Financing of U.S. biomedical research and new drug approvals across therapeutic areas.

BACKGROUND: We estimated U.S. biomedical research funding across therapeutic areas, determined the association with disease burden, and evaluated new drug approvals that resulted from this investment. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We calculated funding from 1995 to 2005 and totaled Food and Drug Administration approvals in eight therapeutic areas (cardiovascular, endocrine, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, HIV/AIDS, infectious disease excluding HIV, oncology, and respiratory) primarily using public data. We then calculated correlations between funding, published estimates of disease burden, and drug approvals. Financial support for biomedical research from 1995 to 2005 increased across all therapeutic areas between 43% and 369%. Industry was the principal funder of all areas except HIV/AIDS, infectious disease, and oncology, which were chiefly sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Total (rho = 0.70; P = .03) and industry funding (rho = 0.69; P = .04) were correlated with projected disease burden in high income countries while NIH support (rho = 0.80; P = .01) was correlated with projected disease burden globally. From 1995 to 2005 the number of new approvals was flat or declined across therapeutic areas, and over an 8-year lag period, neither total nor industry funding was correlated with future approvals. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Across therapeutic areas, biomedical research funding increased substantially, appears aligned with disease burden in high income countries, but is not linked to new drug approvals. The translational gap between funding and new therapies is affecting all of medicine, and remedies must include changes beyond additional financial investment.

Financial anatomy of neuroscience research.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the level of funding for neuroscience research from federal and industry sources and to examine the therapeutic advances in the neurosciences over the past decade. METHODS: We examined financing for neuroscience research over the past decade from the following principal sponsors of biomedical research: the National Institutes of Health, the pharmaceutical industry, large biotechnology firms, and large medical device firms. We also examined US Food and Drug Administration approvals for new molecular entities and medical devices for indications within the neurosciences. Neuroscience was defined to include funding and approvals for neurological and psychiatric conditions. RESULTS: Total (nominal) industry and government funding for neuroscience research increased from $4.8 billion in 1995 to $14.1 billion in 2005 and doubled after adjusting for inflation. In 2005, the pharmaceutical industry and the largest biotechnology and medical device firms accounted for 58% of total funding. The US Food and Drug Administration approved 40 new molecular entities for indications within the neurosciences from 1995 to 2005, with the annual number of approvals remaining relatively stagnant during this period. From 1995 to 2005, the US Food and Drug Administration also approved 1,679 medical devices in the neurosciences for use. INTERPRETATION: Financing for neuroscience research has increased significantly over the past decade, but new approvals for drugs in the neurosciences have not kept pace with the rapid increase in funding. This lag may represent a natural delay in realizing the return in the investment in scientific research or a decline in the productivity of neuroscience research.

Responsiveness of life-threatening refractory emesis to gabapentin-scopolamine therapy following posterior fossa surgery. Case report.

Craniotomy-associated chronic emesis can be refractory to currently approved antiemetic therapy. The authors describe a man who suffered 4 weeks of severe refractory emesis, failure to thrive, and a 40-lb weight loss after he underwent resection of a posterior fossa cholesteatoma. The patient experienced complete resolution of emesis and anorexia in response to combined gabapentin-scopolamine therapy. This case provides anecdotal evidence for the use of gabapentin-scopolamine therapy in patients with chronic, refractory nausea and emesis, particularly following posterior fossa surgery, during which medullary nausea and emesis centers may be affected.