Placing the US Federal Investment in Religion, Spirituality, and Health Research in Context: A Systematic Review and Comparison with Social Support and Optimism Funding Levels.

Religion and spirituality (R/S) have been linked to better physical and mental health. The US government has funded several research studies that include a focus on R/S but the amount of support over the last several years appears to be declining. To better understand these funding trends for R/S and health research, we chose relevant comparisons from projects that include a focus on social support and optimism. We identified total amount of funding, change in funding patterns over time, and characteristics of funded projects from a large database of US research projects (Federal RePORTER). We reviewed 5093 projects for social support and 6030 projects for optimism before narrowing the number of eligible studies to 170 and 13, respectively. Social support projects received the largest investment of $205 million dollars. Funded awards for social support and optimism remained stable over time while R/S decreased (p = 0.01), intervention research was more characteristic and studies of African-American/Black participants were less characteristic of funded projects in social support than of R/S (ps < 0.001). Future research for R/S and health would likely benefit from continued focus on minority communities and on identifying and developing appropriate interventions to support individual and community health and well-being.

Probiotics and the Microbiome-How Can We Help Patients Make Sense of Probiotics?

The notion of probiotics as microbes that confer health benefits has its origins in the speculative ideas that are more than a century old, yet remain largely unsubstantiated by scientific evidence. The recent advances in microbiome science have highlighted the importance of intestinal microbes in human physiology and disease pathogenesis. These developments have provided a boost to the probiotics industry, which continues to experience exponential growth driven mainly by creative marketing. Consumers, patients, and most health care providers are not able to discern the underlying science or differentiate the permitted claims that promise vague health benefits from disease-specific claims reserved for drugs. No probiotic product has been able to satisfy the regulatory requirements to be categorized as a drug, a substance intended to cure, mitigate, or prevent disease. However, patients take probiotic products in the belief that they will help to treat their intestinal or systemic diseases. Thus far, the regulators have failed to create policies that would assist to inform the public in this area. In fact, the existing regulatory regime actually creates formidable barriers to research that could provide evidence for clinical efficacy of probiotic products. We propose a potential solution to this vexing problem, where a committee created through a partnership of academia, professional organizations, and industry, but free of potential conflicts of interest, would be charged with rigorous evaluation of specific probiotic products and the evidence in support of their different claims. Companies that would submit to this process would earn the trust of consumers and healthcare providers, as well as a distinction in the marketplace.

Danger in the Valley of Death: how the transition from preclinical research to clinical trials can impact valuations.

In drug development, a crucial step is the transition of a company from preclinical stages to human trials: the so-called 'Valley-of-Death' (VoD) that most efforts do not survive. Here, we analyzed how the valuations of biotech companies in the life science sector change as they cross this valley. Their average valuation increased significantly (87%) when crossing the VoD no later than their fourth funding round. However, companies that received more than four funding rounds saw significantly lower average valuations. Similarly, the volume of website traffic for companies that received no more than four preclinical funding rounds was significantly higher than companies receiving more than four preclinical funding rounds, whereas the number of patents was unrelated to the likelihood of a company of crossing the VoD.

Undisclosed conflicts of interest among biomedical textbook authors.

