Search

Background Prioritisation of research activities for infectious disease pathogens is usually undertaken through the identification of important research and knowledge gaps. Research prioritisation is an essential element of both effective responses to disease outbreaks and adequate preparedness. There is however currently no published mapping of activities on and evidence from research prioritisation for high consequence pathogens. The objectives of this review are to map all published research prioritisation exercises on high-consequence pathogens; provide an overview of methodologies employed for prioritising research for these pathogens; describe monitoring and evaluation processes for research areas prioritised; and identify any standards and guidance for effectively undertaking research prioritisation activities for high consequence pathogens. Methods The Joanna Briggs Institute guidance of scoping review conduct will be used. The search will be undertaken using the key terms of “research prioritisation”, “response”, “control”, and related terms, and a list of high-consequence pathogens derived from WHO (2020), EMERGE (2019), Europe CDC (2022) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2021). We will search WHO Global Index Medicus; Ovid Medline; Ovid Embase; Ovid Global Health; and Scopus. Backward citations review of the included full text documents will also be conducted. Google Scholar and Overton will be searched for grey literature. Two independent reviewers will screen the retrieved documents using Rayyan and extract data in a data extraction template in Microsoft Excel 2021. Screening results will be presented using the PRISMA-ScR template with narrative synthesis undertaken for the extracted data. Conclusion This review will map existing research priorities for high consequence pathogens. Further, it will provide an understanding of methodologies used for prioritisation, processes for monitoring and evaluation of progress made against research agendas, and evidence on standards that could be recommended for effective prioritisation of research for high consequence pathogens.

Introduction The Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R) is a network of funders supporting research on infectious diseases of epidemic/pandemic potential. GloPID-R is establishing regional hubs to strengthen stakeholder engagement particularly among low-income and middle-income countries. The first pilot hub, led from Republic of Korea (South Korea), has been launched in the Asia-Pacific region, a region highly prone to outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases. We present findings of mapping research undertaken in support of the hub’s development.Methods We analysed five COVID-19 research databases in September 2022 to identify research funders and intermediary funding sources supporting research in infectious diseases in the Asia-Pacific region. This was complemented with an in-depth analysis of the UK Collaborative on Development Research (UKCDR) and GloPID-R COVID-19 Research Project Tracker to assess the alignment of funded projects in the region to the WHO COVID-19 research priorities.Results We identified 453 funders and funding sources supporting COVID-19 research in the Asia-Pacific Region including public, private and philanthropic organisations and universities. However, these organisations were clustered in few countries in the region. The in-depth analysis of the UKCDR and GloPID-R COVID-19 Research project Tracker found limited research involving Asia-Pacific countries with the 117 funders supporting these projects investing at least US$604m in COVID-19 research in the region. Social Sciences was the dominant theme on which funded projects focused whereas the priority areas with the least number of projects were research on ‘animal and environmental health’ and ‘ethics considerations for research’.Conclusion Our analyses show the diversity of funding sources for research on infectious diseases in the Asia-Pacific region. Engagement between multiple actors in the health research system is likely to promote enhanced coordination for greater research impact. GloPID-R’s Asia-Pacific regional hub aims to support activities for the enhancement of preparedness for outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases in the region.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in an unprecedented research response, demonstrating exceptional examples of rapid research and collaboration. There has however been an ongoing need for greater coordination, with limited resources for research and the shifting global pandemic. Methods: The UK Collaborative on Development Research (UKCDR) and Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R), two funder coordination groups have collaborated to develop a live database of funded research projects across the world relating to COVID-19. Drawing data continually from their members and further global funding bodies, as of 15th October 2022 the database contains 20,006 projects, funded by 351 funders, taking place across 157 countries representing an investment of at least $7.4 billion. To our knowledge it is one of the most comprehensive databases. The database is aligned to the World Health Organisation and GloPID-R Global Research Roadmap: 2019 Novel Coronavirus and the UN Research Roadmap for the COVID-19 Recovery. It is being used by the WHO, governments and further policy makers, research funders and researchers. This living mapping review aims to supplement the database by providing an open, accessible, and frequently updated resource summarising the characteristics of the COVID-19 funded research portfolio. Both descriptive and thematic analyses are presented and updated frequently to aid interpretation of the global COVID-19 funded research portfolio. Results: In this final version ten analysis, we provide an updated detailed descriptive analysis of the database (on data from three months after version nine) and focus our thematic analysis on research gaps, research areas in need of coordination, study populations, and research locations (with a focus on resource-limited countries). Conclusions: As the global research response to COVID-19 plateaus, this living mapping review has helped both funders and researchers to prioritise resources and review investments.

