How Much Is The World Spending On Neglected Disease Research And Development?

February 5, 2009 at 2:00 pm Leave a comment


The first comprehensive survey of global spending on neglected disease R&D, published in this week’s PLoS Medicine, finds that just over $US 2.5
billion was invested into R&D of new products in 2007, with three diseases-HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria-receiving nearly 80% of the total.



However, the survey finds that many neglected diseases, responsible for killing millions of people in developing countries, are significantly
underfunded.



Researchers from The George Institute report that while HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria collectively received the majority of R&D funding, other diseases and
disease categories each received less than 5% of global funding.



Sleeping sickness, leishmaniasis and Chagas disease collectively received only 4.9% of total global funding; the diarrhoeal illnesses surveyed
collectively received 4.5% of global funding; the helminth (worm) infections received 2%; and bacterial pneumonia and meningitis received only 1.3%.
Five diseases – leprosy, Buruli ulcer, trachoma, rheumatic fever, and typhoid and paratyphoid fever – each received less than $10 million or 0.4% of
total global investment. For many of these diseases, funding was not enough to create even one new product.



The need for R&D to develop new drugs and vaccines for preventing and treating neglected tropical infections in developing countries is widely
accepted. For example, the creation of a vaccine for HIV/AIDS, more effective tools to diagnose TB, and better drug treatments for leishmaniasis and
sleeping sickness would greatly improve health in the developing world. However, there has until now been an “information gap” for funders
wishing to invest in this area.



In the new survey by Dr Mary Moran (The George Institute for International Health, Sydney, Australia) and colleagues, commissioned by the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation, the researchers set out to fill this information gap. While specific R&D investment data were previously available for some
neglected diseases, these cannot readily be compared since each survey used different methodologies and covered different diseases, products, donors,
and countries. Moran and colleagues’ survey was designed to include all neglected diseases and all control tools of significance to developing
countries, and to gather funding data as consistently and comprehensively as possible.



The survey found that public and philanthropic donors collectively invested $US 2.3 billion (about 90%) of total funding in 2007. The US government
represented nearly three quarters of global public spending. The largest organizational donors were the US National Institutes of Health (42% of
total funding) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (18% of total funding). About a quarter of donor funding was routed to public-private product
development partnerships (PDPs), such as the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative and the Medicines for Malaria Venture.



The survey’s findings, say Moran and colleagues, suggests that “investment decisions are not only influenced by scientific or epidemiological
considerations, but may also be influenced by factors such as the presence of advocacy and fundraising groups; by funder perceptions or preferences;
or by the presence of policy frameworks and funding mechanisms that prioritise specific diseases.”



The researchers also note that some of the world’s wealthiest countries are “missing in action” from the top 10, top 20, or even top 50 funders
of R&D for neglected diseases.



“A broadening of funding efforts,” they say, “so that all who are able to contribute do so, and all diseases receive the attention they deserve,
would lead to a dramatic positive impact on the health of developing country patients afflicted with these diseases.”



This survey is being discussed at a press briefing on Wednesday 4 February 2009, 9.30AM at the Royal College of Physicians, London – 11 St Andrews
Place, London.



Citation:
” Neglected disease research and development: How much are we really
spending? “

Moran M, Guzman J, Ropars A-L, McDonald A, Jameson N, et al. (2009)

PLoS Med 6(2): e1000030. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000030

Click here to view article online.



About PLoS Medicine



PLoS Medicine is an open access, freely available international medical journal. It publishes original research that enhances our understanding of
human health and disease, together with commentary and analysis of important global health issues. For more information, visit
http://www.plosmedicine.org



About the Public Library of Science



The Public Library of Science (PLoS) is a non-profit organization of scientists and physicians committed to making the world’s scientific and medical
literature a freely available public resource.



Public Library of Science

[Via http://www.medicalnewstoday.com]

Advertisements

Entry filed under: Uncategorized.

Surgery Is Poorer At Treatment Centres Compared To Full NHS Hospitals, UK Fertility Drugs Do Not Increase Ovarian Cancer Risk

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Archives

Top Clicks

  • None

Blog Stats

  • 15,556 hits

%d bloggers like this: