Developing new health technologies for neglected diseases: a pipeline portfolio review and cost model

Who funded the research behind the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine?

OBJECTIVES

The Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, Vaxzevira or Covishield) builds on two decades of research and development (R&D) into chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx) technology at the University of Oxford. This study aimed to approximate the funding for the R&D of ChAdOx and the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine and to assess the transparency of funding reporting mechanisms.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review and publication history analysis of the principal investigators to reconstruct R&D funding the ChAdOx technology. We matched award numbers with publicly accessible grant databases. We filed freedom of information (FOI) requests to the University of Oxford for the disclosure of all grants for ChAdOx R&D.

RESULTS

We identified 100 peer-reviewed articles relevant to ChAdOx technology published between January 2002 and October 2020, extracting 577 mentions of funding bodies from acknowledgements. Government funders from overseas (including the European Union) were mentioned 158 times (27.4%), the UK government 147 (25.5%) and charitable funders 138 (23.9%). Grant award numbers were identified for 215 (37.3%) mentions; amounts were publicly available for 121 (21.0%). Based on the FOIs, until December 2019, the biggest funders of ChAdOx R&D were the European Commission (34.0%), Wellcome Trust (20.4%) and Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (17.5%). Since January 2020, the UK government contributed 95.5% of funding identified. The total identified R&D funding was £104 226 076 reported in the FOIs and £228 466 771 reconstructed from the literature search.

CONCLUSION

Our study approximates that public and charitable financing accounted for 97%-99% of identifiable funding for the ChAdOx vaccine technology research at the University of Oxford underlying the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine until autumn 2020. We encountered a lack of transparency in research funding reporting.

Non-commercial pharmaceutical R&D: what do neglected diseases suggest about costs and efficiency?

Background: The past two decades have witnessed significant growth in non-commercial research and development (R&D) initiatives, particularly for neglected diseases, but there is limited understanding of the ways in which they compare with commercial R&D. This study analyses costs, timelines, and attrition rates of non-commercial R&D across multiple initiatives and how they compare to commercial R&D. Methods: This is a mixed-method, observational, descriptive, and analytic study. We contacted 48 non-commercial R&D initiatives and received either quantitative and/or qualitative data from 13 organizations. We used the Portfolio to Impact (P2I) model's estimates of average costs, timelines, and attrition rates for commercial R&D, while noting that P2I cost estimates are far lower than some previous findings in the literature. Results: The quantitative data suggested that the costs and timelines per candidate per phase (from preclinical through Phase 3) of non-commercial R&D for new chemical entities are largely in line with commercial averages. The quantitative data was insufficient to compare attrition rates. The qualitative data identified more reasons why non-commercial R&D costs would be lower than commercial R&D, timelines would be longer, and attrition rates would be equivalent or higher, though the data does not allow for estimating the magnitude of these effects. Conclusions: The quantitative data suggest that costs and timelines per candidate per phase were largely in line with (lower-end estimates of) commercial averages. We were unable to draw conclusions on overall efficiency, however, due to insufficient data on attrition rates. Given that non-commercial R&D is a nascent area of research with limited data available, this study contributes to the literature by generating hypotheses for further testing against a larger sample of quantitative data. It also offers a range of explanatory factors for further exploration regarding how non-commercial and commercial R&D may differ in costs and efficiency.

Alkaloids in Contemporary Drug Discovery to Meet Global Disease Needs

An overview is presented of the well-established role of alkaloids in drug discovery, the application of more sustainable chemicals, and biological approaches, and the implementation of information systems to address the current challenges faced in meeting global disease needs. The necessity for a new international paradigm for natural product discovery and development for the treatment of multidrug resistant organisms, and rare and neglected tropical diseases in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the Quintuple Helix is discussed.

Development of a TB vaccine trial site in Africa and lessons from the Ebola experience

Tuberculosis is the deadliest infection of our time. In contrast, about 11,000 people died of Ebola between 2014 and 2016. Despite this manifest difference in mortality, there is now a vaccine licensed in the United States and by the European Medicines Agency, with up to 100% efficacy against Ebola. The developments that led to the trialing of the Ebola vaccine were historic and unprecedented. The single licensed TB vaccine (BCG) has limited efficacy. There is a dire need for a more efficacious TB vaccine. To deploy such vaccines, trials are needed in sites that combine high disease incidence and research infrastructure. We describe our twelve-year experience building a TB vaccine trial site in contrast to the process in the recent Ebola outbreak. There are additional differences. Relative to the Ebola pipeline, TB vaccines have fewer trials and a paucity of government and industry led trials. While pathogens have varying levels of difficulty in the development of new vaccine candidates, there yet appears to be greater interest in funding and coordinating Ebola interventions. TB is a global threat that requires similar concerted effort for elimination.

