Cargando…

Investments in tuberculosis research – what are the gaps?

Through decades of research, numerous studies have generated robust evidence about effective interventions for tuberculosis control. Yet, the global annual decline in incidence of approximately 1 % is evidence that current approaches and investment strategies are not sufficient. In this article, we...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Khan, Mishal S., Fletcher, Helen, Coker, Richard
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4997680/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27558175
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0644-0
_version_ 1782449821033955328
author Khan, Mishal S.
Fletcher, Helen
Coker, Richard
author_facet Khan, Mishal S.
Fletcher, Helen
Coker, Richard
author_sort Khan, Mishal S.
collection PubMed
description Through decades of research, numerous studies have generated robust evidence about effective interventions for tuberculosis control. Yet, the global annual decline in incidence of approximately 1 % is evidence that current approaches and investment strategies are not sufficient. In this article, we assess recent tuberculosis research funding and discuss two critical gaps in funding and in scientific evidence from topics that have been left off the research priority agenda. We first examine research and development funding goals in the 2011–2015 Global Plan to Stop Tuberculosis and analyze disbursements to different research areas by funders worldwide in 2014. We then summarize, through a compilation of published literature and consultation with 35 researchers across multiple disciplines in the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine TB Centre, priorities identified by the tuberculosis research community. Finally, we compare researchers’ priority areas to the global funding agendas and activities. Our analysis shows that, among the five key research areas defined in the 2011–2015 Global Plan - namely drugs, basic science, vaccines, diagnostics and operational research - drug discovery and basic science on Mycobacterium tuberculosis accounted for 60 % of the $2 billion annual funding target. None of the research areas received the recommended level of funding. Operational research, which had the lowest target, received 66 % of its target funding, whereas new diagnostics received only 19 %. Although many of the priority research questions identified by researchers fell within the Global Plan categories, our analysis highlights important areas that are not explicitly mentioned in the current plan. These priority research areas included improved understanding of tuberculosis transmission dynamics, the role of social protection and social determinants, and health systems and policy research. While research priorities are increasingly important in light of the limited funding for tuberculosis, there is a risk that we neglect important research areas and encourage the formation of research silos. To ensure that funding priorities, researchers’ agendas and national tuberculosis control policies are better coordinated, there should be more, and wider, dialogue between stakeholders in high tuberculosis burden countries, researchers, international policymakers and funders. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0644-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4997680
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49976802016-08-26 Investments in tuberculosis research – what are the gaps? Khan, Mishal S. Fletcher, Helen Coker, Richard BMC Med Correspondence Through decades of research, numerous studies have generated robust evidence about effective interventions for tuberculosis control. Yet, the global annual decline in incidence of approximately 1 % is evidence that current approaches and investment strategies are not sufficient. In this article, we assess recent tuberculosis research funding and discuss two critical gaps in funding and in scientific evidence from topics that have been left off the research priority agenda. We first examine research and development funding goals in the 2011–2015 Global Plan to Stop Tuberculosis and analyze disbursements to different research areas by funders worldwide in 2014. We then summarize, through a compilation of published literature and consultation with 35 researchers across multiple disciplines in the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine TB Centre, priorities identified by the tuberculosis research community. Finally, we compare researchers’ priority areas to the global funding agendas and activities. Our analysis shows that, among the five key research areas defined in the 2011–2015 Global Plan - namely drugs, basic science, vaccines, diagnostics and operational research - drug discovery and basic science on Mycobacterium tuberculosis accounted for 60 % of the $2 billion annual funding target. None of the research areas received the recommended level of funding. Operational research, which had the lowest target, received 66 % of its target funding, whereas new diagnostics received only 19 %. Although many of the priority research questions identified by researchers fell within the Global Plan categories, our analysis highlights important areas that are not explicitly mentioned in the current plan. These priority research areas included improved understanding of tuberculosis transmission dynamics, the role of social protection and social determinants, and health systems and policy research. While research priorities are increasingly important in light of the limited funding for tuberculosis, there is a risk that we neglect important research areas and encourage the formation of research silos. To ensure that funding priorities, researchers’ agendas and national tuberculosis control policies are better coordinated, there should be more, and wider, dialogue between stakeholders in high tuberculosis burden countries, researchers, international policymakers and funders. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0644-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-08-25 /pmc/articles/PMC4997680/ /pubmed/27558175 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0644-0 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Correspondence
Khan, Mishal S.
Fletcher, Helen
Coker, Richard
Investments in tuberculosis research – what are the gaps?
title Investments in tuberculosis research – what are the gaps?
title_full Investments in tuberculosis research – what are the gaps?
title_fullStr Investments in tuberculosis research – what are the gaps?
title_full_unstemmed Investments in tuberculosis research – what are the gaps?
title_short Investments in tuberculosis research – what are the gaps?
title_sort investments in tuberculosis research – what are the gaps?
topic Correspondence
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4997680/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27558175
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0644-0
work_keys_str_mv AT khanmishals investmentsintuberculosisresearchwhatarethegaps
AT fletcherhelen investmentsintuberculosisresearchwhatarethegaps
AT investmentsintuberculosisresearchwhatarethegaps
AT cokerrichard investmentsintuberculosisresearchwhatarethegaps