The prognosis of children with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has improved incrementally over the last few decades. However, at relapse, overall survival (OS) is approximately 40–50% and is even lower for patients with chemo-refractory disease. Effective and less toxic therapies are urgently needed for these children. The Pediatric Acute Leukemia (PedAL) program is a strategic global initiative that aims to overcome the obstacles in treating children with relapsed/refractory acute leukemia and is supported by the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society in collaboration with the Children’s Oncology Group, the Innovative Therapies for Children with Cancer consortium, and the European Pediatric Acute Leukemia (EuPAL) foundation, amongst others. In Europe, the study is set up as a complex clinical trial with a stratification approach to allocate patients to sub-trials of targeted inhibitors at relapse and employing harmonized response and safety definitions across sub-trials. The PedAL/EuPAL international collaboration aims to determine new standards of care for AML in a first and second relapse, using biology-based selection markers for treatment stratification, and deliver essential data to move drugs to front-line pediatric AML studies. An overview of potential treatment targets in pediatric AML, focused on drugs that are planned to be included in the PedAL/EuPAL project, is provided in this manuscript.

Abstract The ongoing investigations into clusters of children affected by severe acute hepatitis of unknown aetiology have put our global capacity for a coordinated, effective response to the test. The global health community have rapidly convened to share data and inform the response. In the UK, where most cases were initially identified, a coordinated public health and clinical research response was rapidly initiated. Since then, cases have been reported from other countries, predominantly from higher-income countries. While agencies are keeping an open mind to the cause, the working hypothesis and case notifications raise important questions about our capacity to detect emerging cases in lower-resourced settings with a recognised lack of access to diagnostics even for commonly circulating viruses such as hepatitis A. The limited capability to generate integrated global pathogen surveillance data is a challenge for the outbreak investigations, highlighting an urgent need to strengthen access to diagnostics, with a focus on lower-resourced settings, to improve the capacity to detect emerging diseases to inform care and to improve outcomes and outbreak control.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in an unprecedented research response, demonstrating exceptional examples of rapid research and collaboration. There has however been an ongoing need for greater coordination, with limited resources for research and the shifting global pandemic. Methods: The UK Collaborative on Development Research (UKCDR) and Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R), two funder coordination groups have collaborated to develop a live database of funded research projects across the world relating to COVID-19. Drawing data continually from their members and further global funding bodies, as of 15th July 2022 the database contains 17,955 projects, funded by 345 funders, taking place across 157 countries representing an investment of at least $6.5 billion. To our knowledge it is one of the most comprehensive databases. The database is aligned to the World Health Organisation and GloPID-R Global Research Roadmap: 2019 Novel Coronavirus and the UN Research Roadmap for the COVID-19 Recovery. It is being used by the WHO, governments and further policy makers, research funders and researchers. This living mapping review aims to supplement the database by providing an open accessible and frequently updated resource summarising the characteristics of the COVID-19 funded research portfolio. Both descriptive and thematic analysis are presented and updated frequently to aid interpretation of the global COVID-19 funded research portfolio. Results: In this version nine analysis we provide an updated detailed descriptive analysis of the database (on data from three months after version eight) and focus our thematic analysis on research gaps, research areas in need of coordination, study populations and research locations (with a focus on resource-limited countries). Conclusions: As the global funding response to COVID-19 plateaus, this living mapping review helps both funders and researchers to prioritise resources and review investments.