Analysis of the health product pipeline for poverty-related and neglected diseases using the Portfolio-to-Impact (P2I) modeling tool

Background: To estimate how much additional funding is needed for poverty-related and neglected disease (PRND) product development and to target new resources effectively, policymakers need updated information on the development pipeline and estimated costs to fill pipeline gaps. Methods: We previously conducted a pipeline review to identify candidates for 35 neglected diseases as of August 31, 2017 (“2017 pipeline”). We used the Portfolio-to-Impact (P2I) tool to estimate costs to move these candidates through the pipeline, likely launches, and additional costs to develop “missing products.” We repeated this analysis, reviewing the pipeline to August 31, 2019 to get a time trend. We made a direct comparison based on the same 35 diseases (“2019 direct comparison pipeline”), then a comparison based on an expanded list of 45 diseases (“2019 complete pipeline”). Results: In the 2017 pipeline, 538 product candidates met inclusion criteria for input into the model; it would cost $16.3 billion (B) to move these through the pipeline, yielding 128 launches. In the 2019 direct comparison pipeline, we identified 690 candidates, an increase of 152 candidates from 2017; the largest increase was for Ebola.  The direct comparison 2019 pipeline yields 196 launches, costing $19.9B. In the 2019 complete pipeline, there were 754 candidates, an increase of 216 candidates from 2017, of which 152 reflected pipeline changes and 64 reflected changes in scope. The complete pipeline 2019 yields 207 launches, costing $21.0B. There would still be 16 “missing products” based on the complete 2019 pipeline; it would cost $5.5B-$14.2B (depending on product complexity) to develop these products. Conclusion: The PRNDs product development pipeline has grown by over a quarter in two years. The number of expected new product launches based on the 2019 pipeline increased by half compared to 2017; the cost of advancing the pipeline increased by a quarter.

Analysis of the Health Product Profile Directory - a new tool to inform priority-setting in global public health

Background

The Health Product Profile Directory (HPPD) is an online database describing 8–10 key characteristics (such as target population, measures of efficacy and dosage) of product profiles for medicines, vaccines, diagnostics and other products that are intended to be accessed by populations in low- and middle-income countries. The HPPD was developed by TDR on behalf of WHO and launched on 15 May 2019.

Methods

The contents of the HPPD were downloaded into an Excel™ spreadsheet via the open access interface and analysed to identify the number of health product profiles by type, disease, year of publication, status, author organization and safety information.

Results

The HPPD contains summaries of 215 health product profiles published between 2008 and May 2019, 117 (54%) of which provide a hyperlink to the detailed publication from which the summary was extracted, and the remaining 98 provide an email contact for further information. A total of 55 target disease or health conditions are covered, with 210 profiles describing a product with an infectious disease as the target. Only 5 product profiles in the HPPD describe a product for a non-communicable disease. Four diseases account for 40% of product profiles in the HPPD; these are tuberculosis (33 profiles, 15%), malaria (31 profiles, 14%), HIV (13 profiles, 6%) and Chagas (10 profiles, 5%).

Conclusion

The HPPD provides a new tool to inform priority-setting in global health — it includes all product profiles authored by WHO (n = 51). There is a need to standardise nomenclature to more clearly distinguish between strategic publications (describing research and development (R&D) priorities or preferred characteristics) compared to target product profiles to guide a specific candidate product undergoing R&D. It is recommended that all profiles published in the HPPD define more clearly what affordability means in the context where the product is intended to be used and all profiles should include a statement of safety. Combining the analysis from HPPD to a mapping of funds available for R&D and those products in the R&D pipeline would create a better overview of global health priorities and how they are supported. Such analysis and increased transparency should take us a step closer to measuring and improving coordination of efforts in global health R&D.

