'Piloting a framework for analysing the public contributions to R&D: new antibiotics in focus'.

IF 3.3 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice Pub Date : 2025-01-21 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1080/20523211.2024.2449045
Louise Schmidt, Ozren Sehic, Ursula Theuretzbacher, Daniel Fabian, Claudia Wild
{"title":"'Piloting a framework for analysing the public contributions to R&D: new antibiotics in focus'.","authors":"Louise Schmidt, Ozren Sehic, Ursula Theuretzbacher, Daniel Fabian, Claudia Wild","doi":"10.1080/20523211.2024.2449045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Within the context of increasing transparency around public contributions, a framework for reporting and analysing public contributions to research and development (R&D) was previously developed and is piloted here using the example of antibiotics. The aim of this work is to check whether the category system is feasible, to revise and adjust the granularity of the category system where necessary, and to expand the range of sources for detailed analyses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All antimicrobial medicinal products in development, discontinued and approved in the last 10 years were identified in the literature. Thereafter clinical trials and company information was searched generating a list of 56 compounds where primarily small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) were involved in antibiotics development. Information on clinical trials, university spinouts and public funding for SMEs was then gathered from various sources. The framework for classifying public contributions was then applied.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that around one-third of antibiotics are developed by SMEs. We identified numerous public funding sources for SMEs that develop antibiotics. At both early-stage and late-stage development, public research funding is the most common public funding reported by SMEs, ahead of other public sources like public equity funds, private-public partnerships and philanthropic sources. A deep-dive into one antibiotic drug, Venatorx, revealed public funds investment of approximately $655 million, dwarfing private investment funds. We found the classification framework generally practicable and we suggest recommendations to improve its granularity and applicability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this paper we piloted and revised a framework that has been developed to classify types of public contributions to pharmaceutical products at different stages of development. The framework, together with work we have done on identifying sources for funding, can be applied to support pharmaceutical price negotiations that reflect the level of public contribution to product development.<b>Trial registration:</b> EU Clinical Trials Register identifier: 0004-2083-2207.<b>Trial registration:</b> EU Clinical Trials Register identifier: 0003-1754-9422.</p>","PeriodicalId":16740,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice","volume":"18 1","pages":"2449045"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11753009/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20523211.2024.2449045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Within the context of increasing transparency around public contributions, a framework for reporting and analysing public contributions to research and development (R&D) was previously developed and is piloted here using the example of antibiotics. The aim of this work is to check whether the category system is feasible, to revise and adjust the granularity of the category system where necessary, and to expand the range of sources for detailed analyses.

Methods: All antimicrobial medicinal products in development, discontinued and approved in the last 10 years were identified in the literature. Thereafter clinical trials and company information was searched generating a list of 56 compounds where primarily small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) were involved in antibiotics development. Information on clinical trials, university spinouts and public funding for SMEs was then gathered from various sources. The framework for classifying public contributions was then applied.

Results: We found that around one-third of antibiotics are developed by SMEs. We identified numerous public funding sources for SMEs that develop antibiotics. At both early-stage and late-stage development, public research funding is the most common public funding reported by SMEs, ahead of other public sources like public equity funds, private-public partnerships and philanthropic sources. A deep-dive into one antibiotic drug, Venatorx, revealed public funds investment of approximately $655 million, dwarfing private investment funds. We found the classification framework generally practicable and we suggest recommendations to improve its granularity and applicability.

Conclusion: In this paper we piloted and revised a framework that has been developed to classify types of public contributions to pharmaceutical products at different stages of development. The framework, together with work we have done on identifying sources for funding, can be applied to support pharmaceutical price negotiations that reflect the level of public contribution to product development.Trial registration: EU Clinical Trials Register identifier: 0004-2083-2207.Trial registration: EU Clinical Trials Register identifier: 0003-1754-9422.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice Health Professions-Pharmacy
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
9.50%
发文量
81
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信