Background: Prioritisation of research activities for infectious disease pathogens is usually undertaken through the identification of important research and knowledge gaps. Research prioritisation is an essential element of both effective responses to disease outbreaks and adequate preparedness. There is however currently no published mapping of activities on and evidence from research prioritisation for high consequence pathogens. The objectives of this review are to map all published research prioritisation exercises on high-consequence pathogens; provide an overview of methodologies employed for prioritising research for these pathogens; describe monitoring and evaluation processes for research areas prioritised; and identify any standards and guidance for effectively undertaking research prioritisation activities for high consequence pathogens. Methods: The Joanna Briggs Institute guidance of scoping review conduct will be used. The search will be undertaken using the key terms of “research prioritisation”, “response”, “control”, and related terms, and a list of high-consequence pathogens derived from WHO (2020), EMERGE (2019), Europe CDC (2022) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2021). We will search WHO Global Index Medicus; Ovid Medline; Ovid Embase; Ovid Global Health; and Scopus. Backward citations review of the included full text documents will also be conducted. Google Scholar and Overton will be searched for grey literature. Two independent reviewers will screen the retrieved documents using Rayyan and extract data in a data extraction template in Microsoft Excel 2021. Screening results will be presented using the PRISMA-ScR template with narrative synthesis undertaken for the extracted data. Conclusion: This review will map existing research priorities for high consequence pathogens. Further, it will provide an understanding of methodologies used for prioritisation, processes for monitoring and evaluation of progress made against research agendas, and evidence on standards that could be recommended for effective prioritisation of research for high consequence pathogens.

The Sudan ebolavirus (SUDV) outbreak highlights our ongoing vulnerability to re-emerging high-consequence infectious diseases. Although the Minister of health in Uganda has initiated public health measures in collaboration with neighbouring countries and with support of the WHO, cases have continued to spread to several regions including the capital. The ongoing transmission, uncertain case numbers and no licensed vaccine or therapeutics available are a cause for concern. We searched four databases for SUDV research using the search terms “SUDV”, “Sudan Virus” and “Ebola Sudan”. Our analysis identified only 20 SUDV research studies. Most were implemented in the USA and only one in Uganda. Nine studies were on therapeutics, eight on vaccines, one on diagnostics, one in one health and one in social science. Our data highlight a lack of SUDV research and an urgent need for investment to identify an effective vaccine, and optimal supportive care and therapeutic strategies for all at risk groups as a key research priority. Research investments should be prioritised into vaccines and treatment strategies that will be accessible to high-risk populations in affected regions during the outbreak, to protect populations, improve individual outcomes and facilitate outbreak control.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in an unprecedented research response, demonstrating exceptional examples of rapid research and collaboration. There has however been an ongoing need for greater coordination, with limited resources for research and the shifting global pandemic. Methods: The UK Collaborative on Development Research (UKCDR) and Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R), two funder coordination groups have collaborated to develop a live database of funded research projects across the world relating to COVID-19. Drawing data continually from their members and further global funding bodies, as of 15th April 2022 the database contains 16,353 projects, funded by 319 funders, taking place across 157 countries representing an investment of at least $6.2 billion. To our knowledge it is one of the most comprehensive databases. The database is aligned to the World Health Organisation and GloPID-R Global Research Roadmap: 2019 Novel Coronavirus and the UN Research Roadmap for the COVID-19 Recovery. It is being used by the WHO, governments and further policy makers, research funders and researchers. This living mapping review aims to supplement the database by providing an open accessible and frequently updated resource summarising the characteristics of the COVID-19 funded research portfolio. Both descriptive and thematic analysis are presented and updated frequently to aid interpretation of the global COVID-19 funded research portfolio. Results: In this version eight analysis we provide an updated detailed descriptive analysis of the database (on data from three months after version seven) and focus our thematic analysis on research gaps, research areas in need of coordination, study populations and research locations (with a focus on resource-limited countries). Conclusions: As the global funding response to COVID-19 plateaus, this living mapping review helps both funders and researchers to prioritise resources to areas where there is continued unmet research need.