Skip to main content

The Over Diagnosis of Disease: How Medical Technology Can Endanger Your Health


Do you feel well?  If so, DO worry.  Emerging medical technology will soon fix that problem and cure you of your sense of well being.  Medical technology is advancing our ability to find more and more diseases.   Even if you feel well, advancing medical technology will soon find a disease with your name on it.  

It turns out that in a lot of people who think they are well, we can find pathological evidence of some disease process if we look hard enough.  And technology is improving our ability to look.  If you feel good, maybe we should just look harder and try to find something wrong.

This vision of medicine is not far fetched.  As a fascinating editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine notes, this era is already upon us.  Authors Jerome Hoffman and Richelle Cooper write about how overdiagnosis of disease is becoming a modern epidemic.  It is created by medical technology and forced on an unsuspecting public that may not realized that more diagnosis can sometimes endanger their health.

The editorial notes another article in the Archives that described how better imaging technology is advancing our ability to diagnose pulmonary embolisms.  Pulmonary embolisms are blood clots that form in the lungs.  Previous technology tended to identify big embolisms that we knew to be life threatening.  But newer CT technology is identifying smaller embolisms.  But patients with small embolisms are treated with blood thinners in the same manner as patients with big embolisms.  It is not clear whether treating smaller and smaller embolisms will reduce mortality. 

We have previously discussed on GeriPal how this same issue may lead to overdiagnosis of Alzheimers disease.  Improving imaging and biomarker technologies can identify the pathologic changes of Alzheimers Disease decades before a person has any symptoms of dementia.  This can be good if treatments can prevent dementia. There is a big problem though.  Many of the persons with these pathologic changes will never have symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease.  They have pathology that is meaningless to them.  Yet, our new technologies risk subjecting them to treatments with possibly harmful side effects.

The problem is that better methods of diagnosis, such as advanced imaging techniques, is that they identify insignificant "diseases" that would have never been identified by old fashioned diagnostic methods.  The “pathologies” detected meet all standard definitions of diseases.  However, it turns out maybe it was actually good our old diagnostic technologies failed to identify these “diseases.” It turns out that these difficult to diagnose diseases may actually have little impact on the patient.  The patient feels no symptoms, and in many cases, if the diseases are not diagnosed, nothing bad will happen.

This actually turns what we learned about diagnostic testing in medical school on its head.  We learned that a diagnostic test can be either right or wrong.  We learned about these 4 outcomes of diagnostic testing:

  • 1       It can identify disease in someone has the disease (true positive)
  • 2       It can identify disease in someone who does not have disease (false positive)
  • 3       It can find no disease in someone who actually has disease (false negative)
  • 4       It can find no disease in someone who actually has no disease (true negative)
When we learned about these possibilities, the assumption was that the “truthful” outcomes were good, and the “false” outcomes were bad. 

We never considered the possibility that a test can accurately identify disease in a patient with a disease that does not matter.  We never learned about the blessed possibility that a test can fail to identify a disease in a patient who is better off not knowing about their meaningless "disease."

Maybe we need to change our definition of disease.  A disease should really be defined as a pathologic state that will lead to bad health outcomes in a patient.  Abnormal pathology that leads to no ill effects should not be defined as a disease.  Everything we know about diagnostic testing really needs to be reconfigured to account for this patient centered definition of disease. 

 
by: Ken Covinsky

Comments

Anonymous said…
thanks for sharing.
Anonymous said…
Ken, thanks for your superb commentary! I agree with your perspective and think that we doctors should be more cognizant of over-diagnosing. Your comments remind me of something one of my previous mentors (Dr. Alvan Feinstein) would have written or said. -sm
It seems most medical technologies these days overlook the old adage, "too much of a good thing is bad". While procedures have gotten so advanced that they've managed to detect "anomalies" that would've remained invisible twenty years ago, they might actually go as far as attack and neutralize some parts of those "anomalies" that might actually be beneficial to the body.

Popular posts from this blog

Dying without Dialysis

There is a terrific article in this weeks Journal of Pain and Symptom Management by Fliss Murtagh of King's College in London about the epidemiology of symptoms for patients with advanced renal failure who die without dialysis.  This study is important because while we know that patients with advanced renal failure have a limited life expectancy and the average age of initiation of hemodialysis is increasing, we know little about the alternatives to hemodialysis.  Specifically, we know nothing about symptoms affecting quality of life among patients who elect not to start dialysis (so called "conservative management" - is this the best label?).  This article provides a terrific counterpoint to the article in last years NEJM showing that nursing home residents who initiated hemodialysis tended to die and decline in function (see GeriPal write up here). 

The study authors followed patients with the most advanced form of chronic kidney disease (the new name for renal failu…

The Dangers of Fleet Enemas

The dangers of oral sodium phosphate preparations are fairly well known in the medical community. In 2006 the FDA issued it’s first warning that patients taking oral sodium phosphate preparations are at risk for potential for acute kidney injury. Two years later, over-the-counter preparations of these drugs were voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturers.  Those agents still available by prescription were given black box warnings mainly due to acute phosphate nephropathy that can result in renal failure, especially in older adults. Despite all this talk of oral preparations, little was mentioned about a sodium phosphate preparation that is still available over-the-counter – the Fleet enema.

Why Oral Sodium Phosphate Preparations Are Dangerous 

Before we go into the risks of Fleet enemas, lets spend just a couple sentences on why oral sodium phosphate preparations carry significant risks. First, oral sodium phosphate preparations can cause significant fluid shifts within the colon …

Survival from severe sepsis: The infection is cured but all is not well

Severe sepsis is a syndrome marked by a severe infection that results in the failure of at least one major organ system: For example, pneumonia complicated by kidney failure. It is the most common non-cardiac cause of critical illness and is associated with a high mortality rate.

But what happens to those who survive their hospitalization for severe sepsis? An important study published in JAMA from Iwashyna and colleagues provides answers and tells us all is not well. When the patient leaves the hospital, the infection may be cured, but the patient and family will need to contend with a host of major new functional and cognitive deficits.

Iwashyna examined disability and cognitive outcomes among 516 survivors of severe sepsis. These subjects were Medicare enrollees who were participants in the Health and Retirement Study. The average age of patients was 77 years.

When interviewed after discharge, most survivors were left with major new deficits in their ability to live independently. …