“试点一个分析公众对研发贡献的框架:重点关注新型抗生素”。

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":"“试点一个分析公众对研发贡献的框架:重点关注新型抗生素”。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

背景:在公共捐助日益透明的背景下,以前开发了一个报告和分析公共研发捐助的框架,并在这里以抗生素为例进行试点。这项工作的目的是检查类别系统是否可行,在必要时修改和调整类别系统的粒度,并扩大详细分析的来源范围。方法:对近10年内所有正在开发、停用和批准的抗菌药物进行文献分析。此后,对临床试验和公司信息进行了检索,产生了56种化合物的清单,主要是中小型企业(SMEs)参与抗生素开发。然后从各种来源收集了关于临床试验、大学衍生产品和中小企业公共资金的信息。然后应用了对公共捐款进行分类的框架。结果:我们发现约三分之一的抗生素是由中小企业开发的。我们为开发抗生素的中小企业确定了许多公共资金来源。在发展的早期和后期,公共研究资金是中小企业报告的最常见的公共资金,超过了其他公共资源,如公共股权基金、公私合作伙伴关系和慈善来源。对一种抗生素药物Venatorx的深入调查显示,公共基金的投资约为6.55亿美元,使私人投资基金相形见绌。我们发现该分类框架总体上是可行的,并提出了改进其粒度和适用性的建议。结论:在本文中,我们对一个框架进行了试点和修订,该框架已被开发出来,用于对处于不同开发阶段的药品的公共贡献类型进行分类。该框架以及我们在确定资金来源方面所做的工作可用于支持药品价格谈判,以反映公众对产品开发的贡献水平。试验注册:EU临床试验注册标识符:0004-2083-2207。试验注册:欧盟临床试验注册标识符:0003-1754-9422。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
'Piloting a framework for analysing the public contributions to R&D: new antibiotics in focus'.

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
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信