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in an unprecedented research response, demonstrating exceptional examples of rapid research and collaboration. There has however been an ongoing need for greater coordination, with limited resources for research and the shifting global pandemic. Methods: The UK Collaborative on Development Research (UKCDR) and Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R), two funder coordination groups have collaborated to develop a live database of funded research projects across the world relating to COVID-19. Drawing data continually from their members and further global funding bodies, as of 15th January 2022 the database contains 14,778 projects, funded by 306 funders, taking place across 157 countries representing an investment of at least $5.7 billion. To our knowledge it is one of the most comprehensive databases. The database is aligned to the World Health Organisation and GloPID-R Global Research Roadmap: 2019 Novel Coronavirus and the UN Research Roadmap for the COVID-19 Recovery. It is being used by the WHO, governments and further policy makers, research funders and researchers. This living mapping review aims to supplement the database by providing an open accessible and frequently updated resource summarising the characteristics of the COVID-19 funded research portfolio. Both descriptive and thematic analysis are presented and updated frequently to aid interpretation of the global COVID-19 funded research portfolio. Results: In this version seven analysis we provide an updated detailed descriptive analysis of the database (on data from three months after version six) and focus our thematic analysis on research gaps, research areas in need of coordination, study populations and research locations (with a focus on resource-limited countries). Conclusions: As the global funding response to COVID-19 plateaus, this living mapping review helps both funders and researchers to prioritise resources to areas where there is continued unmet research need.

Background Monkeypox (MPX) is an important human Orthopoxvirus infection. There has been an increase in MPX cases and outbreaks in endemic and non-endemic regions in recent decades. We appraised the availability, scope, quality and inclusivity of clinical management guidelines for MPX globally.Methods For this systematic review, we searched six databases from inception until 14 October 2021, augmented by a grey literature search until 17 May 2022. MPX guidelines providing treatment and supportive care recommendations were included, with no exclusions for language. Two reviewers assessed the guidelines. Quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool.Results Of 2026 records screened, 14 guidelines were included. Overall, most guidelines were of low-quality with a median score of 2 out of 7 (range: 1–7), lacked detail and covered a narrow range of topics. Most guidelines focused on adults, five (36%) provided some advice for children, three (21%) for pregnant women and three (21%) for people living with HIV. Treatment guidance was mostly limited to advice on antivirals; seven guidelines advised cidofovir (four specified for severe MPX only); 29% (4/14) tecovirimat, and 7% (1/14) brincidofovir. Only one guideline provided recommendations on supportive care and treatment of complications. All guidelines recommended vaccination as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Three guidelines advised on vaccinia immune globulin as PEP for severe cases in people with immunosuppression.Conclusion Our results highlight a lack of evidence-based clinical management guidelines for MPX globally. There is a clear and urgent need for research into treatment and prophylaxis including for different risk populations. The current outbreak provides an opportunity to accelerate this research through coordinated high-quality studies. New evidence should be incorporated into globally accessible guidelines, to benefit patient and epidemic outcomes. A ‘living guideline’ framework is recommended.PROSPERO registration number CRD42020167361.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in an unprecedented research response, demonstrating exceptional examples of rapid research and collaboration. There has however been an ongoing need for greater coordination, with limited resources for research and the shifting global nature of the pandemics. Methods: The UK Collaborative on Development Research (UKCDR) and Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R), two funder coordination groups have collaborated to develop a live database of funded research projects across the world relating to COVID-19. Drawing data continually from their members and further global funding bodies, as of 15th October 2021 the database contains 13,484 projects, funded by 285 funders, taking place across 156 countries representing an investment of at least $5.1 billion. To our knowledge it is one of the most comprehensive databases. The database is aligned to the World Health Organisation and GloPID-R Global Research Roadmap: 2019 Novel Coronavirus. It is being used by the WHO, governments and multi-lateral policy makers, research funders and researchers. This living mapping review aims to supplement the database by providing an open accessible and frequently updated resource summarising the characteristics of the COVID-19 funded research portfolio. Both descriptive and thematic analysis will be presented and updated frequently to aid interpretation of the global COVID-19 funded research portfolio. Results: In this version six analysis we provide an updated detailed descriptive analysis of the database (on data from three months after version five) and focus our thematic analysis on research gaps, research areas in need of coordination, study populations and research locations (with a focus on resource-limited countries). Conclusions: As the global funding response to COVID-19 plateaus, this living mapping review helps both funders and researchers to prioritise resources to areas where there is continued unmet research need.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in an unprecedented research response, demonstrating exceptional examples of rapid research and collaboration. There is however a need for greater coordination, with limited resources and the shifting global nature of the pandemic resulting in a proliferation of research projects underpowered and unable to achieve their aims. Methods: The UK Collaborative on Development Research (UKCDR) and Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R), two funder coordination groups have collaborated to develop a live database of funded research projects across the world relating to COVID-19. Drawing data continually from their members and further global funding bodies, as of 15th July 2021 the database contains 12,419 projects, funded by 255 funders, taking place across 149 countries representing an investment of at least $4.9 billion. To our knowledge it is one of the most comprehensive databases. The database is aligned to the World Health Organisation and GloPID-R Global Research Roadmap: 2019 Novel Coronavirus. It is being used by the WHO, governments and multi-lateral policy makers, research funders and researchers. This living mapping review aims to supplement the database by providing an open accessible and frequently updated resource summarising the characteristics of the COVID-19 funded research portfolio. Both descriptive and thematic analysis will be presented and updated frequently to aid interpretation of the global COVID-19 funded research portfolio. Results: In this version five analysis we provide an updated detailed descriptive analysis of the database (three months after version four) and focus our thematic analysis on research gaps, research areas in need of coordination, study populations and research locations (with a focus on resource-limited countries). Conclusions: As the global funding response to COVID-19 plateaus, this living mapping review helps both funders and researchers to prioritise resources to areas where there is continued unmet research need.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in an unprecedented research response, demonstrating exceptional examples of rapid research and collaboration. There is however a need for greater coordination, with limited resources and the shifting global nature of the pandemic resulting in a proliferation of research projects underpowered and unable to achieve their aims. Methods: The UK Collaborative on Development Research (UKCDR) and Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R), two funder coordination groups have collaborated to develop a live database of funded research projects across the world relating to COVID-19. Drawing data continually from their members and further global funding bodies, as of 15th April 2021 the database contains 10,608 projects, funded by 201 funders, taking place across 142 countries representing an investment of at least $4.7 billion. To our knowledge it is one of the most comprehensive databases. The database is aligned to the World Health Organisation and GloPID-R Global Research Roadmap: 2019 Novel Coronavirus. It is being used by the WHO, governments and multi-lateral policy makers, research funders and researchers. This living mapping review aims to supplement the database by providing an open accessible and frequently updated resource summarising the characteristics of the COVID-19 funded research portfolio. Both descriptive and thematic analysis will be presented and updated frequently to aid interpretation of the global COVID-19 funded research portfolio. Results: In this version four analysis we provide an updated detailed descriptive analysis of the database (three months after version three) and focus our thematic analysis on research gaps, research areas in need of coordination, study populations and research locations (with a focus on resource-limited countries). Conclusions: As the global funding response to COVID-19 plateaus, this living mapping review helps both funders and researchers to prioritise resources to areas where there is continued unmet research need.