RESUMO
Background: Novel approaches to diagnostics and therapeutics in medical care reflect the scientific community's evolving understanding of disease states and their clinical implications. Marketable and valuable innovations are generally patented for protection of intellectual property. Here, we explore the landscape of cardiology-related patents in the United States. Methods: All United States patents granted between 2005 and 2020 were included in this study. Keywords filtering was used to identify patents related to cardiovascular medicine. Statistical inference was conducted with the Mann-Kendall trend and analysis of variance tests. The results in this report are entirely reproducible with Python and R scripts available in a publicly accessible repository. Results: Of the 4,453,733 patents issued by the USPTO between 2005 and 2020, 31,048 (0.7%) were identified as cardiology-related patents. We identified the top 10 institutions within the for-profit and not-for-profit categories that were assigned the most cardiology-related patents in this time period. Distributions of number of patents per inventor were heavily right-skewed, with a small number of inventors responsible for a large number of patents each. Patents in the cardiac imaging subgroup took the longest to gain approval after submission (median delay: 3.6 years). Conclusions: By studying the patent universe, we are able to identify underexplored areas within cardiovascular medicine. Obstacles such as long delays between patent application and approval can hamper innovation within a field. As a next step, we aim to use these results to predict the next area within cardiovascular medicine to undergo explosive research and innovation.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: While it is commonly understood that a cancer diagnosis evokes feelings of fear, the effect of labeling a child's illness as "cancer" remains unstudied. We hypothesized that lower health utility scores would be assigned to disease states labeled as cancer compared to identical disease states without the mention of cancer. METHODS: In this randomized study, caregivers of healthy children were asked to assign health utility values to different scenarios written as improving, stable, or worsening. Participants from general pediatric clinics at Eskenazi Health were randomly assigned to either the scenarios labeled as "cancer" or "a serious illness". Participants then rated the scenarios using the Standard Gamble, with laddering of health utilities between 0 (a painless death) and 1 (perfect health). We also gathered subject demographics and assessed the subject's numeracy. RESULTS: We approached 319 subjects and 167 completed the study. Overall median health utilities of "cancer" scenarios were lower than "serious illness" scenarios (0.61 vs. 0.72, p = 0.018). Multivariate regression (with an outcome of having a utility above the 75th percentile) showed no significant effects by race, ethnicity, numeracy, or income level. "Cancer" scenarios remained significantly lower after adjustment for confounders using logistic regression, but only for the more serious scenarios (OR 0.92, p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: On average, caregivers with healthy children were shown to take more risk with their treatment options and view their child as having a worse quality of life when they knew the disease was cancer. Awareness of this bias is important when discussing treatments with families, particularly when a risk of cancer is present.
