Research Roundup: What we’re reading this week

It’s been a busy twelve months for the team at the Global Health Technologies Coalition! A year ago today, we launched Breakthroughs with the intention of sharing global health research and development (R&D) news and stories that bridge the divide between science and policy. Since that time, there have been a number of advances we’ve applauded and stories that have touched us. Here are some of our team’s favorite posts: This year has been another interesting and non-traditional one for congressional action on the federal budget. In a series of blog posts, we took a look at the potential for budget cuts and sequestration, and explored what this might mean for global health R&D. What do presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney (R) and Barack Obama (D) think about R&D? We gave some attention to how the nominees’ platforms might affect research to develop new global health technologies. One of the year’s most exciting scientific advances was the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of the drug Truvada to be used as an HIV prevention prophylaxis among certain groups at risk for infection. We explored how FDA has developed an increasingly critical role in global health. Last year, Congress approved and funded the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, intended to promote research aimed at speeding the development of therapeutics and diagnostic tools for a wide range of diseases. While we’ve been excited about the potential for this program to speed the development of new global health technologies, we were disappointed in the lack of global health leadership when the center’s advisory council was named earlier this year. Our communications officer reflects on her personal journey with diabetes, and the difficulty that children in the developing world face when being diagnosed for neglected tropical diseases. A series of photos from our travels tell the story of how lifesaving tools are making a difference in communities across Kenya, and how current research is on the cusp of developing some of the most exciting new tools in global public health in recent years. A series of photos, like the one above, from our travels tell the story of how lifesaving tools are making a difference in communities across Kenya, and how current research is on the cusp of developing some of the most exciting new tools in global public health in recent years. Photo credit: PATH/Evelyn Hockstein We’ve featured a range of great guest bloggers as well. On World AIDS Day, leaders at the NIH and the Department of Defense both wrote about the impact their agencies have on research to help end the AIDS pandemic. Guest blogs from the US Agency for International Development and the Global Health Initiative team highlighted the importance of science, technology, and innovation to our nation’s diplomacy programs. From the need to advance women’s health and address contraceptive needs, to the gaps in the development of drugs for neglected tropical diseases, to efforts to develop new TB treatment regimens and a TB vaccine, our coalition members illustrated the critical need for an investment in science to address a range of diseases and conditions. We’ve been busy working on a few other projects this year, too. In February, we released our third annual policy report at a congressional briefing, and April brought our first analysis piece on US investments in global health R&D. It’s been quite a year, and we’re glad that you’ve been along with us for the ride! We’re confident that Breakthrough’s second year will be full of the same policy developments and excitement, breaking news from our members, and great stories of how R&D is changing lives. We hope that you stay tuned.

Over the past few weeks—as Congress worked on a budget deal to keep the federal government running through the end of March 2013—several global health and international development groups released new reports about what looming, across-the-board cuts would do to these programs worldwide. Groups are worried about the likely devastating impact of sequestration on US-funded global health, research, science, and development programs. Sequestration would require a reduction in government spending of $109 billion per year for nine years, beginning in January 2013. It’s expected that the resulting indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts would result in a 9.4 percent cut for most defense programs relevant to global health—including global health research and development (R&D) programs at the Department of Defense (DoD). Non-defense programs—including most programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the State Department, and the US Agency for International Development (USAID)—that are not exempt from cuts would receive an 8.2 percent cut. Some groups are worried about the likely devastating impact of sequestration on US-funded global health, research, science, and development programs. Below, we provide a round-up of some of these new analysis pieces, detailing the human impact of these sweeping cuts. In an updated analysis, amfAR, the Foundation for AIDS Research, recalculated its estimates on the human impact of budget sequestration on global health. The analysis finds that as the result of sequestration, HIV and AIDS treatment for 276,500 people worldwide will not be available, potentially leading to 63,000 more AIDS-related deaths and 124,000 more children becoming orphans. In addition, 112,500 fewer HIV-positive pregnant women will receive services to prevent transmission to their children, leading to more than 21,000 infants being infected with HIV. The analysis finds that 2.2 million fewer insecticide-treated nets will be procured, leading to nearly 6,000 deaths due to malaria, and that 60,000 fewer people with tuberculosis will receive treatment, leading to 7,000 more deaths from the disease. A new analysis from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) finds that sequestration would “no doubt have significant impacts on federal funding of science, research, and innovation.” The analysis aims to provide a complete picture of the size of these potential cuts by estimating budget impacts for most key R&D agencies, and the funding ramifications by state, over the next five years. It found that the NIH could receive a cut of $11.3 billion over five years, averaging $2.3 billion less per year for research. The DoD could average $6.7 billion less for R&D per year, while the National Science Foundation could receive $2.1 billion less over five years. Total cuts through fiscal year 2017 would amount to $57.5 billion. “The resulting R&D budgets at most agencies would be lower than they've been in several years,” according to AAAS. Bread for the World has released a document that details the impact of sequestration on the international affairs budget. It finds that sequestration would result in reductions to international affairs funding that would entail about $1.7 billion in cuts to poverty-focused development accounts, including a $670 million cut to global health programs. These cuts would mean “[m]ore lives would be needlessly lost due to infectious disease and more children would be born HIV-positive,” according to the analysis. Research!America has also released an updated analysis on how sequestration would affect health research and science at key US agencies. Based on fiscal year 2012 numbers, the report finds that the NIH could lose $2.5 billion, the CDC could lose $479 million, and the FDA could lose $318 million for their R&D efforts. Sequestration would ultimately put health research “at the breaking point,” according to the report. With most members of Congress gearing up for the November elections, we hope that they’re paying attention to these reports and listening to the chorus of voices calling for a real, long-term solution to the budget. Both Mitt Romneyand Barack Obama have been taking about foreign assistance lately, and the issue will stay on the candidates’ minds as they participate in an upcoming debate focused on international issues. Preventing sequestration needs to be a priority in these conversations.