BACKGROUND: Textbooks are a formative resource for health care providers during their education and are also an enduring reference for pathophysiology and treatment. Unlike the primary literature and clinical guidelines, biomedical textbook authors do not typically disclose potential financial conflicts of interest (pCoIs). The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the authors of textbooks used in the training of physicians, pharmacists, and dentists had appreciable undisclosed pCoIs in the form of patents or compensation received from pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies. METHODS: The most recent editions of six medical textbooks, Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine (HarPIM), Katzung and Trevor's Basic and Clinical Pharmacology (KatBCP), the American Osteopathic Association's Foundations of Osteopathic Medicine (AOAFOM), Remington: The Science and Practice of Pharmacy (RemSPP), Koda-Kimble and Young's Applied Therapeutics (KKYAT), and Yagiela's Pharmacology and Therapeutics for Dentistry (YagPTD), were selected after consulting biomedical educators for evaluation. Author names (N = 1,152, 29.2% female) were submitted to databases to examine patents (Google Scholar) and compensation (ProPublica's Dollars for Docs [PDD]). RESULTS: Authors were listed as inventors on 677 patents (maximum/author = 23), with three-quarters (74.9%) to HarPIM authors. Females were significantly underrepresented among patent holders. The PDD 2009-2013 database revealed receipt of US$13.2 million, the majority to (83.9%) to HarPIM. The maximum compensation per author was $869,413. The PDD 2014 database identified receipt of $6.8 million, with 50.4% of eligible authors receiving compensation. The maximum compensation received by a single author was $560,021. Cardiovascular authors were most likely to have a PDD entry and neurologic disorders authors were least likely. CONCLUSION: An appreciable subset of biomedical authors have patents and have received remuneration from medical product companies and this information is not disclosed to readers. These findings indicate that full transparency of financial pCoI should become a standard practice among the authors of biomedical educational materials.

[Overview of research projects funding in traditional Chinese medicine oncology field supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China].

In this paper, the funding situation of traditional Chinese medicine oncology research projects supported by National Natural Science Fund from 1986-2016 was reviewed. The characteristics of funded projects were summarized from funding amount, funding expenses, funding category, and the main research contents of projects, etc. At the same time, the main problems in the projects were analyzed in this paper, in order to provide reference for the relevant fund applicants.

State of the Science: Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine Therapeutics Research-NCI Strategic Workshop Highlights of Discussion Report.

In May 2016, the Office of Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Division of Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment, of the National Cancer Institute convened a special workshop focused on the State of the Science: Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine Therapeutics Research. The current state of the science, gaps, and future opportunities were reviewed and discussed by a distinguished panel of experts in this field of research, and the highlights of this meeting are reported herein.

Difference in R01 Grant Funding Among Osteopathic and Allopathic Emergency Physicians over the Last Decade.

INTRODUCTION: Receiving an R01 grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is regarded as a major accomplishment for the physician researcher and can be used as a means of scholarly activity for core faculty in emergency medicine (EM). However, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires that a grant must be obtained for it to count towards a core faculty member's scholarly activity, while the American Osteopathic Association states that an application for a grant would qualify for scholarly activity whether it is received or not. The aim of the study was to determine if a medical degree disparity exists between those who successfully receive an EM R01 grant and those who do not, and to determine the publication characteristics of those recipients. METHODS: We queried the NIH RePORTER search engine for those physicians who received an R01 grant in EM. Degree designation was then determined for each grant recipient based on a web-based search involving the recipient's name and the location where the grant was awarded. The grant recipient was then queried through PubMed central for the total number of publications published in the decade prior to receiving the grant. RESULTS: We noted a total of 264 R01 grant recipients during the study period; of those who received the award, 78.03% were allopathic physicians. No osteopathic physician had received an R01 grant in EM over the past 10 years. Of those allopathic physicians who received the grant, 44.17% held a dual degree. Allopathic physicians had an average of 48.05 publications over the 10 years prior to grant receipt and those with a dual degree had 51.62 publications. CONCLUSION: Allopathic physicians comprise the majority of those who have received an R01 grant in EM over the last decade. These physicians typically have numerous prior publications and an advanced degree.

Types and Distribution of Payments From Industry to Physicians in 2015.

