tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Lancet Infect Dis. 2012 Nov 7. pii: S1473-3099(12)70261-X. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70261-X. [Epub ahead of print]
UK investments in global infectious disease research 1997-2010: a case study.
Head MG, Fitchett JR, Cooke MK, Wurie FB, Hayward AC, Atun R.
Source
University College London, Research Department of Infection and Population Health, UCL Royal Free Campus, London, UK. Electronic address: m.head@ucl.ac.uk.
Abstract
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 ? 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
PMID:
23140942
[PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23140942
UK investments in global infectious disease research 1997-2010: a case study.
Head MG, Fitchett JR, Cooke MK, Wurie FB, Hayward AC, Atun R.
Source
University College London, Research Department of Infection and Population Health, UCL Royal Free Campus, London, UK. Electronic address: m.head@ucl.ac.uk.
Abstract
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 ? 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
PMID:
23140942
[PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23140942