The NIMH Research Portfolio: An Update.

Objective: To examine the funding priorities of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) since 2016 to assess whether NIMH was continuing to prioritize basic research at the expense of clinical research.Methods: Six psychiatric disorders (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, autism) were assessed using 2 publicly available data sources (ClinicalTrials.gov and the National Institutes of Health Research, Condition, and Disease Categorization [RCDC]) to determine the degree of NIMH support for drug trials and research on these disorders in general since 2016.Results: From 2017 through 2022, ClinicalTrials.gov lists just 1 drug trial each for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The RCDC database for 2016 through 2021 shows that NIMH support for research projects on schizophrenia and bipolar disorder decreased by 22% and 20%, respectively. During that time, Congress increased the budget of NIMH by 40%.Conclusions: NIMH has continued to prioritize basic research over clinical trials, resulting in a steep decline in funding for possible treatments for the most serious and costly psychiatric diseases.Prim Care Companion CNS Disord 2023;25(4):23m03486. Author affiliations are listed at the end of this article.

The Continuing Decline of Clinical Research on Serious Mental Illnesses at NIMH.

It has been claimed that the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) budget, which traditionally has been evenly balanced between basic and clinical research, has shifted sharply and that 90% of NIMH resources are funding basic research. The authors used public data sources to assess this claim: the Research Condition and Disease Categorization Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the NIMH Strategic Plan for Research for 2020-2024. From 2016 to 2019, NIMH expenditures on bipolar disorder research decreased 25%, and those for schizophrenia research decreased 17.5%. From 2003 to 2019, NIMH support for treatment trials for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder decreased 90%. NIMH's Strategic Plan for Research for 2020-2024 suggests that the shift toward basic research will continue. Because NIMH's primary purpose is to develop better treatments for current patients as well as future ones, the authors recommend that the ratio of basic to clinical research be readjusted to approximately 50:50.

Using the NIH Research, Condition and Disease Categorization Database for research advocacy: Schizophrenia research at NIMH as an example.

In 2008 the National Institutes of Health established the Research, Condition and Disease Categorization Database (RCDC) that reports the amount spent by NIH institutes for each disease. Its goal is to allow the public "to know how the NIH spends their tax dollars," but it has been little used. The RCDC for 2018 was used to assess 428 schizophrenia-related research projects funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. Three senior psychiatrists independently rated each on its likelihood ("likely", "possible", "very unlikely") of improving the symptoms and/or quality of life for individuals with schizophrenia within 20 years. At least one reviewer rated 386 (90%), and all three reviewers rated 302 (71%), of the research projects as very unlikely to provide clinical improvement within 20 years. Reviewer agreement for the "very unlikely" category was good; for the "possible" category was intermediate; and for the "likely" category was poor. At least one reviewer rated 30 (7%) of the research projects as likely to provide clinical improvement within 20 years. The cost of the 30 projects was 5.5% of the total NIMH schizophrenia-related portfolio or 0.6% of the total NIMH budget. Study results confirm previous 2016 criticisms that the NIMH schizophrenia-related research portfolio disproportionately underfunds clinical research that might help people currently affected. Although the results are preliminary, since the RCDC database has not previously been used in this manner and because of the subjective nature of the assessment, the database would appear to be a useful tool for disease advocates who wish to ascertain how NIH spends its public funds.