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in an unprecedented research response, demonstrating exceptional examples of rapid research and collaboration. There is however a need for greater coordination, with limited resources and the shifting global nature of the pandemic resulting in a proliferation of research projects underpowered and unable to achieve their aims. Methods: The UK Collaborative on Development Research (UKCDR) and Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R), two funder coordination groups have collaborated to develop a live database of funded research projects across the world relating to COVID-19. Drawing data continually from their members and further global funding bodies, as of 15th October 2020 the database contains 5,084 projects, funded by 71 funders, taking place across 134 countries representing an investment of at least $1.7 billion. To our knowledge it is one of the most comprehensive databases, covering a wide breadth of research disciplines. The database is aligned to the World Health Organisation (WHO) Global Research Roadmap: 2019 Novel Coronavirus. It is being used by the WHO, governments and multi-lateral policy makers, research funders and researchers. This living mapping review aims to supplement the database by providing an open accessible and frequently updated resource summarising the characteristics of the COVID-19 funded research portfolio. Both descriptive and thematic analysis will be presented and updated frequently to aid interpretation of the global COVID-19 funded research portfolio. Results: In this three-month update analysis we provide an updated detailed descriptive analysis of the database and focus our thematic analysis on research gaps, research areas in need of coordination, study populations and research locations (with a focus on resource-limited countries). Conclusions: This living mapping review will help both funders and researchers to prioritise resources to underfunded areas where there is greatest research need and facilitate further strategic collaboration.

Background: Emerging data from Africa indicates remarkably low numbers of reported COVID-19 deaths despite high levels of disease transmission. However, evolution of these trends as the pandemic progresses remains unknown. More certain are the devastating long-term impacts of the pandemic on health and development evident globally. Research tailored to the unique needs of African countries is crucial. UKCDR and GloPID-R have launched a tracker of funded COVID-19 projects mapped to the WHO research priorities and research priorities of Africa and less-resourced countries and published a baseline analysis of a living systematic review (LSR) of these projects. Methods: In-depth analyses of the baseline LSR for COVID-19 funded research projects in Africa (as of 15th July 2020) to determine the funding landscape and alignment of the projects to research priorities of relevance to Africa. Results: The limited COVID-19 related research across Africa appears to be supported mainly by international funding, especially from Europe, although with notably limited funding from United States-based funders. At the time of this analysis no research projects funded by an African-based funder were identified in the tracker although there are several active funding calls geared at research in Africa and there may be funding data that has not been made publicly available. Many projects mapped to the WHO research priorities and five particular gaps in research funding were identified, namely: investigating the role of children in COVID-19 transmission; effective modes of community engagement; health systems research; communication of uncertainties surrounding mother-to-child transmission of COVID-19; and identifying ways to promote international cooperation. Capacity strengthening was identified as a dominant theme in funded research project plans. Conclusions: We found significantly lower funding investments in COVID-19 research in Africa compared to high-income countries, seven months into the pandemic, indicating a paucity of research targeting the research priorities of relevance to Africa.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in an unprecedented research response, demonstrating exceptional examples of rapid research and collaboration. There is however a need for greater coordination, with limited resources and the shifting global nature of the pandemic resulting in a proliferation of research projects underpowered and unable to achieve their aims. Methods: The UK Collaborative on Development Research (UKCDR) and Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R), two funder coordination groups have collaborated to develop a live database of funded research projects across the world relating to COVID-19. Drawing data continually from their members and further global funding bodies, as of 15th July 2020 the database contains 1,858 projects, funded by 25 funders, taking place across 102 countries. To our knowledge it is one of the most comprehensive databases, covering a wide breadth of research disciplines. The database is aligned to the World Health Organisation (WHO) Global Research Roadmap: 2019 Novel Coronavirus. It is being used by the WHO, governments and multi-lateral policy makers, research funders and researchers. This living systematic review aims to supplement the database by providing an open accessible and frequently updated resource summarising the characteristics of the COVID-19 funded research portfolio. Both descriptive and thematic analysis will be presented and updated frequently to aid interpretation of the global COVID-19 funded research portfolio. Results: In this baseline analysis we provide the first detailed descriptive analysis of the database and focus our thematic analysis on research gaps, study populations and research locations (with a focus on resource-limited countries). Conclusions: This living systematic review will help both funders and researchers to prioritise resources to underfunded areas where there is greatest research need and facilitate further strategic collaboration.

