Here’s a great power word for readers to casually toss around with friends. Iatrogenic. This refers to a medical condition or complication caused by a medical treatment. For example, if a person undergoes a knee replacement and suffers blood clots afterwards, this complication is considered to be an iatrogenic illness – it is a direct result of a medical intervention.
The volume of iatrogenic illness is enormous. I am not suggesting that the medical
profession is culpable, although adhering to strict safety guidelines and best
practices can lower the case load.
Indeed, many such safety practices are in place today that were not
present when I entered the profession.
Among the most common iatrogenic conditions are medication
side effects. On a regular basis, every
physician and health care practitioner has wondered if a patient’s new or
worsening symptom might be the result of a medication. Sometimes this is an easy call. For example, a patient develops a rash 5 days
after starting an antibiotic. Clear
enough. It’s a murkier situation if a
patient with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) develops worsening bowel issues a
month after starting a new blood pressure medicine. Is the new symptom a medication side effect
or simply increased IBS activity?
A rash that starts days after an antibiotic is prescribed is probably drug related.
So, if a medication side-effect is being contemplated, then
physicians may have 3 broad categories of evidence available to help determine
if the drug is responsible.
Category I
There is no available evidence that the medicine has been
linked to the adverse reaction. This
doesn’t mean that the drug is definitively innocent, but the absence of any
scientific support for this specific side effect makes the drug an unlikely
culprit.
Category II
There is known evidence and experience that the adverse
event can be related to the drug. So, if
a patient develops headaches after starting a drug that is known to cause this
symptom, then a drug effect is plausible, if not likely.
Category III
Scientific study has refuted that this particular adverse
event is related to the drug. If this
evidence is high quality, then a physician can confidently reject that a drug
side effect has occurred.
A week or so before penning this post, I read that the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are examining if autism is caused
by vaccines. I was astonished,
especially after RJK, Jr., during his senate confirmation hearing gave the
impression that he was not a vaccine skeptic and would be guided by the science. Hmmm…
Have we ever seen government leaders offer views that contradict those
expressed at their confirmation hearings?
There is no decent medical evidence suggesting that vaccines
cause autism. More importantly, this
issue has been repeated studied yielding high quality evidence that has
completely debunked this fringe belief. It
is simply not true. And yet in some benighted
corners of the land, it still lives.
Once of those dark corners is the Department of Health and Human
Services. If only we had a vaccine to
protect us from ignorance and disinformation.
Any ideas why top professionals at the CDC are resigning?
Comments
Post a Comment