Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • COMMENTARY
  • Published:
European Journal of Epidemiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Hart JT. The inverse care law. Lancet. 1971;1(7696):405–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hood L, Friend SH. Predictive, personalized, preventive, participatory (P4) cancer medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2011;8:184–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Khoury MJ, Gwinn ML, Glasgow RE, et al. A population approach to precision medicine. Am J Prev Med. 2012;42:639–45.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Offit K. Personalized medicine: new genomics, old lessons. Hum Genet. 2011;130:3–14.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. National Cancer Institute. NCI dictionary of cancer terms. http://www.cancer.gov/dictionary/?CdrID=561717. Accessed 20 March 2013.

  7. Melzer D, Zimmern R. Genetics and medicalisation. BMJ. 2002;324:863–4.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tutton R. Personalizing medicine: futures present and past. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75:1721–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kitsios GD, Kent DM. Personalised medicine: not just in our genes. BMJ. 2012;344:e2161. doi:10.1136/bmj.e2161.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Turkheimer E. Genome wide association studies of behavior are social science. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. 2012;282:43–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Juengst E, Flatt MA, Settersten RA. Personalized genomic medicine and the rhetoric of empowerment. Hastings Cent Rep. 2012;42:34–40.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Corrigan OP. Personalized medicine in a consumer age. Curr Pharmacogenomics Person Med. 2011;9:168–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. Shah RR, Shah DR. Personalized medicine: is it a pharmacogenetic mirage? Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;74:698–721.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pashayan N, Pharoah P. Population-based screening in the era of genomics. Per Med. 2012;9:451–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Burke W, Trinidad SB, Press NA. Essential elements of personalized medicine. Semin Urol Oncol. 2014;32:193–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Smith GD. Epidemiology, epigenetics and the ‘gloomy prospect’: embracing randomness in population health research and practice. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40:537–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wagner A. The role of randomness in Darwinian evolution. Philos Sci. 2012;79:95–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. MacMahon S. Blood pressure and the risk of cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:50–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Smolen JS, Aletaha D. Forget personalised medicine and focus on abating disease activity. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72:3–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ioannidis JPA. Genetics, personalized medicine, and clinical epidemiology: expectations, validity, and reality in omics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:945–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. Hamburg MA, Collins FS. The path to personalized medicine. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:301–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Alpert JS, Chen QM. Has the genomic revolution failed? Clin Cardiol. 2012;35:178–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gage M, Wattendorf D, Henry LR. Translational advances regarding hereditary breast cancer syndromes. J Surg Oncol. 2012;105:444–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Burke W, Tarini B, Press NA, Evans JP. Genetic screening. Epidemiol Rev. 2011;33:148–64.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Patel JN, McLeod HL, Innocenti F. Implications of genome-wide association studies in cancer therapeutics. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;76:370–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Moynihan R, Doust J, Henry D. Preventing overdiagnosis: how to stop harming the healthy. BMJ. 2012;344:e3502. doi:10.1136/bmj.e3502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Dubben HH. Trials of prostate-cancer screening are not worthwhile. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:294–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Carrera S, Beaumont J. Income and wealth. Soc Trends 2010; 41: ISSN 2040–1620. Newport, UK: Office for National Statistics. www.statistics.gov.uk/. Accessed 20 March 2013.

  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.

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Redberg RF, Katz MH. Healthy men should not take statins. JAMA. 2012;307:1491–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Alonso-Coello P, García-Franco AL, Guyatt G, Moynihan R. Drugs for pre-osteoporosis: prevention or disease mongering? BMJ. 2008;336:126–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Williams SJ, Martin P, Gabe J. The pharmaceuticalisation of society? A framework for analysis. Sociol Health. 2011;33:710–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Reykjavík University, Menntavegur 1, 101, Reykjavík, Iceland

    Jack E. James

  2. National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

    Jack E. James

Authors
  1. Jack E. James
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jack E. James.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

James, J.E. Personalised medicine, disease prevention, and the inverse care law: more harm than benefit?. Eur J Epidemiol 29, 383–390 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-014-9898-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-014-9898-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation