Ebola research funding: a systematic analysis, 1997-2015

Impact of Priority Review Voucher Eligibility on Research and Development of Medical Countermeasures

The priority review voucher was established to incentivize research and development of treatments for traditionally underfunded diseases and was extended to medical countermeasures from 2016 to 2023, despite limited evidence of an association between the voucher program and increased product development. To determine whether the voucher program has incentivized initiation of new medical countermeasures in clinical trials, we created three cohorts of material threats: (i) COVID-19, (ii) opioid pharmaceutical-based agents, and (iii) all others. Using the Citeline Trialtrove database, we determined the number of medical countermeasures initiated in clinical trials from 2009-2016 and 2017-2023. Eligibility of COVID-19 products for the voucher was confirmed with the issuance of a voucher for remdesivir in October 2020, so we compared January 2020-October 2020 to November 2020-July 2023. We fit two Poisson models-before and after voucher creation-within each cohort. Among COVID-19 medical countermeasures, there was a decrease in the proportion of drugs initiated before (4.5%; 95% CI, 1.0 to 8.3%) vs. after voucher eligibility (-5.1%; 95% CI, -6.1 to -4.0%) (P = 0.01). Among opioid pharmaceutical-based agents medical countermeasures, the rate of new drugs initiated did not change from 2009-2016 (8.1%, 95% CI, -4.4 to 22.6%) to 2017-2023 (5.6%; 95% CI, -3.2 to 15.2%) (P = 0.82). Among all other medical countermeasures, the rate of new drugs initiated also did not change from 2009-2016 (6.6%; 95% CI, -5.6 to 20.8%) to 2017-2023 (-14.8%; 95% CI, -29.2 to 2.0%) (P = 0.15). The priority review voucher program was not associated with stimulating new clinical testing of investigational medical countermeasures.

Mapping knowledge landscapes and emerging trends of Marburg virus: A text-mining study

Background

Marburg virus (MARV), a close relative of Ebola virus, could induce hemorrhagic fevers in humans with high mortality rate. In recent years, increasing attention has been paid to this highly lethal virus due to sporadic outbreaks observed in various African nations. This bibliometric analysis endeavors to elucidate the trends, dynamics, and focal points of knowledge that have delineated the landscape of research concerning MARV.

Methods

Relevant literature on MARV from 1968 to 2023 was extracted from the Web of Science Core Collection database. Following this, the data underwent bibliometric analysis and visualization procedures utilizing online analysis platform, CiteSpace 6.2R6, and VOSviewer 1.6.20. Three different types of bibliometric indicators including quantitative indicator, qualitative indicators, and structural indicators were used to gauge a researcher's productivity, assess the quality of their work, and analyze publication relationships, respectively.

Results

MARV is mainly prevalent in Africa. And approximately 643 confirmed cases have been described in the literature to date, and mortality observed was 81.2 % in overall patients. A total of 1014 papers comprising 869 articles and 145 reviews were included. The annual publications showed an increasing growth pattern from 1968 to 2023 (R2 = 0.8838). The United States stands at the forefront of this discipline, having dedicated substantial financial and human resources to scientific inquiry. However, co-authorship analysis showed the international research collaboration needs to be further strengthened. Based on reference and keywords analysis, contemporary MARV research encompasses pivotal areas: primarily, prioritizing the creation of prophylactic vaccines to impede viral spread, and secondarily, exploring targeted antiviral strategies, including small-molecule antivirals or MARV-specific monoclonal antibodies. Additionally, a comprehensive grasp of viral transmission, transcription, and replication mechanisms remains a central focus in ongoing investigations. And future MARV studies are expected to focus on evaluating clinical trial safety and efficacy, developing inhibitors to contain viral spread, exploring vaccine immunogenicity, virus-host association studies, and elucidating the role of neutralizing antibodies in MARV treatment.

Conclusion

The present study offered comprehensive insights into the contemporary status and trajectories of MARV over the past decades. This enables researchers to discern novel collaborative prospects, institutional partnerships, emerging topics, and research forefronts within this domain.

Analysis of National Institutes of Health Funding for the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background

Evaluating the National Institute's Health's (NIH's) response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic via grants and clinical trials is crucial to determining the impact they had on aiding US citizens. We determined how the NIH's funding for COVID-19 research was disbursed and used by various institutions across the United States.

Methods

We queried NIH RePORTER and isolated COVID-19-related grants from January 2020 to December 2021. We analyzed grant type, geographical location, and awardee institution. Manuscripts published from these grants were quantitatively analyzed. COVID-19 clinical trials were mapped and distances from counties to clinical trial sites were calculated using ArcGis.

Results

A total of 2401 COVID-19 NIH grants resulted in 14 654 manuscripts from $4.2 billion and generated more than 150 000 citations. R01s make up 32% of grants (763/2401) and 8% of funding ($329 million). UM1 grants account for the majority of funding (30.8%; $1.3 Billion). Five states received 50.6% of funding: North Carolina, Washington, New York, California, and Massachusetts. Finally, of the 1806 clinical trials across 1266 sites in the United States, the majority were in metropolitan areas in close proximity to areas of high COVID-19 disease burden.

Conclusions and Relevance

Evaluating the outcome of the NIH's response to the COVID-19 pandemic is of interest to the general public. The present study finds that the NIH disbursed more than $4 billion in funding to large consortiums and clinical trials to develop diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines. Approximately 8% of funding was used for R01 grants. Clinical trial sites were generally located in areas of high COVID-19 burden.

The economic burden of Ebola virus disease: a review and recommendations for analysis

BACKGROUND

Ebola virus disease (EVD) continues to be a major public health threat globally, particularly in the low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs) of Africa. The social and economic burdens of EVD are substantial and have triggered extensive research into prevention and control. We aim to highlight the impact and economic implications, identify research gaps, and offer recommendations for future economic studies pertaining to EVD.

METHOD

We conducted a comprehensive librarian-led search in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, EconLit and Scopus for economic evaluations of EVD. After study selection and data extraction, findings on the impact and economics of EVD were synthesized using a narrative approach, while identifying gaps, and recommending critical areas for future EVD economic studies.

RESULTS

The economic evaluations focused on the burden of illness, vaccine cost-effectiveness, willingness-to-pay for a vaccine, EVD funding, and preparedness costs. The estimated economic impact of the 2014 EVD outbreak in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone across studies ranged from $30 billion to $50 billion. Facility construction and modification emerged as significant cost drivers for preparedness. The EVD vaccine demonstrated cost-effectiveness in a dynamic transmission model; resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of about $96 per additional disability adjusted life year averted. Individuals exhibited greater willingness to be vaccinated if it incurred no personal cost, with a minority willing to pay about $1 for the vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS

The severe impact of EVD puts pressure on governments and the international community for better resource utilization and re-allocation. Several technical and methodological issues related to economic evaluation of EVD remain to be addressed, especially for LMICs. We recommend conducting cost-of-sequelae and cost-of-distribution analyses in addition to adapting existing economic analytical methods to EVD. Characteristics of the affected regions should be considered to provide evidence-based economic plans and economic-evaluation of mitigations that enhance resource allocation for prevention and treatment.

Global funding for cancer research between 2016 and 2020: a content analysis of public and philanthropic investments

BACKGROUND

Cancer is a leading cause of disease burden globally, with more than 19·3 million cases and 10 million deaths recorded in 2020. Research is crucial to understanding the determinants of cancer and the effects of interventions, and to improving outcomes. We aimed to analyse global patterns of public and philanthropic investment in cancer research.

METHODS

In this content analysis, we searched the UberResearch Dimensions database and Cancer Research UK data for human cancer research funding awards from public and philanthropic funders between Jan 1, 2016, and Dec 31, 2020. Included award types were project and programme grants, fellowships, pump priming, and pilot projects. Awards focused on operational delivery of cancer care were excluded. Awards were categorised by cancer type, cross-cutting research theme, and research phase. Funding amount was compared with global burden of specific cancers, measured by disability-adjusted life-years, years lived with disability, and mortality using data from the Global Burden of Disease study.

FINDINGS

We identified 66 388 awards with total investment of about US$24·5 billion in 2016-20. Investment decreased year-on-year, with the largest drop observed between 2019 and 2020. Pre-clinical research received 73·5% of the funding across the 5 years ($18 billion), phase 1-4 clinical trials received 7·4% ($1·8 billion), public health research received 9·4% ($2·3 billion), and cross-disciplinary research received 5·0% ($1·2 billion). General cancer research received the largest investment ($7·1 billion, 29·2% of the total funding). The most highly funded cancer types were breast cancer ($2·7 billion [11·2%]), haematological cancer ($2·3 billion [9·4%]), and brain cancer ($1·3 billion [5·5%]). Analysis by cross-cutting theme revealed that 41·2% of investment ($9·6 billion) went to cancer biology research, 19·6% ($4·6 billion) to drug treatment research, and 12·1% ($2·8 billion) to immuno-oncology. 1·4% of the total funding ($0·3 billion) was spent on surgery research, 2·8% ($0·7 billion) was spent on radiotherapy research, and 0·5% ($0·1 billion) was spent on global health studies.

INTERPRETATION

Cancer research funding must be aligned with the global burden of cancer with more equitable funding for cancer research in low-income and middle-income countries (which account for 80% of cancer burden), both to support research relevant to these settings, and build research capacity within these countries. There is an urgent need to prioritise investment in surgery and radiotherapy research given their primacy in the treatment of many solid tumours.

FUNDING

None.

Pandemics and Burden of Stroke and Epilepsy in Sub-Saharan Africa: Experience from a Longstanding Health Programme

Eighty percent of people with stroke live in low- to middle-income nations, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) where stroke has increased by more than 100% in the last decades. More than one-third of all epilepsy-related deaths occur in SSA. HIV infection is a risk factor for neurological disorders, including stroke and epilepsy. The vast majority of the 38 million people living with HIV/AIDS are in SSA, and the burden of neurological disorders in SSA parallels that of HIV/AIDS. Local healthcare systems are weak. Many standalone HIV health centres have become a platform with combined treatment for both HIV and noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), as advised by the United Nations. The COVID-19 pandemic is overwhelming the fragile health systems in SSA, and it is feared it will provoke an upsurge of excess deaths due to the disruption of care for chronic diseases such as HIV, TB, hypertension, diabetes, and cerebrovascular disorders. Disease Relief through Excellent and Advanced Means (DREAM) is a health programme active since 2002 to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS and related disorders in 10 SSA countries. DREAM is scaling up management of NCDs, including neurologic disorders such as stroke and epilepsy. We described challenges and solutions to address disruption and excess deaths from these diseases during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Promoting versatile vaccine development for emerging pandemics

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the importance of rapid and versatile development of emergency medical countermeasures such as vaccines. We discuss the role of platform vaccines and prototype pathogen research in modern vaccine development, and outline how previous pathogen-specific funding approaches can be improved to adequately promote vaccine R&D for emerging pandemics. We present a more comprehensive approach to financing vaccine R&D, which maximises biomedical pandemic preparedness by promoting flexible vaccine platforms and translatable research into prototype pathogens. As the numerous platform-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines show, funders can accelerate pandemic vaccine development by proactively investing in versatile platform technologies. For certain emerging infectious diseases, where vaccine research can translate to other related pathogens with pandemic potential, investment decisions should reflect the full social value of increasing overall preparedness, rather than just the value of bringing a vaccine to market for individual pathogens.

Systematic review of Marburg virus vaccine nonhuman primate studies and human clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Recent deadly outbreaks of Marburg virus underscore the need for an effective vaccine. A summary of the latest research is needed for this WHO priority pathogen. This systematic review aimed to determine progress towards a vaccine for Marburg virus.

METHODS

Article search criteria were developed to query PubMed for peer-reviewed articles from 1990 through 2019 on Marburg virus vaccine clinical trials in humans and pre-clinical studies in non-human primates (NHP). Abstracts were reviewed by two authors. Relevant articles were reviewed in full. Discrepancies were resolved by a third author. Data abstracted included year, author, title, vaccine construct, number of subjects, efficacy, and demographics. Assessment for risk of bias was performed using the Syrcle tool for animal studies, and the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool for human studies.

RESULTS

101 articles were identified; 27 were related to Marburg vaccines. After full text review, 21 articles were selected. 215 human subjects were in three phase 1 clinical trials, and 203 NHP in 18 studies. Vaccine constructs were DNA plasmids, recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) vectors, adenovirus vectors, virus-like particles (VLP), among others. Two human phase 1 studies of DNA vaccines had 4 adverse effects requiring vaccine discontinuation among 128 participants and 31-80% immunogenicity. In NHP challenge studies, 100% survival was seen in 6 VSV vectored vaccines, 2 DNA vaccines, 2 VLP vaccines, and in 1 adenoviral vectored vaccine.

CONCLUSION

In human trials, two Marburg DNA vaccines provided either low immunogenicity or a failure to elicit durable immunity. A variety of NHP candidate Marburg vaccines demonstrated favorable survival and immunogenicity parameters, to include VSV, VLP, and adenoviral vectored vaccines. Elevated binding antibodies appeared to be consistently associated with protection across the NHP challenge studies. Further human trials are needed to advance vaccines to limit the spread of this highly lethal virus.

Funding and COVID-19 research priorities - are the research needs for Africa being met?

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.

Systematic analysis of the scientific literature on population surveillance

Introduction

Population surveillance provides data on the health status of the population through continuous scrutiny of different indicators. Identifying risk factors is essential for the quickly detecting and controlling of epidemic outbreaks and reducing the incidence of cross-infections and non-communicable diseases. The objective of the present study is to analyze research on population surveillance, identifying the main topics of interest for investigators in the area.

Methodology

We included documents indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection in the period from 2000 to 2019 and assigned with the generic Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) “population surveillance” or its related terms (“public health surveillance,” “sentinel surveillance” or “biosurveillance”). A co-occurrence analysis was undertaken to identify the document clusters comprising the main research topics. Scientific production, collaboration, and citation patterns in each of the clusters were characterized bibliometrically. We also analyzed research on coronaviruses, relating the results obtained to the management of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results

We included 39,184 documents, which reflected a steady growth in scientific output driven by papers on “Public, Environmental & Occupational Health” (21.62% of the documents) and “Infectious Diseases” (10.49%). Research activity was concentrated in North America (36.41%) and Europe (32.09%). The USA led research in the area (40.14% of documents). Ten topic clusters were identified, including “Disease Outbreaks,” which is closely related to two other clusters (“Genetics” and “Influenza”). Other clusters of note were “Cross Infections” as well as one that brought together general public health concepts and topics related to non-communicable diseases (cardiovascular and coronary diseases, mental diseases, diabetes, wound and injuries, stroke, and asthma). The rest of the clusters addressed “Neoplasms,” “HIV,” “Pregnancy,” “Substance Abuse/Obesity,” and “Tuberculosis.” Although research on coronavirus has focused on population surveillance only occasionally, some papers have analyzed and collated guidelines whose relevance to the dissemination and management of the COVID-19 pandemic has become obvious. Topics include tracing the spread of the virus, limiting mass gatherings that would facilitate its propagation, and the imposition of quarantines. There were important differences in the scientific production and citation of different clusters: the documents on mental illnesses, stroke, substance abuse/obesity, and cross-infections had much higher citations than the clusters on disease outbreaks, tuberculosis, and especially coronavirus, where these values are substantially lower.

Conclusions

The role of population surveillance should be strengthened, promoting research and the development of public health surveillance systems in countries whose contribution to the area is limited.

The allocation of USdollar;105 billion in global funding from G20 countries for infectious disease research between 2000 and 2017: a content analysis of investments

BACKGROUND

Each year, billions of US$ are spent globally on infectious disease research and development. However, there is little systematic tracking of global research and development. We present research on investments into infectious diseases research from funders in the G20 countries across an 18-year time period spanning 2000-17, comparing amounts invested for different conditions and considering the global burden of disease to identify potential areas of relative underfunding.

METHODS

The study examined research awards made between 2000 and 2017 for infectious disease research from G20-based public and philanthropic funders. We searched research databases using a range of keywords, and open access data were extracted from funder websites. Awards were categorised by type of science, specialty, and disease or pathogen. Data collected included study title, abstract, award amount, funder, and year. We used descriptive statistics and Spearman's correlation coefficient to investigate the association between research investment and disease burden, using Global Burden of Disease 2017 study data.

FINDINGS

The final 2000-17 dataset included 94 074 awards for infectious disease research, with a sum investment of $104·9 billion (annual range 4·1 billion to 8·4 billion) and a median award size of $257 176 (IQR 62 562-770 661). Pre-clinical research received $61·1 billion (58·2%) across 70 337 (74·8%) awards and public health research received $29·5 billion (28·1%) from 19 197 (20·4%) awards. HIV/AIDS received $42·1 billion (40·1%), tuberculosis received $7·0 billion (6·7%), malaria received $5·6 billion (5·3%), and pneumonia received $3·5 billion (3·3%). Funding for Ebola virus ($1·2 billion), Zika virus ($0·3 billion), influenza ($4·4 billion), and coronavirus ($0·5 billion) was typically highest soon after a high-profile outbreak. There was a general increase in year-on-year investment in infectious disease research between 2000 and 2006, with a decline between 2007 and 2017. Funders based in the USA provided $81·6 billion (77·8%). Based on funding per 2017 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), HIV/AIDS received the greatest relative investment ($772 per DALY), compared with tuberculosis ($156 per DALY), malaria ($125 per DALY), and pneumonia ($33 per DALY). Syphilis and scabies received the least relative investment (both $9 per DALY). We observed weak positive correlation (r=0·30) between investment and 2017 disease burden.

INTERPRETATION

HIV research received the highest amount of investment relative to DALY burden. Scabies and syphilis received the lowest relative funding. Investments for high-threat pathogens (eg, Ebola virus and coronavirus) were often reactive and followed outbreaks. We found little evidence that funding is proactively guided by global burden or pandemic risk. Our findings show how research investments are allocated and how this relates to disease burden and diseases with pandemic potential.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

An opportunity to incentivize innovation to increase vaccine safety in the United States by improving vaccine delivery using vaccine patches

Vaccines represent cost-effective and safe interventions that provide substantial health and economic benefits to individuals and populations. The US vaccine enterprise that supports all aspects of immunization continues to encourage innovation. Despite some limited historical recommendations to create a fund to support investments in vaccine safety, and recent legislation that supports innovation for new vaccines (the 21st Century Cures Act, Public Law 114–255), to date the US lacks financial incentives to fund innovation in vaccine delivery technologies. Building on separate reviews of the US Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) and the state of development of vaccine patches as an innovative vaccine delivery platform, we suggest an opportunity to allocate some VICP Trust Fund resources to prevent future VICP claims by creating a new incentives fund to support translational studies for improving vaccine delivery technologies. We identify shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a test case.

Challenges and opportunities for China entering global research and development for emerging infectious diseases: a case study from Ebola experience

Background

China has emerged as a powerful platform for global pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) amid the 2014 Ebola outbreak. The research and development impact of developing countries on prevention and control of infectious disease outbreaks has long been underestimated, particularly for emerging economies like China. Here, we studied its research and development progress and government support in response to Ebola outbreak by timeline, input, and output at each research and development stage. This study will contribute to a deeper understanding of the research and development gaps and challenges faced by China, as well as providing evidence-based suggestions on how to accelerate the drug development process to meet urgent needs during future outbreaks.

Methods

Data were obtained from the National Nature Science Foundation of China database, PubMed database, Patent Search System of the State Intellectual Property Office of China, National Medical Products Administration, national policy reports and literature between Jan 1st, 2006 and Dec 31st, 2017. An overview of research funding, research output, pharmaceutical product patent, and product licensed was described and analyzed by Microsoft Excel. A descriptive analysis with a visualization of plotting charts and graphs was conducted by reporting the mean ± standard deviation.

Results

China has successfully completed the research and development of the Ebola Ad5-EBOV vaccine within 26 months, while the preparation and implementation of clinical trials took relative long time. The National Nature Science Foundation of China funded CNY 44.05 million (USD 6.27 million) for Ebola-related researches and committed strongly to the phase of basic research (87.8%). A proliferation of literature arose between 2014 and 2015, with a 1.7-fold increase in drug research and a 2.5-fold increase in diagnostic research within 1 year. Three years on from the Ebola outbreak, six Ebola-related products in China were approved by the National Medical Products Administration.

Conclusions

China has started to emphasize the importance of medical product innovation as one of the solutions for tackling emerging infectious diseases. Continuing research on the development of regulatory and market incentives, as well as a multilateral collaboration mechanism that unifies cross-channel supports, would advance the process for China to enter global R&D market more effectively.

Synergistic China-US Ecological Research is Essential for Global Emerging Infectious Disease Preparedness

The risk of a zoonotic pandemic disease threatens hundreds of millions of people. Emerging infectious diseases also threaten livestock and wildlife populations around the world and can lead to devastating economic damages. China and the USA-due to their unparalleled resources, widespread engagement in activities driving emerging infectious diseases and national as well as geopolitical imperatives to contribute to global health security-play an essential role in our understanding of pandemic threats. Critical to efforts to mitigate risk is building upon existing investments in global capacity to develop training and research focused on the ecological factors driving infectious disease spillover from animals to humans. International cooperation, particularly between China and the USA, is essential to fully engage the resources and scientific strengths necessary to add this ecological emphasis to the pandemic preparedness strategy. Here, we review the world's current state of emerging infectious disease preparedness, the ecological and evolutionary knowledge needed to anticipate disease emergence, the roles that China and the USA currently play as sources and solutions to mitigating risk, and the next steps needed to better protect the global community from zoonotic disease.

Resource allocation for biomedical research: analysis of investments by major funders

Background

Data on grants for biomedical research by 10 major funders of health research were collected from the World RePORT platform to explore what is being funded, by whom and where. This analysis is part of the World Health Organization Global Observatory on Health Research and Development’s work with the overall aim to enable evidence-informed deliberations and decisions on new investments in health research and development. The analysis expands on the interactive data visualisations of these data on the Observatory’s website and describes the methods used to enable the categorisation of grants by health categories using automated data-mining techniques.

Methods

Grants data were extracted from the World RePORT platform for 2016, the most recent year with data from all funders. A data-mining algorithm was developed in Java to categorise grants by health category. The analysis explored the distribution of grants by funder, recipient country and organisation, type of grant, health category, average grant duration, and the nature of collaborations between recipients of direct grants and the institutions they collaborated with.

Results

Out of a total of 69,420 grants in 2016, the United States of America’s National Institutes of Health funded the greatest number of grants (52,928; 76%) and had the longest average grant duration (6 years and 10 months). Grants for research constituted 70.4% (48,879) of all types of grants, followed by grants for training (13,008; 18.7%) and meetings (2907; 4.2%). Of grant recipients by income group, low-income countries received only 0.2% (165) of all grants. Almost three-quarters of all grants were for non-communicable diseases (72%; 40,035), followed by communicable, maternal, perinatal and nutritional conditions (20%; 11,123), and injuries (6%; 3056). Only 1.1% of grants were for neglected tropical diseases and 0.4% for priority diseases on the WHO list of highly infectious (R&D blueprint) pathogens.

Conclusions

The findings highlight the importance of considering funding decisions by other actors in future health research and capacity-strengthening decisions. This will not only improve efficiency and equity in allocating scarce resources but will also allow informed investment decisions that aim to support research on public health needs and neglected areas.

Recent advances in the development and evaluation of molecular diagnostics for Ebola virus disease

INTRODUCTION

The 2014-16 outbreak of ebola virus disease (EVD) in West Africa resulted in 11,308 deaths. During the outbreak only 60% of patients were laboratory confirmed and global health authorities have identified the need for accurate and readily deployable molecular diagnostics as an important component of the ideal response to future outbreaks, to quickly identify and isolate patients. Areas covered: Currently PCR-based techniques and rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) that detect antigens specific to EVD infections dominate the diagnostic landscape, but recent advances in biosensor technologies have led to novel approaches for the development of EVD diagnostics. This review summarises the literature and available performance data of currently available molecular diagnostics for ebolavirus, identifies knowledge gaps and maps out future priorities for research in this field. Expert opinion: While there are now a plethora of diagnostic tests for EVD at various stages of development, there is an acute need for studies to compare their clinical performance, but the sporadic nature of EVD outbreaks makes this extremely challenging, demanding pragmatic new modalities of research funding and ethical/institutional approval, to enable responsive research in outbreak settings. Retrospective head-to-head diagnostic comparisons could also be implemented using biobanked specimens, providing this can be done safely.

Importance of diagnostics in epidemic and pandemic preparedness

Diagnostics are fundamental for successful outbreak containment. In this supplement, ‘Diagnostic preparedness for WHO Blueprint pathogens’, we describe specific diagnostic challenges presented by selected priority pathogens most likely to cause future epidemics.

Some challenges to diagnostic preparedness are common to all outbreak situations, as highlighted by recent outbreaks of Ebola, Zika and yellow fever. In this article, we review these overarching challenges and explore potential solutions. Challenges include fragmented and unreliable funding pathways, limited access to specimens and reagents, inadequate diagnostic testing capacity at both national and community levels of healthcare and lack of incentives for companies to develop and manufacture diagnostics for priority pathogens during non-outbreak periods. Addressing these challenges in an efficient and effective way will require multiple stakeholders—public and private—coordinated in implementing a holistic approach to diagnostics preparedness. All require strengthening of healthcare system diagnostic capacity (including surveillance and education of healthcare workers), establishment of sustainable financing and market strategies and integration of diagnostics with existing mechanisms. Identifying overlaps in diagnostic development needs across different priority pathogens would allow more timely and cost-effective use of resources than a pathogen by pathogen approach; target product profiles for diagnostics should be refined accordingly. We recommend the establishment of a global forum to bring together representatives from all key stakeholders required for the response to develop a coordinated implementation plan. In addition, we should explore if and how existing mechanisms to address challenges to the vaccines sector, such as Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and Gavi, could be expanded to cover diagnostics.

Diagnostic preparedness for infectious disease outbreaks

Diagnostics are crucial in mitigating the effect of disease outbreaks. Because diagnostic development and validation are time consuming, they should be carried out in anticipation of epidemics rather than in response to them. The diagnostic response to the 2014-15 Ebola epidemic, although ultimately effective, was slow and expensive. If a focused mechanism had existed with the technical and financial resources to drive its development ahead of the outbreak, point-of-care Ebola tests supporting a less costly and more mobile response could have been available early on in the diagnosis process. A new partnering model could drive rapid development of tests and surveillance strategies for novel pathogens that emerge in future outbreaks. We look at lessons learned from the Ebola outbreak and propose specific solutions to improve the speed of new assay development and ensure their effective deployment.