用于远程监测药物摄入的数字药片:对营销批准和专利授予政策的利益相关者分析和评估。

IF 2.5 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Law and the Biosciences Pub Date : 2022-10-18 eCollection Date: 2022-07-01 DOI:10.1093/jlb/lsac029
Katerina Sideri, Julian Cockbain, Wim Van Biesen, Marc De Hert, Johan Decruyenaere, Sigrid Sterckx
{"title":"用于远程监测药物摄入的数字药片:对营销批准和专利授予政策的利益相关者分析和评估。","authors":"Katerina Sideri,&nbsp;Julian Cockbain,&nbsp;Wim Van Biesen,&nbsp;Marc De Hert,&nbsp;Johan Decruyenaere,&nbsp;Sigrid Sterckx","doi":"10.1093/jlb/lsac029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article explores whether 'digital pills' that track medication intake should be used to enhance adherence. We concentrate on psychiatric conditions since these pose unique challenges. We analyze two public policies that potentially encourage the development of systems for remote monitoring of intake, namely the granting of patents and marketing authorization, and identify key stakeholders and their main interests so as to discuss whether these policies provide disproportionate benefits to some. The stakeholders identified are patients, system providers, drug manufacturers, insurers or healthcare systems, physicians, data users, and society at large. We discuss relevant industry reports, regulatory data, patent documents, and academic literature, and argue that there is concern that the drivers for these tracking systems are revenue and the monitoring of 'compliance' rather than 'adherence'. While accepting that the use of these systems can be justified in some circumstances, in our view these systems pose risks to patient autonomy, Shared Decision-Making, and privacy. We also find that policies on granting patents and marketing authorization overly favor the commercial actors and put patients' interests at risk. Accordingly, we propose that additional safeguards are required.</p>","PeriodicalId":56266,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/93/4a/lsac029.PMC9578571.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Digital pills for the remote monitoring of medication intake: a stakeholder analysis and assessment of marketing approval and patent granting policies.\",\"authors\":\"Katerina Sideri,&nbsp;Julian Cockbain,&nbsp;Wim Van Biesen,&nbsp;Marc De Hert,&nbsp;Johan Decruyenaere,&nbsp;Sigrid Sterckx\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jlb/lsac029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This article explores whether 'digital pills' that track medication intake should be used to enhance adherence. We concentrate on psychiatric conditions since these pose unique challenges. We analyze two public policies that potentially encourage the development of systems for remote monitoring of intake, namely the granting of patents and marketing authorization, and identify key stakeholders and their main interests so as to discuss whether these policies provide disproportionate benefits to some. The stakeholders identified are patients, system providers, drug manufacturers, insurers or healthcare systems, physicians, data users, and society at large. We discuss relevant industry reports, regulatory data, patent documents, and academic literature, and argue that there is concern that the drivers for these tracking systems are revenue and the monitoring of 'compliance' rather than 'adherence'. While accepting that the use of these systems can be justified in some circumstances, in our view these systems pose risks to patient autonomy, Shared Decision-Making, and privacy. We also find that policies on granting patents and marketing authorization overly favor the commercial actors and put patients' interests at risk. Accordingly, we propose that additional safeguards are required.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56266,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law and the Biosciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/93/4a/lsac029.PMC9578571.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Law and the Biosciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsac029\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsac029","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇文章探讨了是否应该使用跟踪药物摄入的“数字药丸”来增强依从性。我们专注于精神疾病,因为它们带来了独特的挑战。我们分析了两项可能鼓励开发远程监测摄入系统的公共政策,即授予专利和销售授权,并确定了关键利益相关者及其主要利益,从而讨论这些政策是否为某些人提供了不成比例的利益。确定的利益相关者包括患者、系统提供商、药品制造商、保险公司或医疗保健系统、医生、数据用户和整个社会。我们讨论了相关的行业报告、监管数据、专利文件和学术文献,并认为人们担心这些跟踪系统的驱动因素是收入和对“合规”而不是“遵守”的监控。虽然我们承认在某些情况下使用这些系统是合理的,但我们认为这些系统对患者的自主权、共同决策和隐私构成了风险。我们还发现,在授予专利和上市授权方面的政策过于偏向商业行为者,使患者的利益处于危险之中。因此,我们建议需要额外的保障措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Digital pills for the remote monitoring of medication intake: a stakeholder analysis and assessment of marketing approval and patent granting policies.

This article explores whether 'digital pills' that track medication intake should be used to enhance adherence. We concentrate on psychiatric conditions since these pose unique challenges. We analyze two public policies that potentially encourage the development of systems for remote monitoring of intake, namely the granting of patents and marketing authorization, and identify key stakeholders and their main interests so as to discuss whether these policies provide disproportionate benefits to some. The stakeholders identified are patients, system providers, drug manufacturers, insurers or healthcare systems, physicians, data users, and society at large. We discuss relevant industry reports, regulatory data, patent documents, and academic literature, and argue that there is concern that the drivers for these tracking systems are revenue and the monitoring of 'compliance' rather than 'adherence'. While accepting that the use of these systems can be justified in some circumstances, in our view these systems pose risks to patient autonomy, Shared Decision-Making, and privacy. We also find that policies on granting patents and marketing authorization overly favor the commercial actors and put patients' interests at risk. Accordingly, we propose that additional safeguards are required.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Law and the Biosciences
Journal of Law and the Biosciences Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
35
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Law and the Biosciences (JLB) is the first fully Open Access peer-reviewed legal journal focused on the advances at the intersection of law and the biosciences. A co-venture between Duke University, Harvard University Law School, and Stanford University, and published by Oxford University Press, this open access, online, and interdisciplinary academic journal publishes cutting-edge scholarship in this important new field. The Journal contains original and response articles, essays, and commentaries on a wide range of topics, including bioethics, neuroethics, genetics, reproductive technologies, stem cells, enhancement, patent law, and food and drug regulation. JLB is published as one volume with three issues per year with new articles posted online on an ongoing basis.
期刊最新文献
The new EU-US data protection framework's implications for healthcare. The new regulation of non-medical neurotechnologies in the European Union: overview and reflection. Implementing the human right to science in the context of health: introduction to the special issue. Biosimilar approval pathways: comparing the roles of five medicines regulators. Industry price guarantees for publicly funded medicines: learning from Project NextGen for pandemics and beyond.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1