Research investments for UK infectious disease research 1997–2013: A systematic analysis of awards to UK institutions alongside national burden of disease

摘要

Highlights ? Within infectious disease research, the UK invests mostly in pre-clinical science. ? Relative to disease burden, pneumonia, syphilis and gonorrhoea appear poorly funded. ? Measles and acute hepatitis C appear relatively well-funded. ? HIV and some respiratory infections appear to be UK research strengths Summary Introduction Infectious disease remains a significant burden in the UK and the focus of significant amounts of research investment each year. The Research Investments in Global Health study has systematically assessed levels of funding for infection research, and here considers investment alongside UK burden of individual infectious diseases. Methods The study included awards to UK institutions between 1997 and 2013 that were related to infectious disease. Awards related to global health projects were excluded here. UK burden data (mortality, years lived with disability, and disability adjusted life years) was sourced from the Global Burden of Disease study (IHME, USA). Awards were categorised by pathogen, disease, disease area and by type of science along the research pipeline (pre-clinical, phase I-III trials, product development, public health, cross-disciplinary research). New metrics present relative levels of funding by comparing sum investment with measures of disease burden. Results There were 5685 relevant awards comprising investment of ￡2.4 billion. By disease, HIV received most funding (￡369.7m; 15.6% of the total investment). Pre-clinical science was the predominant type of science (￡1.6 billion, 68.7%), with the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) the largest funder (￡714.8 million, 30.1%). There is a broad temporal trend to increased fundingper annum. Antimicrobial resistance received (￡102.8 million, 4.2%), whilst sepsis received ￡23.6 million (1.0%). Compared alongside disease burden, acute hepatitis C and measles typically were relatively well-funded, whilst pneumonia, syphilis and gonorrhoea were poorly-funded. Conclusions The UK has a broad research portfolio across a wide range of infectious diseases and disciplines. There are notable strengths including HIV, some respiratory infections and in pre-clinical science, though there was less funding for UK-relevant trials and public health research. Compared to the UK burden of disease, syphilis, gonorrhoea and pneumonia appear relatively neglected. Investment analyses can assist support policymakers to increase the equity of the UK R&D landscape.