Pipeline analysis of a vaccine candidate portfolio for diseases of poverty using the Portfolio-To-Impact modelling tool

Background: The Portfolio-To-Impact (P2I) P2I model is a recently developed product portfolio tool that enables users to estimate the funding needs to move a portfolio of candidate health products, such as vaccines and drugs, along the product development path from late stage preclinical to phase III clinical trials, as well as potential product launches over time. In this study we describe the use of this tool for analysing the vaccine portfolio of the European Vaccine Initiative (EVI). This portfolio includes vaccine candidates for various diseases of poverty and emerging infectious diseases at different stages of development.

Methods: Portfolio analyses were conducted using the existing assumptions integrated in the P2I tool, as well as modified assumptions for costs, cycle times, and probabilities of success based on EVI’s own internal data related to vaccine development.

Results: According to the P2I tool, the total estimated cost to move the 18 candidates currently in the EVI portfolio along the pipeline to launch would be about US $470 million, and there would be 0.69 expected launches across all six diseases in EVI’s portfolio combined during the period 2019-2031. Running of the model using EVI-internal parameters resulted in a significant increase in the expected product launches.

Conclusions: Not all the assumptions underlying the P2I tool could be tested in our study due to limited amount of data available. Nevertheless, we expect that the accelerated clinical testing of vaccines (and drugs) based on the use of controlled human infection models that are increasingly available, as well as the accelerated approval by regulatory authorities that exists for example for serious conditions, will speed up product development and result in significant cost reduction. Project findings as well as potential future modifications of the P2I tool are discussed with the aim to improve the underlying methodology of the P2I model.

Trends in global health financing

Low income countries are still unable to fund a basic package of health services

Improving resource mobilisation for global health R&D: a role for coordination platforms?

Achieving many of the health targets in the Sustainable Development Goals will not be possible without increased financing for global health research and development (R&D). Yet financing for neglected disease product development fell from 2009-2015, with the exception of a one-time injection of Ebola funding. An important cause of the global health R&D funding gap is lack of coordination across R&D initiatives. In particular, existing initiatives lack robust priority-setting processes and transparency about investment decisions. Low-income countries (LICs) and middle-income countries (MICs) are also often excluded from global investment initiatives and priority-setting discussions, leading to limited investment by these countries. An overarching global health R&D coordination platform is one promising response to these challenges. This analysis examines the essential functions such a platform must play, how it should be structured to maximise effectiveness and investment strategies for diversifying potential investors, with an emphasis on building LIC and MIC engagement. Our analysis suggests that a coordination platform should have four key functions: building consensus on R&D priorities; facilitating information sharing about past and future investments; building in accountability mechanisms to track R&D spending against investment targets and curating a portfolio of prioritised projects alongside mechanisms to link funders to these projects. Several design features are likely to increase the platform’s success: public ownership and management; separation of coordination and financing functions; inclusion of multiple diseases; coordination across global and national efforts; development of an international R&D ‘roadmap’ and a strategy for the financial sustainability of the platform’s secretariat.

Funding global health product R&D: the Portfolio-To-Impact Model (P2I), a new tool for modelling the impact of different research portfolios

Background: The Portfolio-To-Impact (P2I) Model is a novel tool, developed to estimate minimum funding needs to accelerate health product development from late stage preclinical study to phase III clinical trials, and to visualize potential product launches over time. Methods: A mixed methods approach was used. Assumptions on development costs at each phase were based on clinical trial costs from Parexel's R&D cost sourcebook. These were further refined and validated by interviews, with a wide variety of stakeholders from Product Development Partnerships, biopharmaceutical and diagnostic companies, and major funders of global health R&D. Results: the tool was used to create scenarios describing the impact, in terms of products developed, of different product portfolios with funding ranging from $1 million per annum through to $500 million per annum. These scenarios for a new global financing mechanism have been previously presented in a report setting out the potential for a new fund for research and development which would assist in accelerating product development for the diseases of poverty.  Conclusion: The P2I tool does enable a user to model different scenarios in terms of cost and number of health products launched when applied to a portfolio of health products.  The model is published as open access accompanied with a user guide.  The design allows it to be adapted and used for other health R&D portfolio analysis as described in an accompanying publication focussing on the pipeline for neglected diseases in 2017. We aim to continually refine and improve the model and we ask users to provide us with their own inputs that can help us update key parameters and assumptions.  We hope to catalyse users to adapt the model in ways that can increase its value, accuracy, and applications.