Introduction In March 2020, the WHO released a Global Research Roadmap in an effort to coordinate and accelerate the global research response to combat COVID-19 based on deliberations of 400 experts across the world. Three months on, the disease and our understanding have both evolved significantly. As we now tackle a pandemic in very different contexts and with increased knowledge, we sought to build on the work of the WHO to gain a more current and global perspective on these initial priorities.Methods We undertook a mixed methods study seeking the views of the global research community to (1) assess which of the early WHO roadmap priorities are still most pressing; (2) understand whether they are still valid in different settings, regions or countries; and (3) identify any new emerging priorities.Results Thematic analysis of the significant body of combined data shows the WHO roadmap is globally relevant; however, new important priorities have emerged, in particular, pertinent to low and lower middle-income countries (less resourced countries), where health systems are under significant competing pressures. We also found a shift from prioritising vaccine and therapeutic development towards a focus on assessing the effectiveness, risks, benefits and trust in the variety of public health interventions and measures. Our findings also provide insight into temporal nature of these research priorities, highlighting the urgency of research that can only be undertaken within the period of virus transmission, as well as other important research questions but which can be answered outside the transmission period. Both types of studies are key to help combat this pandemic but also importantly to ensure we are better prepared for the future.Conclusion We hope these findings will help guide decision-making across the broad research system including the multilateral partners, research funders, public health practitioners, clinicians and civil society.

To characterize the incidence, clinical features and genetics of ETV6-ABL1 leukemias, representing targetable kinase-activating lesions, we analyzed 44 new and published cases of ETV6-ABL1-positive hematologic malignancies [22 cases of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (13 children, 9 adults) and 22 myeloid malignancies (18 myeloproliferative neoplasms, 4 acute myeloid leukemias)]. The presence of the ETV6-ABL1 fusion was ascertained by cytogenetics, fluorescence in-situ hybridization, reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction and RNA sequencing. Genomic and gene expression profiling was performed by single nucleotide polymorphism and expression arrays. Systematic screening of more than 4,500 cases revealed that in acute lymphoblastic leukemia ETV6-ABL1 is rare in childhood (0.17% cases) and slightly more common in adults (0.38%). There is no systematic screening of myeloproliferative neoplasms; however, the number of ETV6-ABL1-positive cases and the relative incidence of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and myeloproliferative neoplasms suggest that in adulthood ETV6-ABL1 is more common in BCR-ABL1-negative chronic myeloid leukemia-like myeloproliferations than in acute lymphoblastic leukemia. The genomic profile of ETV6-ABL1 acute lymphoblastic leukemia resembled that of BCR-ABL1 and BCR-ABL1-like cases with 80% of patients having concurrent CDKN2A/B and IKZF1 deletions. In the gene expression profiling all the ETV6-ABL1-positive samples clustered in close vicinity to BCR-ABL1 cases. All but one of the cases of ETV6-ABL1 acute lymphoblastic leukemia were classified as BCR-ABL1-like by a standardized assay. Over 60% of patients died, irrespectively of the disease or age subgroup examined. In conclusion, ETV6-ABL1 fusion occurs in both lymphoid and myeloid leukemias; the genomic profile and clinical behavior resemble BCR-ABL1-positive malignancies, including the unfavorable prognosis, particularly of acute leukemias. The poor outcome suggests that treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors should be considered for patients with this fusion.