The anatomy of medical research: US and international comparisons.

IMPORTANCE: Medical research is a prerequisite of clinical advances, while health service research supports improved delivery, access, and cost. Few previous analyses have compared the United States with other developed countries. OBJECTIVES: To quantify total public and private investment and personnel (economic inputs) and to evaluate resulting patents, publications, drug and device approvals, and value created (economic outputs). EVIDENCE REVIEW: Publicly available data from 1994 to 2012 were compiled showing trends in US and international research funding, productivity, and disease burden by source and industry type. Patents and publications (1981-2011) were evaluated using citation rates and impact factors. FINDINGS: (1) Reduced science investment: Total US funding increased 6% per year (1994-2004), but rate of growth declined to 0.8% per year (2004-2012), reaching $117 billion (4.5%) of total health care expenditures. Private sources increased from 46% (1994) to 58% (2012). Industry reduced early-stage research, favoring medical devices, bioengineered drugs, and late-stage clinical trials, particularly for cancer and rare diseases. National Insitutes of Health allocations correlate imperfectly with disease burden, with cancer and HIV/AIDS receiving disproportionate support. (2) Underfunding of service innovation: Health services research receives $5.0 billion (0.3% of total health care expenditures) or only 1/20th of science funding. Private insurers ranked last (0.04% of revenue) and health systems 19th (0.1% of revenue) among 22 industries in their investment in innovation. An increment of $8 billion to $15 billion yearly would occur if service firms were to reach median research and development funding. (3) Globalization: US government research funding declined from 57% (2004) to 50% (2012) of the global total, as did that of US companies (50% to 41%), with the total US (public plus private) share of global research funding declining from 57% to 44%. Asia, particularly China, tripled investment from $2.6 billion (2004) to $9.7 billion (2012) preferentially for education and personnel. The US share of life science patents declined from 57% (1981) to 51% (2011), as did those considered most valuable, from 73% (1981) to 59% (2011). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: New investment is required if the clinical value of past scientific discoveries and opportunities to improve care are to be fully realized. Sources could include repatriation of foreign capital, new innovation bonds, administrative savings, patent pools, and public-private risk sharing collaborations. Given international trends, the United States will relinquish its historical international lead in the next decade unless such measures are undertaken.

Preventing preterm births: analysis of trends and potential reductions with interventions in 39 countries with very high human development index.

BACKGROUND: Every year, 1·1 million babies die from prematurity, and many survivors are disabled. Worldwide, 15 million babies are born preterm (<37 weeks' gestation), with two decades of increasing rates in almost all countries with reliable data. The understanding of drivers and potential benefit of preventive interventions for preterm births is poor. We examined trends and estimate the potential reduction in preterm births for countries with very high human development index (VHHDI) if present evidence-based interventions were widely implemented. This analysis is to inform a rate reduction target for Born Too Soon. METHODS: Countries were assessed for inclusion based on availability and quality of preterm prevalence data (2000-10), and trend analyses with projections undertaken. We analysed drivers of rate increases in the USA, 1989-2004. For 39 countries with VHHDI with more than 10,000 births, we did country-by-country analyses based on target population, incremental coverage increase, and intervention efficacy. We estimated cost savings on the basis of reported costs for preterm care in the USA adjusted using World Bank purchasing power parity. FINDINGS: From 2010, even if all countries with VHHDI achieved annual preterm birth rate reductions of the best performers for 1990-2010 (Estonia and Croatia), 2000-10 (Sweden and Netherlands), or 2005-10 (Lithuania, Estonia), rates would experience a relative reduction of less than 5% by 2015 on average across the 39 countries. Our analysis of preterm birth rise 1989-2004 in USA suggests half the change is unexplained, but important drivers include non-medically indicated labour induction and caesarean delivery and assisted reproductive technologies. For all 39 countries with VHHDI, five interventions modelling at high coverage predicted a 5% relative reduction of preterm birth rate from 9·59% to 9·07% of livebirths: smoking cessation (0·01 rate reduction), decreasing multiple embryo transfers during assisted reproductive technologies (0·06), cervical cerclage (0·15), progesterone supplementation (0·01), and reduction of non-medically indicated labour induction or caesarean delivery (0·29). These findings translate to roughly 58,000 preterm births averted and total annual economic cost savings of about US$3 billion. INTERPRETATION: We recommend a conservative target of a relative reduction in preterm birth rates of 5% by 2015. Our findings highlight the urgent need for research into underlying mechanisms of preterm births, and development of innovative interventions. Furthermore, the highest preterm birth rates occur in low-income settings where the causes of prematurity might differ and have simpler solutions such as birth spacing and treatment of infections in pregnancy than in high-income countries. Urgent focus on these settings is also crucial to reduce preterm births worldwide. FUNDING: March of Dimes, USA, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and National Institutes of Health, USA.

Contraceptive technology is failing to meet the needs of people in the U.S. because of under-investment in new methods.

This commentary considers if contraceptives currently available in the U.S. are meeting all current or potential user needs and presents the case for the funding of research to enhance contraceptive options. People experience high rates of contraceptive failure, unintended pregnancies, and a non-trivial proportion experience a high level of dissatisfaction with available contraceptive methods. Given increasing restrictions on abortion, additional options that better meet the needs of non-users or dissatisfied users rise in importance. Priorities for improvement include fewer side effects, affordability, and ease of use, all coupled with high effectiveness. Although available products are safe for most users, and those with risks can be identified by screening, additional methods that are safe without screening and address dissatisfactions and contraindications would be desirable. Addressing these gaps through typical market mechanisms is not happening. The level of interest and investment in contraceptive research and development (R&D) is very low in part because extensive use and the apparent diversity of contraceptive options may drive a mistaken perception that contraception is a "solved problem." Even with the incentive of a global contraceptive market of $25 billion annual U.S. contraceptive R&D expenditures in 2021 totaled only $149 million compared to total pharma R&D outlays of $250 billion. An increase in both the priority and funding of contraceptive R&D is needed. Annual outlays of ~$500 million to $1 billion would be needed to address the key challenges holding back the field.

Cross-Country Individual Participant Analysis of 4.1 Million Singleton Births in 5 Countries with Very High Human Development Index Confirms Known Associations but Provides No Biologic Explanation for 2/3 of All Preterm Births.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is the most common single cause of perinatal and infant mortality, affecting 15 million infants worldwide each year with global rates increasing. Understanding of risk factors remains poor, and preventive interventions have only limited benefit. Large differences exist in preterm birth rates across high income countries. We hypothesized that understanding the basis for these wide variations could lead to interventions that reduce preterm birth incidence in countries with high rates. We thus sought to assess the contributions of known risk factors for both spontaneous and provider-initiated preterm birth in selected high income countries, estimating also the potential impact of successful interventions due to advances in research, policy and public health, or clinical practice. METHODS: We analyzed individual patient-level data on 4.1 million singleton pregnancies from four countries with very high human development index (Czech Republic, New Zealand, Slovenia, Sweden) and one comparator U.S. state (California) to determine the specific contribution (adjusting for confounding effects) of 21 factors. Both individual and population-attributable preterm birth risks were determined, as were contributors to cross-country differences. We also assessed the ability to predict preterm birth given various sets of known risk factors. FINDINGS: Previous preterm birth and preeclampsia were the strongest individual risk factors of preterm birth in all datasets, with odds ratios of 4.6-6.0 and 2.8-5.7, respectively, for individual women having those characteristics. In contrast, on a population basis, nulliparity and male sex were the two risk factors with the highest impact on preterm birth rates, accounting for 25-50% and 11-16% of excess population attributable risk, respectively (p<0.001). The importance of nulliparity and male sex on population attributable risk was driven by high prevalence despite low odds ratios for individual women. More than 65% of the total aggregated risk of preterm birth within each country lacks a plausible biologic explanation, and 63% of difference between countries cannot be explained with known factors; thus, research is necessary to elucidate the underlying mechanisms of preterm birth and, hence, therapeutic intervention. Surprisingly, variation in prevalence of known risk factors accounted for less than 35% of the difference in preterm birth rates between countries. Known risk factors had an area under the curve of less than 0.7 in ROC analysis of preterm birth prediction within countries. These data suggest that other influences, as yet unidentified, are involved in preterm birth. Further research into biological mechanisms is warranted. CONCLUSIONS: We have quantified the causes of variation in preterm birth rates among countries with very high human development index. The paucity of explicit and currently identified factors amenable to intervention illustrates the limited impact of changes possible through current clinical practice and policy interventions. Our research highlights the urgent need for research into underlying biological causes of preterm birth, which alone are likely to lead to innovative and efficacious interventions.

Barriers and enablers of kangaroo mother care practice: a systematic review.

Kangaroo mother care (KMC) is an evidence-based approach to reducing mortality and morbidity in preterm infants. Although KMC is a key intervention package in newborn health initiatives, there is limited systematic information available on the barriers to KMC practice that mothers and other stakeholders face while practicing KMC. This systematic review sought to identify the most frequently reported barriers to KMC practice for mothers, fathers, and health practitioners, as well as the most frequently reported enablers to practice for mothers. We searched nine electronic databases and relevant reference lists for publications reporting barriers or enablers to KMC practice. We identified 1,264 unique publications, of which 103 were included based on pre-specified criteria. Publications were scanned for all barriers / enablers. Each publication was also categorized based on its approach to identification of barriers / enablers, and more weight was assigned to publications which had systematically sought to understand factors influencing KMC practice. Four of the top five ranked barriers to KMC practice for mothers were resource-related: "Issues with the facility environment / resources," "negative impressions of staff attitudes or interactions with staff," "lack of help with KMC practice or other obligations," and "low awareness of KMC / infant health." Considering only publications from low- and middle-income countries, "pain / fatigue" was ranked higher than when considering all publications. Top enablers to practice were included "mother-infant attachment" and "support from family, friends, and other mentors." Our findings suggest that mother can understand and enjoy KMC, and it has benefits for mothers, infants, and families. However, continuous KMC may be physically and emotionally difficult, and often requires support from family members, health practitioners, or other mothers. These findings can serve as a starting point for researchers and program implementers looking to improve KMC programs.