European Journal of Epidemiology

, Volume 29, Issue 6, pp 383–390 | Cite as

Personalised medicine, disease prevention, and the inverse care law: more harm than benefit?



Personalised medicine Inverse care law Inverse benefit law Preventive medicine GWAS Omic technologies Pharmacogenomics 


  1. 1.
    Hart JT. The inverse care law. Lancet. 1971;1(7696):405–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hood L, Friend SH. Predictive, personalized, preventive, participatory (P4) cancer medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2011;8:184–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weston AD, Hood L. Systems biology, proteomics, and the future of health care: toward predictive, preventative, and personalized medicine. J Proteome Res. 2004;3:179–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khoury MJ, Gwinn ML, Glasgow RE, et al. A population approach to precision medicine. Am J Prev Med. 2012;42:639–45.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Offit K. Personalized medicine: new genomics, old lessons. Hum Genet. 2011;130:3–14.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Cancer Institute. NCI dictionary of cancer terms. Accessed 20 March 2013.
  7. 7.
    Melzer D, Zimmern R. Genetics and medicalisation. BMJ. 2002;324:863–4.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tutton R. Personalizing medicine: futures present and past. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75:1721–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kitsios GD, Kent DM. Personalised medicine: not just in our genes. BMJ. 2012;344:e2161. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e2161.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Turkheimer E. Genome wide association studies of behavior are social science. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. 2012;282:43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Juengst E, Flatt MA, Settersten RA. Personalized genomic medicine and the rhetoric of empowerment. Hastings Cent Rep. 2012;42:34–40.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Corrigan OP. Personalized medicine in a consumer age. Curr Pharmacogenomics Person Med. 2011;9:168–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Squassina A, Manchia M, Manolopoulos VG, et al. Realities and expectations of pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine: impact of translating genetic knowledge into clinical practice. Pharmacogenomics. 2010;11:1149–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mallal S, Phillips E, Carosi G, et al. HLA-B* 5701 screening for hypersensitivity to abacavir. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:568–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Manolio TA., Chisholm RL, Ozenberger B, et al. Implementing genomic medicine in the clinic: the future is here. Genet Med. 2013. doi: 10.1038/gim.2012.157.
  16. 16.
    Shah RR, Shah DR. Personalized medicine: is it a pharmacogenetic mirage? Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;74:698–721.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pashayan N, Pharoah P. Population-based screening in the era of genomics. Per Med. 2012;9:451–5.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Burke W, Trinidad SB, Press NA. Essential elements of personalized medicine. Semin Urol Oncol. 2014;32:193–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Manolio TA, Weis BK, Cowie CC. New models for large prospective studies: is there a better way? Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175:859–66.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smith GD. Epidemiology, epigenetics and the ‘gloomy prospect’: embracing randomness in population health research and practice. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40:537–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wagner A. The role of randomness in Darwinian evolution. Philos Sci. 2012;79:95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    MacMahon S. Blood pressure and the risk of cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:50–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lewington S, Clarke R, Qizilbash N, et al. Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies. Lancet. 2002;360:1903–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Smolen JS, Aletaha D. Forget personalised medicine and focus on abating disease activity. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72:3–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ioannidis JPA. Genetics, personalized medicine, and clinical epidemiology: expectations, validity, and reality in omics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:945–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Adams SD, Evans JP, Aylsworth AS. Direct-to-consumer genomic testing offers little clinical utility but appears to cause minimal harm. NC Med J. 2013;74:494–9.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hamburg MA, Collins FS. The path to personalized medicine. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:301–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Alpert JS, Chen QM. Has the genomic revolution failed? Clin Cardiol. 2012;35:178–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Khoury MJ, Janssens ACJ, Ransohoff DF. How can polygenic inheritance be used in population screening for common diseases? Genet Med. 2013;15:437–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gage M, Wattendorf D, Henry LR. Translational advances regarding hereditary breast cancer syndromes. J Surg Oncol. 2012;105:444–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Burke W, Tarini B, Press NA, Evans JP. Genetic screening. Epidemiol Rev. 2011;33:148–64.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ioannidis JP, Tzoulaki I. Minimal and null predictive effects for the most popular blood biomarkers of cardiovascular disease. Circ Res. 2012;110:658–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Patel JN, McLeod HL, Innocenti F. Implications of genome-wide association studies in cancer therapeutics. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;76:370–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lyssenko V, Laakso M. Genetic screening for the risk of Type 2 diabetes worthless or valuable? Diabetes Care. 2013;36(Suppl 2):S120–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Beekman M, Nederstigt C, Suchiman HED, et al. Genome-wide association study (GWAS)-identified disease risk alleles do not compromise human longevity. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012;107:18046–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    McBride CM, Bowen D, Brody LC, et al. Future health applications of genomics: priorities for communication, behavioral, and social sciences research. Am J Prev Med. 2010;38:556–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Grant RW, O’Brien KE, Waxler JL, et al. Personalized genetic risk counseling to motivate diabetes prevention: a randomized trial. Diabetes Care. 2013;36:13–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Moynihan R, Doust J, Henry D. Preventing overdiagnosis: how to stop harming the healthy. BMJ. 2012;344:e3502. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e3502.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hoffman KE. Management of older men with clinically localized prostate cancer: the significance of advanced age and comorbidity. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2012;22:284–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dubben HH. Trials of prostate-cancer screening are not worthwhile. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:294–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Carrera S, Beaumont J. Income and wealth. Soc Trends 2010; 41: ISSN 2040–1620. Newport, UK: Office for National Statistics. Accessed 20 March 2013.
  42. 42.
    United Nations Development Programme. Human development report 2010. 20th Anniversary Edition. The real wealth of nations: pathways to human development. New York, NY: UNDP; 2010.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wang H, Dwyer-Lindgren L, Lofgren KT, et al. Age-specific and sex-specific mortality in 187 countries, 1970–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012;380:2071–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Brody H, Light DW. The inverse benefit law: how drug marketing undermines patient safety and public health. Am J Public Health. 2011;101:399–404.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kolber MR, Korownyk C. An aspirin a day? Aspirin use across a spectrum of risk: cardiovascular disease, cancers and bleeds. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2014;15:153–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Redberg RF, Katz MH. Healthy men should not take statins. JAMA. 2012;307:1491–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Maron DJ, Ting HH. In mildly symptomatic patients, an invasive strategy with catheterization and revascularization should not be routinely undertaken. Circulation. 2013;6:114–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Abbott AL, Adelman MA, Alexandrov AV, et al. Why calls for more routine carotid stenting are currently inappropriate: an international, multispecialty, expert review and position statement. Stroke. 2013;44:1186–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Eriksen EF, Díez-Pérez A, Boonen S. Update on long-term treatment with bisphosphonates for postmenopausal osteoporosis: a systematic review. Bone. 2014;58:126–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Alonso-Coello P, García-Franco AL, Guyatt G, Moynihan R. Drugs for pre-osteoporosis: prevention or disease mongering? BMJ. 2008;336:126–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Caulfield T, Chandrasekharan S, Joly Y, Cook-Deegan R. Harm, hype and evidence: ELSI research and policy guidance. Genome Med. 2013;5:21–21.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Williams SJ, Martin P, Gabe J. The pharmaceuticalisation of society? A framework for analysis. Sociol Health. 2011;33:710–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Reykjavík UniversityReykjavíkIceland
  2. 2.National University of IrelandGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations