Mapping regional funding for COVID-19 research in the Asia-Pacific region.

INTRODUCTION: The Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R) is a network of funders supporting research on infectious diseases of epidemic/pandemic potential. GloPID-R is establishing regional hubs to strengthen stakeholder engagement particularly among low-income and middle-income countries. The first pilot hub, led from Republic of Korea (South Korea), has been launched in the Asia-Pacific region, a region highly prone to outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases. We present findings of mapping research undertaken in support of the hub's development. METHODS: We analysed five COVID-19 research databases in September 2022 to identify research funders and intermediary funding sources supporting research in infectious diseases in the Asia-Pacific region. This was complemented with an in-depth analysis of the UK Collaborative on Development Research (UKCDR) and GloPID-R COVID-19 Research Project Tracker to assess the alignment of funded projects in the region to the WHO COVID-19 research priorities. RESULTS: We identified 453 funders and funding sources supporting COVID-19 research in the Asia-Pacific Region including public, private and philanthropic organisations and universities. However, these organisations were clustered in few countries in the region. The in-depth analysis of the UKCDR and GloPID-R COVID-19 Research project Tracker found limited research involving Asia-Pacific countries with the 117 funders supporting these projects investing at least US$604m in COVID-19 research in the region. Social Sciences was the dominant theme on which funded projects focused whereas the priority areas with the least number of projects were research on 'animal and environmental health' and 'ethics considerations for research'. CONCLUSION: Our analyses show the diversity of funding sources for research on infectious diseases in the Asia-Pacific region. Engagement between multiple actors in the health research system is likely to promote enhanced coordination for greater research impact. GloPID-R's Asia-Pacific regional hub aims to support activities for the enhancement of preparedness for outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases in the region.

Scoping review protocol on research prioritisation for preparedness and response to outbreaks of high consequence pathogens.

Background : Prioritisation of research activities for infectious disease pathogens is usually undertaken through the identification of important research and knowledge gaps. Research prioritisation is an essential element of both effective responses to disease outbreaks and adequate preparedness. There is however currently no published mapping of activities on and evidence from research prioritisation for high consequence pathogens. The objectives of this review are to map all published research prioritisation exercises on high-consequence pathogens; provide an overview of methodologies employed for prioritising research for these pathogens; describe monitoring and evaluation processes for research areas prioritised; and identify any standards and guidance for effectively undertaking research prioritisation activities for high consequence pathogens. Methods: The Joanna Briggs Institute guidance of scoping review conduct will be used. The search will be undertaken using the key terms of "research prioritisation", "response", "control", and related terms, and a list of high-consequence pathogens derived from WHO (2020), EMERGE (2019), Europe CDC (2022) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2021). We will search WHO Global Index Medicus; Ovid Medline; Ovid Embase; Ovid Global Health; and Scopus. Backward citations review of the included full text documents will also be conducted. Google Scholar and Overton will be searched for grey literature. Two independent reviewers will screen the retrieved documents using Rayyan and extract data in a data extraction template in Microsoft Excel 2021. Screening results will be presented using the PRISMA-ScR template with narrative synthesis undertaken for the extracted data. Conclusion: This review will map existing research priorities for high consequence pathogens. Further, it will provide an understanding of methodologies used for prioritisation, processes for monitoring and evaluation of progress made against research agendas, and evidence on standards that could be recommended for effective prioritisation of research for high consequence pathogens.

Funding and COVID-19 research in Africa: two years on, are the research needs of Africa being met?

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused significantly lower reported mortalities on the African continent as compared to other regions. Yet, many countries on the continent are still contending with the devastating economic, social and indirect health impacts. African researchers and policy makers have identified research priority areas which take cognisance of the unique research needs of African countries. A baseline assessment of the alignment of funded research in Africa to these priorities and World Health Organization's COVID-19 research priorities was undertaken in July, 2020. We present a two-year update to this analysis of funded COVID-19 research in Africa. METHODS: Data captured in the UK Collaborative on Development Research and Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness COVID-19 Research Project Tracker as of 15th July, 2022 was analysed. An additional analysis of institutions receiving funding for COVID-19 research is presented. We also analysed the change in funding for COVID-19 research in Africa since July, 2020. RESULTS: The limited COVID-19 research identified in Africa early in the pandemic has persisted over the subsequent two-year period assessed. When number of projects are considered, governmental funders based in Europe and United States supported the most research. Only nine research funders based in Africa were identified. A number of partnerships between African institutions and institutions based on other continents were identified, however, most research projects were undertaken in research institutions based in Africa only. Our findings highlight the relevance of the WHO research priorities for the pandemic response in Africa. Many research questions raised by African researchers remain unaddressed, among which are questions related to clinical management of COVID-19 infections in Africa. CONCLUSIONS: Two years after the identification of Africa's COVID-19 research priorities, the findings suggest a missed opportunity in new research funding to answer pertinent questions for the pandemic response in Africa.

Baseline results of a living systematic review for COVID-19 clinical trial registrations.

Background: Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was first reported in December 2019, many independent trials have been planned that aim to answer similar questions. Tools allowing researchers to review studies already underway can facilitate collaboration, cooperation and harmonisation. The Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO) has undertaken a living systematic review (LSR) to provide an open, accessible and frequently updated resource summarising characteristics of COVID-19 study registrations. Methods: Review of all eligible trial records identified by systematic searches as of 3 April 2020 and initial synthesis of clinical study characteristics were conducted. In partnership with Exaptive, an open access, cloud-based knowledge graph has been created using the results.  Results: There were 728 study registrations which met eligibility criteria and were still active. Median (25 th, 75 th percentile) sample size was 130 (60, 400) for all studies and 134 (70, 300) for RCTs. Eight lower middle and low income countries were represented among the planned recruitment sites. Overall 109 pharmacological interventions or advanced therapy medicinal products covering 23 drug categories were studied. Majority (57%, 62/109) of them were planned only in one study arm, either alone or in combination with other interventions. There were 49 distinct combinations studied with 90% (44/49) of them administered in only one or two study arms. The data and interactive platform are available at https://iddo.cognitive.city/. Conclusions:  Baseline review highlighted that the majority of investigations in the first three months of the outbreak were small studies with unique treatment arms, likely to be unpowered to provide solid evidence.  The continued work of this LSR will allow a more dependable overview of interventions tested, predict the likely strength of evidence generated, allow fast and informative filtering of relevant trials for specific user groups and provide the rapid guidance needed by investigators and funders to avoid duplication of efforts.

The remaining unknowns: a mixed methods study of the current and global health research priorities for COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: In March 2020, the WHO released a Global Research Roadmap in an effort to coordinate and accelerate the global research response to combat COVID-19 based on deliberations of 400 experts across the world. Three months on, the disease and our understanding have both evolved significantly. As we now tackle a pandemic in very different contexts and with increased knowledge, we sought to build on the work of the WHO to gain a more current and global perspective on these initial priorities. METHODS: We undertook a mixed methods study seeking the views of the global research community to (1) assess which of the early WHO roadmap priorities are still most pressing; (2) understand whether they are still valid in different settings, regions or countries; and (3) identify any new emerging priorities. RESULTS: Thematic analysis of the significant body of combined data shows the WHO roadmap is globally relevant; however, new important priorities have emerged, in particular, pertinent to low and lower middle-income countries (less resourced countries), where health systems are under significant competing pressures. We also found a shift from prioritising vaccine and therapeutic development towards a focus on assessing the effectiveness, risks, benefits and trust in the variety of public health interventions and measures. Our findings also provide insight into temporal nature of these research priorities, highlighting the urgency of research that can only be undertaken within the period of virus transmission, as well as other important research questions but which can be answered outside the transmission period. Both types of studies are key to help combat this pandemic but also importantly to ensure we are better prepared for the future. CONCLUSION: We hope these findings will help guide decision-making across the broad research system including the multilateral partners, research funders, public health practitioners, clinicians and civil society.

A living mapping review for COVID-19 funded research projects: final (27 month) update.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in an unprecedented research response, demonstrating exceptional examples of rapid research and collaboration. There has however been an ongoing need for greater coordination, with limited resources for research and the shifting global pandemic. METHODS: The UK Collaborative on Development Research (UKCDR) and Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R), two funder coordination groups have collaborated to develop a live database of funded research projects across the world relating to COVID-19. Drawing data continually from their members and further global funding bodies, as of 15th October 2022 the database contains 20,006 projects, funded by 351 funders, taking place across 157 countries representing an investment of at least $7.4 billion. To our knowledge it is one of the most comprehensive databases. The database is aligned to the World Health Organisation and GloPID-R Global Research Roadmap: 2019 Novel Coronavirus and the UN Research Roadmap for the COVID-19 Recovery. It is being used by the WHO, governments and further policy makers, research funders and researchers. This living mapping review aims to supplement the database by providing an open, accessible, and frequently updated resource summarising the characteristics of the COVID-19 funded research portfolio. Both descriptive and thematic analyses are presented and updated frequently to aid interpretation of the global COVID-19 funded research portfolio. RESULTS: In this final version ten analysis, we provide an updated detailed descriptive analysis of the database (on data from three months after version nine) and focus our thematic analysis on research gaps, research areas in need of coordination, study populations, and research locations (with a focus on resource-limited countries). CONCLUSIONS: As the global research response to COVID-19 plateaus, this living mapping review has helped both funders and researchers to prioritise resources and review investments.

Funding and COVID-19 research priorities - are the research needs for Africa being met?

Background: Emerging data from Africa indicates remarkably low numbers of reported COVID-19 deaths despite high levels of disease transmission. However, evolution of these trends as the pandemic progresses remains unknown. More certain are the devastating long-term impacts of the pandemic on health and development evident globally. Research tailored to the unique needs of African countries is crucial. UKCDR and GloPID-R have launched a tracker of funded COVID-19 projects mapped to the WHO research priorities and research priorities of Africa and less-resourced countries and published a baseline analysis of a living systematic review (LSR) of these projects.  Methods: In-depth analyses of the baseline LSR for COVID-19 funded research projects in Africa (as of 15th July 2020) to determine the funding landscape and alignment of the projects to research priorities of relevance to Africa.  Results: The limited COVID-19 related research across Africa appears to be supported mainly by international funding, especially from Europe, although with notably limited funding from United States-based funders. At the time of this analysis no research projects funded by an African-based funder were identified in the tracker although there are several active funding calls geared at research in Africa and there may be funding data that has not been made publicly available. Many projects mapped to the WHO research priorities and five particular gaps in research funding were identified, namely: investigating the role of children in COVID-19 transmission; effective modes of community engagement; health systems research; communication of uncertainties surrounding mother-to-child transmission of COVID-19; and identifying ways to promote international cooperation. Capacity strengthening was identified as a dominant theme in funded research project plans. Conclusions: We found significantly lower funding investments in COVID-19 research in Africa compared to high-income countries, seven months into the pandemic, indicating a paucity of research targeting the research priorities of relevance to Africa.

Spectrum of disease in HIV-positive patients presenting to a tertiary care hospital: a retrospective, cross-sectional review in Kumasi, Ghana.

BACKGROUND: HIV remains a significant public health dilemma in West and Central Africa. HIV-related morbidity and mortality are unjustly high, yet little is known about the spectrum of complicating comorbidities in HIV-positive patients who are admitted to hospitals in these regions. METHODS: This study involved a retrospective chart review to determine the common comorbidities and mortality rate of HIV-infected patients admitted over a six month period to the internal medicine service at the Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital (KATH), a tertiary care center in Ghana. Patients admitted with a known or new HIV diagnosis from January to July 2016 were included. Data were collected regarding the number of new versus known cases admitted, the most common presenting complaints, final admitting diagnoses, and causes of mortality in these patients. RESULTS: During the six-month study period, 250 HIV-positive patients were admitted to KATH, and 245 of these individuals had valid survival time recorded. Of these patients, 145/245 (59.2%) were female. Median age of patients included in the study was 42 years old (IQR 35-51). The mortality rate for HIV patients admitted to the hospital was 35.5% (87 patients). One hundred and forty-five (59.4%) patients had a known history of HIV documented in their patient charts, while the remaining patients were newly diagnosed with HIV during their inpatient stay. Pulmonary tuberculosis predominated among diagnostic findings, with 40.4% of HIV-infected patients diagnosed with the condition while admitted. Patients presenting with neurological symptoms on admission were 2.14 (95% CI: 1.27-3.61) times more likely to die than those without neurological symptoms (p = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Over 40% of HIV-positive patients admitted to KATH were newly diagnosed with HIV at admission. While pulmonary tuberculosis was the most common co-morbidity, patients presenting with neurological symptoms were at higher risk of death. This study suggests that enhanced outpatient screening is needed for early diagnosis and prompt HAART initiation, as well as increased access to diagnostic modalities and treatment for HIV-positive patients with neurological symptoms.