Literature DB >> 10191786

Silicone breast implants: epidemiological evidence of sequelae.

Z A Stein.   

Abstract

Skeptics may certainly find fault with the third study (the only one to report a significant finding) or with all or any of the statistics described. But few could argue, after examining these studies, that the relative risk for a known and well-defined connective tissue disease is likely greater than 2. Another possibility has been raised, one that calls to mind other difficult-to-study syndromes linked to exposures. In a study addressing Gulf War syndrome, signs and symptoms were often mentioned that proved difficult to describe systematically and therefore difficult to study. What if a suspected silicone exposure syndrome were so mild and transient that it did not warrant a physician visit (as in the Mayo Clinic study). receive a diagnosis (as in the Nurses' Health Study), or require admission to a hospital (as in the Danish and Swedish studies)? And if such a disorder were, in fact, mild and transient, should it merit the concern that has been shown and the compensation that has been awarded in the silicone implant litigation cases to date? We suggest that neither a well-described disorder with a relative risk of less than 2 nor a transient and mild disorder seems compatible with the number of litigants over silicone implants and the apparent seriousness of their complaints. Some 400,000 women joined in one class action suit for damages, and 170,000 joined in another. Even if there had been 2 million implants undertaken in the United States over the 3 decades in which implant surgery has been practiced (and some estimates put the number closer to 1 million), there is no conceivable way in which a relative risk of 2 or 3 (or even 4) for each of the rare syndromes reported could explain so many exposed women being affected. At most, 2200 out of 2 million unexposed women would be expected to have had any one of the listed forms of connective tissue disorders, most of which are very rare. Doubling the risk among the exposed population yields 4400, and increasing the risk 20-fold produces 44,000. At this rate, there is no way in which 400,000 litigants could all be affected. Extensions of the already-completed studies are ongoing, at least 1 of which is government funded; apparently it is thought in the United States (though not in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) that there is still room for reasonable doubt as to the supposed causal relationships. But if epidemiology is invoked in the interest of public health to prevent the many uses of silicone, the weight of the evidence abstracted here supports the inference that silicone breast implants have not been proved guilty of causing connective tissue disorders.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10191786      PMCID: PMC1508887          DOI: 10.2105/ajph.89.4.484

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Public Health        ISSN: 0090-0036            Impact factor:   9.308


  10 in total

Review 1.  Burden of proof: judging science and protecting public health in (and out of) the courtroom.

Authors:  G J Annas
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Connective tissue disease and other rheumatic conditions following breast implants in Denmark.

Authors:  S Friis; L Mellemkjaer; J K McLaughlin; V Breiting; S K Kjaer; W Blot; J H Olsen
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 1.539

3.  Risk of connective tissue disease and related disorders among women with breast implants: a nation-wide retrospective cohort study in Sweden.

Authors:  O Nyrén; L Yin; S Josefsson; J K McLaughlin; W J Blot; M Engqvist; L Hakelius; J D Boice; H O Adami
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-02-07

4.  The estimated frequency of cosmetic breast augmentation among US women, 1963 through 1988.

Authors:  M B Terry; M L Skovron; S Garbers; E Sonnenschein; P Toniolo
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 9.308

5.  Invited commentary: how would we know a Gulf War syndrome if we saw one?

Authors:  D H Wegman; N F Woods; J C Bailar
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1997-11-01       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 6.  Silicone breast implants and autoimmune disease.

Authors:  S L Brown; J J Langone; L A Brinton
Journal:  J Am Med Womens Assoc (1972)       Date:  1998

7.  Lack of association between augmentation mammoplasty and systemic sclerosis (scleroderma).

Authors:  M C Hochberg; D L Perlmutter; T A Medsger; K Nguyen; V Steen; M H Weisman; B White; F M Wigley
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  1996-07

8.  Clinical findings in symptomatic women with silicone breast implants.

Authors:  F B Vasey; D L Havice; T S Bocanegra; M J Seleznick; P H Bridgeford; P Martinez-Osuna; L R Espinoza
Journal:  Semin Arthritis Rheum       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 5.532

9.  Risk of connective-tissue diseases and other disorders after breast implantation.

Authors:  S E Gabriel; W M O'Fallon; L T Kurland; C M Beard; J E Woods; L J Melton
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1994-06-16       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Breast silicone implants and risk of systemic lupus erythematosus.

Authors:  B L Strom; M M Reidenberg; B Freundlich; R Schinnar
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 6.437

  10 in total
  3 in total

1.  Comment: epidemiology and the new political economy of medicine.

Authors:  D M Fox
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 2.  Ethics, epidemiology, and law: the case of silicone breast implants.

Authors:  R Macklin
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 3.  Burden of proof: judging science and protecting public health in (and out of) the courtroom.

Authors:  G J Annas
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 9.308

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.