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]

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]

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]

Introduction: Compared with the rest of the UK and Western Europe, England has high rates of the infectious disease tuberculosis (TB). TB is curable, although treatment is for at least 6 months and longer when disease is drug resistant. If patients miss too many doses (non-adherence), they may transmit infection for longer and the infecting bacteria may develop resistance to the standard drugs used for treatment. Non-adherence may therefore risk both their health and that of others. Within England, certain population groups are thought to be at higher risk of non-adherence, but the factors contributing to this have been insufficiently determined, as have the best interventions to promote adherence. The objective of this study was to develop a manualised package of interventions for use as part of routine care within National Health Services to address the social and cultural factors that lead to poor adherence to treatment for TB disease., Methods and Analysis: This study uses a mixed-methods approach, with six study components. These are (1) scoping reviews of the literature; (2) qualitative research with patients, carers and healthcare professionals; (3) development of the intervention; (4) a pilot randomised controlled trial of the manualised intervention; (5) a process evaluation to examine clinical utility; and (6) a cost analysis., Ethics and Dissemination: This study received ethics approval on 24 December 2018 from Camberwell St. Giles Ethics Committee, UK (REC reference 18/LO/1818). Findings will be published and disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, published in an end of study report to our funder (the National Institute for Health Research, UK) and presented to key stakeholders., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN95243114 SECONDARY IDENTIFYING NUMBERS: University College London/University College London Hospitals Joint Research Office 17/0726.National Institute for Health Research, UK 16/88/06., Competing Interests: Competing interests: IA, MD, HK, KK, ML, MM, EP, AS and FW have no competing interests to declare. RH is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR, Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, North Thames at Bart's Health NHS Trust and Asthma UK (AUKCAR). Speaker engagements with honoraria with the following companies: Abbvie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Erasmus, Idec, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck Sharp Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Shire Pharmaceuticals and TEVA. RH is founding director of a UCL-Business spin-out company (Spoonful of Sugar Ltd) providing consultancy on treatment engagement and patient support programmes to healthcare policy makers, providers and industry. HRS reports grants from Medical Research Council, UK, and grants from NIHR, UK, during the conduct of the study; others from Korean CDC and Johnson and Johnson (makers of Bedaquiline), others from Latvian Society Against Tuberculosis (funding through Otsuka and Johnson and Johnson), outside the submitted work. CNJC reports personal fees from Public Health England outside the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)