Public Risk-Taking and Rewards During the COVID-19 Pandemic-A Case Study of Remdesivir in the Context of Global Health Equity

Public investment, through both research grants and universityfunding, plays a crucial role in the research and development (R&D) of novel health technologies, including diagnostics, therapies, and vaccines, to address the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Using the example of remdesivir, one of the most promising COVID-19 treatments, this paper traces back public contributions to different stages of the innovation process. Applying the Risk-Reward Nexus framework to the R&D of remdesivir, we analyse the role of the public in risk-taking and reward and address inequities in the biomedical innovation system. We discuss the collective, cumulative and uncertain characteristics of innovation, highlighting the lack of transparency in the biomedical R&D system, the need for public investment in the innovation process, and the "time-lag" between risk-taking and reward. Despite the significant public transnational contributions to the R&D of remdesivir, the rewards are extracted by few actors and the return to the public in the form of equitable access and affordable pricing is limited. Beyond the necessity to treat remdesivir as a global public good, we argue that biomedical innovation needs to be viewed in the broader concept of public value to prevent the same equity issues currently seen in the COVID-19 pandemic. This requires the state to take a market-shaping rather than market-fixing role, thereby steering innovation, ensuring that patents do not hinder global equitable access and affordable pricing and safeguarding a global medicines supply

Public Risk-Taking and Rewards During the COVID-19 Pandemic - A Case Study of Remdesivir in the Context of Global Health Equity.

Public investment, through both research grants and university funding, plays a crucial role in the research and development (R&D) of novel health technologies, including diagnostics, therapies, and vaccines, to address the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Using the example of remdesivir, one of the most promising COVID-19 treatments, this paper traces back public contributions to different stages of the innovation process. Applying the Risk-Reward Nexus framework to the R&D of remdesivir, we analyse the role of the public in risk-taking and reward and address inequities in the biomedical innovation system. We discuss the collective, cumulative and uncertain characteristics of innovation, highlighting the lack of transparency in the biomedical R&D system, the need for public investment in the innovation process, and the "time-lag" between risk-taking and reward. Despite the significant public transnational contributions to the R&D of remdesivir, the rewards are extracted by few actors and the return to the public in the form of equitable access and affordable pricing is limited. Beyond the necessity to treat remdesivir as a global public good, we argue that biomedical innovation needs to be viewed in the broader concept of public value to prevent the same equity issues currently seen in the COVID-19 pandemic. This requires the state to take a market-shaping rather than market-fixing role, thereby steering innovation, ensuring that patents do not hinder global equitable access and affordable pricing and safeguarding a global medicines supply

Clinical trial reporting performance of thirty UK universities on ClinicalTrials.gov-evaluation of a new tracking tool for the US clinical trial registry.

Clinical trial transparency forms the foundation of evidence-based medicine, and trial sponsors, especially publicly funded institutions such as universities, have an ethical and scientific responsibility to make the results of clinical trials publicly available in a timely fashion. We assessed whether the thirty UK universities receiving the most Medical Research Council funding in 2017-2018 complied with World Health Organization best practices for clinical trial reporting on the US Clinical Trial Registry ( ClinicalTrials.gov ). Firstly, we developed and evaluated a novel automated tracking tool ( clinical-trials-tracker.com ) for clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov . This tracker identifies the number of due trials (whose completion lies more than 395 days in the past) that have not reported results on the registry and can now be used for all sponsors. Secondly, we used the tracker to determine the number of due clinical trials sponsored by the selected UK universities in October 2020. Thirdly, using the FDAAA Trials Tracker, we identified trials sponsored by these universities that are not complying with reporting requirements under the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act 2007. Finally, we quantified the average and median number of days between primary completion date and results posting. In October 2020, the universities included in our study were sponsoring 1634 due trials, only 1.6% (n = 26) of which had reported results within a year of completion. 89.8% (n = 1468) of trials remained unreported, and 8.6% (n = 140) of trials reported results late. We also identified 687 trials that contained inconsistent data, suggesting that UK universities often fail to update their data adequately on ClinicalTrials.gov . The mean reporting delay after primary completion for trials that posted results was 981 days, the median 728 days. Only four trials by UK universities violated the FDAAA 2007. We suggest a number of reasons for the poor reporting performance of UK universities on ClinicalTrials.gov : (i) efforts to improve clinical trial reporting in the UK have to date focused on the European clinical trial registry (EU CTR), (ii) the absence of a tracking tool for timely reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov has limited the visibility of institutions' reporting performance on the US registry and (iii) there is currently a lack of repercussions for UK sponsors who fail to report results on ClinicalTrials.gov which should be addressed in the future

Bitter taste perception in BaYaka hunter-gatherers

Aversion towards bitter tastes evolved across vertebrate species to enable the recognition of harmful plant toxins. Most studies to date have investigated the variation in bitter taste sensitivity between human populations. However, there is a lack of research investigating phenotypic plasticity and the variation in bitter taste perception within the same population. Here we examined bitter taste perception among the Mbendjele BaYaka hunter-gatherers from Congo, a group of forest hunter-gatherers who exhibit a variation in their levels of market integration. We conducted an experiment using phenylthiocarbamide (PTC) and thiourea infused paper strips and compared the prevalence of bitter tasting phenotypes between the BaYaka who grew up in town and forest camps. We found that 45.1% of BaYaka experience PTC as bitter, and 42.5% experience thiourea as bitter. There were no sex and age differences in bitter taste perception. Despite a shared genetic background, we found that BaYaka who grew up in town were more sensitive to bitter taste than those living in the forest, suggesting a developmental component in taste perception. We suggest that a decreased use of traditional plant medicine in town-born BaYaka may underlie this variation in bitter taste perception

