News

In this regular feature on Breakthroughs, we highlight some of the most interesting reads in global health research from the past week. Christopher Austin has been named the new director of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. A new analysis compares the innovation and science policies of presidential candidates Barack Obama (D) and Mitt Romney (R). A bill signed into law earlier this year that provided the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with funding is at risk due to federal budget negotiations. An opinion piece calls on US policymakers to “get serious” about funding scientific and research efforts. A breakthrough tool to combat tuberculosis has been launchedby the Critical Path Institute and the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC). The project was the result of collaboration between the Critical Path Institute, CDISC, the FDA, and others through the Critical Path to TB Drug Regimens. Researchers met this week in Boston for the AIDS Vaccine 2012 conference to discuss the latest in efforts to develop a vaccine against the disease.

In this guest post, Rianna Stefanakis—manager of Research and Policy at BIO Ventures for Global Health (BVGH)—writes about a new BVGH study this week in PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. This post originally appeared on the BVGH blog. Here at BVGH, we spend a lot of time working on incentives to mobilize companies toward pursuit of research and development (R&D) projects that tackle neglected tropical diseases. In this quest, we’ve focused a lot of our attention on the Priority Review Voucher (PRV) program—administered by the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA)—because it’s a rare instance of an innovative, cost-neutral program targeted specifically at incentivizing R&D for neglected diseases, and has actually been implemented. Because there is only one example of a voucher being awarded and used since the program was instituted in 2007, there’s a healthy debate around the impact of the PRV and its effectiveness in actually stimulating private sector investment in new neglected disease product development. One aspect of that debate is that pharmaceutical and biotech company executives often cite uncertainty around the value of a voucher as a reason for questioning the PRV’s merit. But regardless of the uncertainty surrounding its value, the PRV program has had some impact on decision-making around neglected disease product development in the private sector, as seen in recent statements by companies such as PaxVax. Investors, CEOs, and other industry executives are familiar with the program, but there has been no in-depth analysis to better understand and document the perceptions of these stakeholders, including their estimates of the PRV’s value. To address this evidence gap, BVGH recently conducted a survey of companies with active drug or vaccine programs in one of the 16 PRV-eligible neglected tropical diseases. Our results are fresh off the online journal presses this week in PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. Our study focused on understanding three areas: The influence of the PRV in setting priorities within biopharmaceutical companies developing medicines for neglected tropical diseases. The perceived monetary value of the PRV. Barriers toward improving the PRV as an incentive for the development of new neglected tropical disease medicines. We received responses from 12 companies, representing 27 unique neglected tropical disease drug or vaccine programs. Through the survey and follow-up interviews, we found that the majority of respondents did consider the PRV incentive when deciding whether or not to pursue neglected tropical disease R&D programs. In fact, two respondents specifically said the PRV was the controlling factor in the initiation or continuation of their respective neglected tropical disease programs. When compared to other possible motivating factors, however, the PRV ranked lower than other identified incentives, such as potential market value in the developing world or emerging markets. This result was not surprising. It is clear that the PRV is not a panacea, but one of a number of incentives meant to encourage biopharmaceutical companies to engage in neglected disease R&D. In addition to the impact of the PRV on portfolio prioritization, we also compiled data on the perceived monetary value of the voucher. Responses spanned a wide range, suggesting there is no industry consensus on the value of the PRV. This finding is not surprising since a PRV has not actually been sold, nor has there been a dollar amount attached to a voucher’s use. The bottom line is that without a better understanding of the actual market for a voucher, a PRV’s value is uncertain and difficult to assess. This was clear in our follow-up interviews with survey respondents. The respondents underscored, first and foremost, the need for a demonstrated sale of a voucher, with the purchase price disclosed. They also cited a need for the FDA to demonstrate support of the program. Finally, developers cited the need for revisions to the implementation rules governing the PRV program—changes that would have to be made by the FDA and Congress. These revisions varied among respondents and included relaxing the requirement that companies issue a one-year advanced notice prior to redeeming a PRV, relaxing the limit on voucher transferability, and providing greater clarity into the revision process for the list of PRV-eligible diseases. We hope these constructive suggestions will be considered by the FDA and other industry stakeholders. These documented suggestions should also be examined in light of the recently-passed Creating Hope Act legislation, which creates a parallel three-voucher pilot PRV program for rare pediatric diseases. Despite these uncertainties, we remain convinced that the PRV represents a valuable incentive for neglected disease research. The PRV program will ultimately generate a number of vouchers—as more PRV-eligible drug candidates are approved—which will reinforce the utility as well as the value of the PRV program. Those approved drugs will have the potential to make a real difference in the fight against neglected tropical diseases. The full paper can be found here.

In this regular feature on Breakthroughs, we highlight some of the most interesting reads in global health research from the past week. The US Food and Drug Administration has announced it will give priority review to a new treatment for multi-drug resistant tuberculosis. The announcement came after the drugmaker applied to the European Medicines Agency for approval. Nils Daulaire, director of the Office of Global Affairs at the US Department of Health and Human Services, writes about the agency’s first-ever global health strategy. Reuters recently examined several scientific breakthroughs in HIV and AIDS in recent years, and how the global financial crisis could impact progress against the disease. An article looks at how the US presidential candidates would handle foreign aid and international development if elected in November. A related piece examines the social, political, and financial issues at play ahead of the presidential election and their implications for domestic and global health programs.

Next week marks a significant step in this year’s presidential elections, as Mitt Romney will become the official nominee for the Republican Party at its convention in Florida. Science and research will likely not appear on the agenda, as Romney, expected Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan, and others will instead focus on topics like reducing federal spending. It’s unfortunate that research will not be a part of the conversation, as new predictions coming out this week indicate that if Romney and Ryan win the election in November, changes could be coming for health research and efforts to develop much-needed new tools for global health. As a Nature article this week points out, Ryan—in his current position as chair of the House Committee on Appropriations—has created a federal budget plan that would, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, cut spending on non-defense research and development (R&D) by five percent, or $3.2 billion, below President Obama’s fiscal year 2013 request. Over the long term, Ryan’s approach would reduce funding for R&D to “historically small sizes,” according to Nature. Equally concerning, Ryan’s approach to federally funded R&D could alter US government support for the later-stages of research to develop new health products, including clinical trials. While Ryan’s federal budget plan calls out support for basic research, it would reduce spending for projects deemed “best left to the private sector.” As Nature points out, some advocates “worry that this might include research such as clinical trials sponsored by the National Institutes of Health for therapies from which the drug industry would be unlikely to profit.” Global health R&D is an issue that Republicans and Democrats need to start talking about on the campaign trail. This is an issue that Republicans and Democrats alike need to address. Research to develop new vaccines, drugs, diagnostics, microbicides, and other tools for neglected diseases unquestionably falls under the category of products from which private industry is unlikely to profit. For this reason, the US government has long worked with other partners to bridge this gap. Indeed, global health R&D has historically been a bipartisan issue in Congress that also spans Republican and Democratic presidential administrations, making the US government the largest funder of global health research in the world. And no matter the party in power, the US government can do more to maximize its investments in global health R&D by increasing its support for the later stages of research, as more global health products are moving into the final stages. This makes any proposal to reduce US spending for clinical trials even more worrisome. It’s not just health advocates who want the candidates to talk about R&D issues. A new poll released this week by Research!America finds that voters want to hear about health research funding on the campaign trail. Ninety percent of voters said candidates should speak about medical research, in addition to issues such as tax reform and public education. It’s important that the candidates—from Obama and Vice President Biden to Romney and Ryan—start talking about these issues head-on. And no matter which party takes the White House in November, support for global health R&D must continue.