IMPORTANCE: Given scrutiny over financial conflicts of interest in health care, it is important to understand the types and distribution of industry-related payments to physicians. OBJECTIVE: To determine the types and distribution of industry-related payments to physicians in 2015 and the association of physician specialty and sex with receipt of payments from industry. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational, retrospective, population-based study of licensed US physicians (per National Plan & Provider Enumeration System) linked to 2015 Open Payments reports of industry payments. A total of 933 295 allopathic and osteopathic physicians. Outcomes were compared across specialties (surgery, primary care, specialists, interventionalists) and between 620 166 male (66.4%) and 313 129 female (33.6%) physicians using regression models adjusting for geographic Medicare-spending region and sole proprietorship. EXPOSURES: Physician specialty and sex. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Reported physician payment from industry (including nature, number, and value), categorized as general payments (including consulting fees and food and beverage), ownership interests (including stock options, partnership shares), royalty or license payments, and research payments. Associations between physician characteristics and reported receipt of payment. RESULTS: In 2015, 449 864 of 933 295 physicians (133 842 [29.8%] women), representing approximately 48% of all US physicians were reported to have received $2.4 billion in industry payments, including approximately $1.8 billion for general payments, $544 million for ownership interests, and $75 million for research payments. Compared with 47.7% of primary care physicians (205 830 of 431 819), 61.0% of surgeons (110 604 of 181 372) were reported as receiving general payments (absolute difference, 13.3%; 95% CI, 13.1-13.6; odds ratio [OR], 1.72; P < .001). Surgeons had a mean per-physician reported payment value of $6879 (95% CI, $5895-$7862) vs $2227 (95% CI, $2141-$2314) among primary care physicians (absolute difference, $4651; 95% CI, $4014-$5288). After adjusting for geographic spending region and sole proprietorship, men within each specialty had a higher odds of receiving general payments than did women: surgery, 62.5% vs 56.5% (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.26-1.31); primary care, 50.9% vs 43.0% (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.36-1.39); specialists, 36.3% vs 33.4% (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.13-1.17); and interventionalists, 58.1% vs 40.7% (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.97-2.10; P < .001 for all tests). Similarly, men reportedly received more royalty or license payments than did women: surgery, 1.2% vs 0.03% (OR, 43.20; 95% CI, 25.02-74.57); primary care, 0.02% vs 0.002% (OR, 9.34; 95% CI, 4.11-21.23); specialists, 0.08% vs 0.01% (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.71-7.89); and for interventionalists, 0.13% vs 0.04% (OR, 7.98; 95% CI, 2.87-22.19; P < .001 for all tests). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: According to data from 2015 Open Payments reports, 48% of physicians were reported to have received a total of $2.4 billion in industry-related payments, primarily general payments, with a higher likelihood and higher value of payments to physicians in surgical vs primary care specialties and to male vs female physicians.

Reviewing the Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation (EC) No. 1924/2006: What do we know about its challenges and potential impact on innovation?

Health claims potentially represent an opportunity for firms to engage in product differentiation and thereby induce investment into R&D and innovation in the food sector. The Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation (EC) No. 1924/2006 (NHCR) aims at protecting and promoting innovation as one of its objectives. However, existing studies indicate that this regulation may create several challenges for innovation in the food sector. To this end, we review the challenges related to the NHCR (Article 13.1) and its impact on innovation. Extant literature suggests that companies face challenges related to changing list of ingredients, missing transparency, wording of claims, limited financial resources, limited R&D resources, switching product categories and abandoning the functional foods sector. Moreover, current studies imply that so far the NHCR (in specific Article 13.1) does not seem to encourage innovation in the EU food sector.

Exploring the Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation (EC) No. 1924/2006: What is the impact on innovation in the EU food sector?

Literature suggests that despite its positive aim of promoting innovation, the Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation (EC) No. 1924/2006 (NHCR) may bring along several compliance challenges, which might affect innovation in the EU food sector. This study investigates the challenges faced by companies to comply with the NHCR (specifically Article 13.1) and their impact on innovation. To this end, we conducted an online survey with 105 companies involved in the EU food sector. Results indicate that companies perceive wording of claims, missing transparency and limited financial resources as major challenges to comply with the NHCR (Article 13.1). Companies reported not to have increased their R&D expenditure or innovation activities after the NHCR (Article 13.1) was implemented. Thus, this study highlights specific compliance challenges related to the NHCR (Article 13.1) and indicates that currently, the regulation does not seem to have fostered innovation in the EU food sector.

Is Science the Only Driver in Species Selection? An Internal Study to Evaluate Compound Requirements in the Minipig Compared to the Dog in Preclinical Studies.

Dogs have been often chosen as a nonrodent species for preclinical development of small molecule drugs mainly due to availability and relative ease of handling. Recently, focus has increased on the minipig as a potential alternative to the dog, based on either scientific rationale or public opinion concerns. There are, however, other factors influencing nonrodent choices, in particular drug amount and synthesis time, which differ between species and therefore may impact the milestones of a drug development program. To assess the magnitude of compound need, a retrospective internal survey was conducted on drug amounts used in dog studies which were translated into the requirements for minipigs. Compound need approximately doubles if minipigs are used. Costs of compound are accordingly higher, and synthesis times are slightly increased. In our company, the differences were not considered significant enough to preclude the use of minipigs if the later preclinical program might benefit from improved human risk prediction.

[Review and analysis of transplant biological research projects funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China].

OBJECTIVE: To study the funding and achievements in the field of organ transplantation support by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC). METHODS: A search of NSFC database was made by using the key word "transplantation" and excluding "bone marrow transplantation" for the projects funded between 1988 and 2013. SCI indexed publications that marked with NSFC project number were collected by searching each grant number in the database of the Web of Science. RESULTS: Six hundreds fifty-five projects were identified and received about 220 million yuan in grant funding. These funded research projects were distributed among 25 provinces and autonomous regions, however, which were mainly in the developed coastal areas; of them, 43 (6.56%) projects were granted in xenotransplantation and 17 projects (2.60%) were funded in the field of traditional Chinese medicine-related organ transplantation; Transplantation on blood vessels, heart, kidney, liver, lung, small intestine, pancreatic, cornea, trachea, skin, etc. were primarily performed in research. Nine hundreds and sixty-one SCI-indexed publications were achieved. CONCLUSIONS: Magnitude and intensity of NSFC funding, output of SCI publications have been increasing, suggesting that NSFC positively promotes the development of organ transplantation. Although a great progress of transplantation has been made, basic and translational studies should be vigorously strengthened.

[Analysis of projects funded by NSFC in field of processing Chinese materia medica in recent five years].

The general situation of the approved and concluded projects of National Natural Science Foundation of China in the field of processing Chinese Materia Medica in recent five years has been reviewed. The progresses and achievements of some projects have been summarized in accordance with research area such as the processing principle, the processing technology, quality evaluation, toxicity and safety evaluation, etc. The researchers and project support units of the funded projects have been analyzed, and the problems of the applications have been also summarized.

Plastic surgery practice models and research aims under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

As the health care landscape in the United States changes under the Affordable Care Act, providers are set to face numerous new challenges. Although concerns about practice sustainability with declining reimbursement have dominated the dialogue, there are more pressing changes to the health care funding mechanism as a whole that must be addressed. Plastic surgeons, involved in various practice models each with different relationships to hospitals, referring physicians, and payers, must understand these reimbursement changes to dictate adequate compensation in the future. In this article, the authors discuss bundle payments and accountable care organizations, and how plastic surgeons might best engage in these new system designs. In addition, the authors review the value of a focused and driven health-services research agenda in plastic surgery, and the importance of this research in supporting long-term financial stability for the specialty.

Cancer research in Brazil - stuck in second gear?

This article describes the main issues regarding clinical cancer research in Brazil, including both the opportunities and the hurdles. Scientists and clinicians in this field had the opportunity to talk to regulatory agencies and to the Health Ministry representative at a meeting held in the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in April 2014. Our conclusions are that we do indeed have opportunities; however, we need to move forward regarding partnerships between academia and industry, increase the availability of funding, and provide easier navigation through the regulatory processes.

[Characteristics and innovation in projects of ethnomedicine and ethnopharmacology funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China].

The overall situation of projects of ethnomedicine and ethnopharmacology funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) since 2008 has been presented in this paper. The main source of characteristics and innovation of the funded projects were summarized, which may come from several aspects, such as the ethnomedical theories, the dominant diseases of ethnomedicine, special diseases in ethnic minorities inhabited areas, unique ethnomedical therapy, special methods for applying medication, endemic medicinal materials in ethnic minorities inhabited areas, same medicinal materials with different applications. Examples have been provided to give references to the applicants in the fields of ethnomedicine and ethnopharmacology.