the researchers use to capture the idea of inconvenience or burden of care
  • there is some good evidence that educating people more and more about their risk will not change their adherence to medication
  • talking about reasons they would not want to take the medication may be more important
  • as every person has a different tolerance of disutility, individualized discussions (shared decision-making) still remains a good strategy
  • for people who fall in the middle ground when balancing utility and disutility, factors like gender, smoking, blood pressure, and cholesterol factor into the decision whereas they do not for those with high or low disutility

Figure 4.

Disutility vs utility. Frequency distribution of disutility, longevity benefit that subjects expressed a desire to make tablet therapy worthwhile (top), and the frequency distribution of utility, actual expected gain in lifespan from statin therapy in the English population (bottom). The difference between the 2 values is the net benefit of tablet therapy. Because utility has a very much narrower spectrum than disutility, for those with a high disutility, regardless of utility, statins are a net harm; for those with low disutility, regardless of utility statins are a net benefit. It is only for those in the middle gray zone (top) that sex, smoking status, blood pressure, and cholesterol are the deciding factors.

Read the full article here, in Circulation. 

If you are very interested in the idea of 'disutility,' you may enjoy Dr Victor Montori (@vmontori)'s work on "Minimally Disruptive Medicine."

The one chart you need to (begin to) understand any health study

Jullia Belluz, common-sense and evidence-oriented journalist (known to me from her great "Science-ish" Maclean's column) and Trudeau Scholar and Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Ottawa, Steven Hoffman, team up in their Burden of Proof column for Vox.

This week, in "The one chart you need to understand any health study" they help readers with a simple approach to understanding how to evaluate levels of evidence. Not all research is created equally:

This is a chart from the article, modified slightly. It has been beautifully "enhanced" with the added last line by Peter Cook,  @DoodlePeter . I couldn't resist sharing Peter's version!

This is a chart from the article, modified slightly. It has been beautifully "enhanced" with the added last line by Peter Cook, @DoodlePeter. I couldn't resist sharing Peter's version!

I think the chart it is a good start, and I wish it were as simple as this. Some sneaky (or inept) researchers are good at making trials look randomized, blinded, and so on but the controls, conflicts of interest, low study numbers, etc. mean that the data they gather is not very useful at all. Sometimes, the way the papers are written, it's easy to think of the conclusion as groundbreaking and accurate, but digging deeper into the methods it becomes clear that the authors did a little.... 'creative interpretation'.

Even the highest form of evidence comes in different flavours:

Not all systematic reviews are created equally, either.

And while some evidence is stronger than other evidence, it doesn't necessarily mean anything when it comes to applying it to you, the individual. Fortunately, Ms Belluz and Mr Hoffman get it.

Even with the best available evidence from around the world at our disposal, we have to analyze it and apply it to our particular circumstances. A personal experience with the success or failure of a drug, like an allergic reaction, is more informative for you than the most rigorous study on the drug ever could be. 

It can be challenging to spot issues with quality amongst the jargon and statistics. It is so refreshing to see journalists like Julia Belluz who get this and who are raising the bar for colleagues to be responsible with their science reporting.

Follow @JuliaOfToronto and @SHoffmania on Twitter

 

Source: http://www.vox.com/2015/1/5/7482871/types-...