Search

For the past half-century, physicians and clinical researchers have remained confident that randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most rigorous test of preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic interventions. They are ubiquitously referred to as the “gold standard” of empirical biomedical investigation, to the point where this status is often presented as a self-evident starting point in diagnostic or therapeutic evaluation. However, this status has long been contested, ever more so now with the emergence of “big data”, randomised registry trials, and other modes of knowledge production in medicine., History of Science

Coronary artery disease (CAD) has dominated mortality for most of the past century, not just in Europe and North America but worldwide. Treatments for CAD, both pharmaceutical and surgical, have become leading sectors of the healthcare economy. This paper focuses on the therapeutic landscape for CAD in the United States. We hope to add texture to the broader conversation of pharmaceuticalization explored in this issue by situating pharmaceutical therapies as just one element in the broader therapeutic terrain, alongside cardiac surgery and interventional cardiology. Patients with CAD must navigate a therapeutic landscape with three intersecting paths: lifestyle change, pharmaceuticals, and surgery. While pharmaceuticals are often seen as a quick fix, a way of avoiding more difficult lifestyle changes, it is surgery and angioplasty that promise patients the quickest fix of all. There also is another option, often overlooked by analysts but popular among physicians and patients: inaction. The U.S. context is often critiqued as a site of excessive treatment with respect to both drugs and procedures, and yet there is deep stratification within it – over-treatment in many populations and under-treatment in others. People who experience the serious risks of CAD do so in a racialized terrain of durable preoccupations with difference and unequal access to care. While the pharmaceuticalization literature disproportionately attends to lifestyle drugs, which some observers consider to be medically inappropriate or unnecessary, CAD does remain the leading cause of death. Thus, the stakes are high. Examination of the pharmaceuticalization of CAD in light of surgical treatments and racial disparities offers a window into the pervasiveness and persuasiveness of pharmaceuticals in an increasingly consumer-driven medicine, as well as the limits of their appeal and their reach., History of Science

The coronary-sinus reduction described by Verheye et al. revives an old therapeutic concept. For many decades, physicians have been designing surgical interventions against coronary artery disease and trying them in patients despite uncertain physiological rationales., History of Science

The role of heart disease in American fiction has received less attention from scholars of literature, history, and medicine than have portrayals of tuberculosis, cancer, or HIV/AIDS, despite the fact that heart disease topped mortality charts for most of the 20th century. This article surveys manifestations of coronary artery disease in popular works of 20th-century American fiction to trace how authors and their protagonists grappled with the disease while knowledge of pathophysiology and therapeutics evolved. Countering Susan Sontag’s mechanistic vision of patient encounters—where disease is absent of metaphor—we pair popular fiction with concurrent historical analysis to show that the proliferation of technological narratives of cardiac therapeutics could not displace the deeply symbolic nature of characters’ encounters with heart disease. Because of the limited ability of the biomedical narrative to convey the meanings of disease and treatments, doctors and patients need to communicate through the rich possibilities of metaphor., History of Science

With the emergence of intensive care in the 1950s and 1960s, delirium became more prominent. Doctors quickly set out to understand and prevent it, but delirium results from so many sources that decisive understanding remains elusive., History of Science

History of Science

Historians of medicine have struggled for centuries to make the case for history in medical education. They have developed many arguments about the value of historical perspective, but their efforts have faced persistent obstacles, from limited resources to curricular time constraints and skepticism about whether history actually is essential for physicians. Recent proposals have suggested that history should ally itself with the other medical humanities and make the case that together they can foster medical professionalism. We articulate a different approach and make the case for history as an essential component of medical knowledge, reasoning, and practice. History offers essential insights about the causes of disease (e.g., the non-reductionistic mechanisms needed to account for changes in the burden of disease over time), the nature of efficacy (e.g., why doctors think that their treatments work, and how have their assessments changed over time), and the contingency of medical knowledge and practice amid the social, economic, and political contexts of medicine. These are all things that physicians must know in order to be effective diagnosticians and caregivers, just as they must learn anatomy or pathophysiology. The specific arguments we make can be fit, as needed, into the prevailing language of competencies in medical education., History of Science

The decline of coronary heart disease mortality in the United States and Western Europe is one of the great accomplishments of modern public health and medicine. Cardiologists and cardiovascular epidemiologists have devoted significant effort to disease surveillance and epidemiological modeling to understand its causes. One unanticipated outcome of these efforts has been the detection of early warnings that the decline had slowed, plateaued, or even reversed. These subtle signs have been interpreted as evidence of an impending public health catastrophe. This article traces the history of research on coronary heart disease decline and resurgence and situates it in broader narratives of public health catastrophism. Juxtaposing the coronary heart disease literature alongside the narratives of emerging and reemerging infectious disease helps to identify patterns in how public health researchers create data and craft them into powerful narratives of progress or pessimism. These narratives, in turn, shape public health policy., History of Science, Other Research Unit

Physicians have long puzzled over a well-known phenomenon: different patients respond differently to the same treatment. Although many explanations exist, pharmacogenetics has now captured the medical imagination. While this might seem part of the broader interest in all things genetic, the early history of pharmacogenetics reveals the specific factors that contributed to the emergence of genetics within pharmacology. This paper examines the work of one pioneering pharmacologist, Werner Kalow, to trace the evolving intellectual formations of pharmacogenetics and, in particular, the focus on race. Working in the 1950s and 1960s, Kalow made three arguments to demonstrate the relevance of genetics to pharmacology, based on laboratory techniques, analogies to differences between other animal species, and appeals to the logic of natural selection. After contributing to the emergence of the field, Kalow maintained his advocacy for pharmacogenetics for four decades, collecting more evidence for its relevance, navigating controversies about race and science, and balancing genetics against other possible explanations of patient variability. Kalow's work demonstrates the deep roots of the genetic and racial preoccupations in pharmacology. Understanding this history can restore attention to other explanations of individuality in medical practice, something of increasing importance given the current interest in personalized medicine., History of Science

History of Science

History of Science

History of Science

Background Scientists and experts in science policy have become increasingly interested in strengthening translational research. Efforts to understand the nature of translational research and monitor policy interventions face an obstacle: how can translational research be defined in order to facilitate analysis of it? We describe methods of scientometric analysis that can do this. Methods We downloaded bibliographic and citation data from all articles published in 2009 in the 75 leading journals in cancer and in cardiovascular medicine (roughly 15,000 articles for each field). We calculated citation relationships between journals and between articles and we extracted the most prevalent natural language concepts. Results Network analysis and mapping revealed polarization between basic and clinical research, but with translational links between these poles. The structure of the translational research in cancer and cardiac medicine is, however, quite different. In the cancer literature the translational interface is composed of different techniques (e.g., gene expression analysis) that are used across the various subspecialties (e.g., specific tumor types) within cancer research and medicine. In the cardiac literature, the clinical problems are more disparate (i.e., from congenital anomalies to coronary artery disease); although no distinctive translational interface links these fields, translational research does occur in certain subdomains, especially in research on atherosclerosis and hypertension. Conclusions These techniques can be used to monitor the continuing evolution of translational research in medicine and the impact of interventions designed to enhance it., History of Science