Search

Background: Research investments are essential to address the burden of disease, however allocation of limited resources is poorly documented. We systematically reviewed the investments awarded by funding organisations to UK institutions and their global partners for infectious disease research. Methodology/Principal Findings: Public and philanthropic investments for the period 1997 to 2010 were included. We categorised studies by infectious disease, cross-cutting theme, and by research and development value chain, reflecting the type of science. We identified 6165 funded studies, with a total research investment of UK £2.6 billion. Public organisations provided £1.4 billion (54.0%) of investments compared with £1.1 billion (42.4%) by philanthropic organisations. Global health studies represented an investment of £928 million (35.7%). The Wellcome Trust was the leading investor with £688 million (26.5%), closely followed by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) with £673 million (25.9%). Funding over time was volatile, ranging from ∼£40 million to ∼£160 million per year for philanthropic organisations and ∼£30 million to ∼£230 million for public funders. Conclusions/Significance: Infectious disease research funding requires global coordination and strategic long-term vision. Our analysis demonstrates the diversity and inconsistent patterns in investment, with volatility in annual funding amounts and limited investment for product development and clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To assess the level of research funding awarded to UK institutions specifically for antimicrobial resistance-related research and how closely the topics funded relate to the clinical and public health burden of resistance. Methods Databases and web sites were systematically searched for information on how infectious disease research studies were funded for the period 1997–2010. Studies specifically related to antimicrobial resistance, including bacteriology, virology, mycology and parasitology research, were identified and categorized in terms of funding by pathogen and disease and by a research and development value chain describing the type of science. Results The overall dataset included 6165 studies receiving a total investment of £2.6 billion, of which £102 million was directed towards antimicrobial resistance research (5.5% of total studies, 3.9% of total spend). Of 337 resistance-related projects, 175 studies focused on bacteriology (40.2% of total resistance-related spending), 42 focused on antiviral resistance (17.2% of funding) and 51 focused on parasitology (27.4% of funding). Mean annual funding ranged from £1.9 million in 1997 to £22.1 million in 2009. Conclusions Despite the fact that the emergence of antimicrobial resistance threatens our future ability to treat many infections, the proportion of the UK infection-research spend targeting this important area is small. There are encouraging signs of increased investment in this area, but it is important that this is sustained and targeted at areas of projected greatest burden. Two areas of particular concern requiring more investment are tuberculosis and multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Infectious diseases account for 15 million deaths per year worldwide, and disproportionately affect young people, elderly people, and the poorest sections of society. We aimed to describe the investments awarded to UK institutions for infectious disease research. Methods: We systematically searched databases and websites for information on research studies from funding institutions and created a comprehensive database of infectious disease research projects for the period 1997-2010. We categorised studies and funding by disease, cross-cutting theme, and by a research and development value chain describing the type of science. Regression analyses were reported with Spearman's rank correlation coefficient to establish the relation between research investment, mortality, and disease burden as measured by disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Findings: We identified 6170 funded studies, with a total research investment of UK£2·6 billion. Studies with a clear global health component represented 35·6% of all funding (£927 million). By disease, HIV received £461 million (17·7%), malaria £346 million (13·3%), tuberculosis £149 million (5·7%), influenza £80 million (3·1%), and hepatitis C £60 million (2·3%). We compared funding with disease burden (DALYs and mortality) to show low levels of investment relative to burden for gastrointestinal infections (£254 million, 9·7%), some neglected tropical diseases (£184 million, 7·1%), and antimicrobial resistance (£96 million, 3·7%). Virology was the highest funded category (£1 billion, 38·4%). Leading funding sources were the Wellcome Trust (£688 million, 26·4%) and the Medical Research Council (£673 million, 25·8%). Interpretation: Research funding has to be aligned with prevailing and projected global infectious disease burden. Funding agencies and industry need to openly document their research investments to redress any inequities in resource allocation. Funding: None. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: Infectious diseases account for 15 million deaths per year worldwide, and disproportionately affect young people, elderly people, and the poorest sections of society. We aimed to describe the investments awarded to UK institutions for infectious disease research. Methods: We systematically searched databases and websites for information on research studies from funding institutions and created a comprehensive database of infectious disease research projects for the period 1997–2010. We categorised studies and funding by disease, cross-cutting theme, and by a research and development value chain describing the type of science. Regression analyses were reported with Spearman''s rank correlation coefficient to establish the relation between research investment, mortality, and disease burden as measured by disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Findings: We identified 6170 funded studies, with a total research investment of UK£2·6 billion. Studies with a clear global health component represented 35·6% of all funding (£927 million). By disease, HIV received £461 million (17·7%), malaria £346 million (13·3%), tuberculosis £149 million (5·7%), influenza £80 million (3·1%), and hepatitis C £60 million (2·3%). We compared funding with disease burden (DALYs and mortality) to show low levels of investment relative to burden for gastrointestinal infections (£254 million, 9·7%), some neglected tropical diseases (£184 million, 7·1%), and antimicrobial resistance (£96 million, 3·7%). Virology was the highest funded category (£1 billion, 38·4%). Leading funding sources were the Wellcome Trust (£688 million, 26·4%) and the Medical Research Council (£673 million, 25·8%). Interpretation: Research funding has to be aligned with prevailing and projected global infectious disease burden. Funding agencies and industry need to openly document their research investments to redress any inequities in resource allocation. Funding: None. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: The "Unfinished Agenda" of infectious diseases is of great importance to policymakers and research funding agencies that require ongoing research evidence on their effective management. Journal publications help effectively share and disseminate research results to inform policy and practice. We assess research investments to United Kingdom institutions in HIV, tuberculosis and malaria, and analyse these by numbers of publications and citations and by disease and type of science.Methods: Information on infection-related research investments awarded to United Kingdom institutions across 1997-2010 were sourced from funding agencies and individually categorised by disease and type of science. Publications were sourced from the Scopus database via keyword searches and filtered to include only publications relating to human disease and containing a United Kingdom-based first and/or last author. Data were matched by disease and type of science categories. Investment (United Kingdom pounds) and publications were compared to generate an 'investment per publication' metric; similarly, an 'investment per citation' metric was also developed as a measure of the usefulness of research.Results: Total research investment for all three diseases was £1.4 billion, and was greatest for HIV (£651.4 million), followed by malaria (£518.7 million) and tuberculosis (£239.1 million). There were 17,271 included publications, with 9,322 for HIV, 4,451 for malaria, and 3,498 for tuberculosis. HIV publications received the most citations (254,949), followed by malaria (148,559) and tuberculosis (100,244). According to UK pound per publication, tuberculosis (£50,691) appeared the most productive for investment, compared to HIV (£61,971) and malaria (£94,483). By type of science, public health research was most productive for HIV (£27,296) and tuberculosis (£22,273), while phase I-III trials were most productive for malaria (£60,491). According to UK pound per citation, tuberculosis (£1,797) was the most productive area for investment, compared to HIV (£2,265) and malaria (£2,834). Public health research was the most productive type of science for HIV (£2,265) and tuberculosis (£1,797), whereas phase I-III trials were most productive for malaria (£1,713).Conclusions: When comparing total publications and citations with research investment to United Kingdom institutions, tuberculosis research appears to perform best in terms of efficiency. There were more public health-related publications and citations for HIV and tuberculosis than other types of science. These findings demonstrate the diversity of research funding and outputs, and provide new evidence to inform research investment strategies for policymakers, funders, academic institutions, and healthcare organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]