Making a COVID-19 vaccine that works for everyone: ensuring equity and inclusivity in clinical trials

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortality and morbidity have been shown to increase with deprivation and impact non-White ethnicities more severely. Despite the extra risk Black, Asian and Minority Ethnicity (BAME) groups face in the pandemic, our current medical research system seems to prioritise innovation aimed at people of European descent. We found significant difficulties in assessing baseline demographics in clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines, displaying a lack of transparency in reporting. Further, we found that most of these trials take place in high-income countries, with only 25 of 219 trials (11.4%) taking place in lower middle- or low-income countries. Trials for the current best vaccine candidates (BNT162b2, ChadOx1, mRNA-173) recruited 80.0% White participants. Underrepresentation of BAME groups in medical research will perpetuate historical distrust in healthcare processes, and poses a risk of unknown differences in efficacy and safety of these vaccines by phenotype. Limiting trial demographics and settings will mean a lack of global applicability of the results of COVID-19 vaccine trials, which will slow progress towards ending the pandemic

Who funded the research behind the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine?

Objectives The Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, Vaxzevira or Covishield) builds on two decades of research and development (R&D) into chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx) technology at the University of Oxford. This study aimed to approximate the funding for the R&D of ChAdOx and the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine and to assess the transparency of funding reporting mechanisms. Methods We conducted a scoping review and publication history analysis of the principal investigators to reconstruct R&D funding the ChAdOx technology. We matched award numbers with publicly accessible grant databases. We filed freedom of information (FOI) requests to the University of Oxford for the disclosure of all grants for ChAdOx R&D. Results We identified 100 peer-reviewed articles relevant to ChAdOx technology published between January 2002 and October 2020, extracting 577 mentions of funding bodies from acknowledgements. Government funders from overseas (including the European Union) were mentioned 158 times (27.4%), the UK government 147 (25.5%) and charitable funders 138 (23.9%). Grant award numbers were identified for 215 (37.3%) mentions; amounts were publicly available for 121 (21.0%). Based on the FOIs, until December 2019, the biggest funders of ChAdOx R&D were the European Commission (34.0%), Wellcome Trust (20.4%) and Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (17.5%). Since January 2020, the UK government contributed 95.5% of funding identified. The total identified R&D funding was £104 226 076 reported in the FOIs and £228 466 771 reconstructed from the literature search. Conclusion Our study approximates that public and charitable financing accounted for 97%-99% of identifiable funding for the ChAdOx vaccine technology research at the University of Oxford underlying the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine until autumn 2020. We encountered a lack of transparency in research funding reporting

Global WEIRDing:transitions in wild plant knowledge and treatment preferences in Congo hunter–gatherers

Cultures around the world are converging as populations become more connected. On the one hand this increased connectedness can promote the recombination of existing cultural practices to generate new ones, but on the other it may lead to the replacement of traditional practices and global WEIRDing. Here we examine the process and causes of changes in cultural traits concerning wild plant knowledge in Mbendjele BaYaka hunter–gatherers from Congo. Our results show that the BaYaka who were born in town reported knowing and using fewer plants than the BaYaka who were born in forest camps. Plant uses lost in the town-born BaYaka related to medicine. Unlike the forest-born participants, the town-born BaYaka preferred Western medicine over traditional practices, suggesting that the observed decline of plant knowledge and use is the result of replacement of cultural practices with the new products of cumulative culture

Quantifying patterns of alcohol consumption and its effects on health and wellbeing among BaYaka hunter-gatherers: A mixed-methods cross-sectional study.

Funder: UCL Grand ChallengesEthnographers frequently allude to alcoholism and related harms in Indigenous hunter-gatherer communities, but very few studies have quantified patterns of alcohol consumption or its health and social impacts. We present a case study of the Mbendjele BaYaka, a Congolese population undergoing socioeconomic transition. 83 adults answered questions about their frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption, underwent biometric measurements and reported whether they were currently experiencing a cough or diarrhoea; 56 participated in structured interviews about their experiences with alcohol. Based on WHO standards, we found 44.3% of the full sample, and 51.5% of drinkers (excluding abstainers), had a hazardous volume of alcohol consumption; and 35.1% of the full sample, and 40.9% of drinkers, engaged in heavy episodic drinking; consumption habits varied with sex and age. Total weekly consumption was a positive predictor of blood pressure and the likelihood of experiencing diarrhoea; associations with other biometric variables were not statistically significant. Interview responses indicated numerous other economic, mental and physical health harms of alcohol use, the prevalence of which demonstrate some variability between forest camps and permanent village settlements. These include high rates of drinking during pregnancy and breastfeeding (~40%); frequent alcohol-induced violence; and considerable exchange of foraged foods and engagement in exploitative labour activities to acquire alcohol or repay associated debts. Our findings demonstrate the prevalence of hazardous alcohol consumption among transitioning hunter-gatherers is higher than other segments of the Congolese population and indicate negative impacts on health and wellbeing, highlighting an urgent need for targeted public health interventions

Biosecurity and water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions in animal agricultural settings for reducing infection burden, antibiotic use, and antibiotic resistance: a One Health systematic review.

Prevention and control of infections across the One Health spectrum is essential for improving antibiotic use and addressing the emergence and spread of antibiotic resistance. Evidence for how best to manage these risks in agricultural communities-45% of households globally-has not been systematically assembled. This systematic review identifies and summarises evidence from on-farm biosecurity and water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions with the potential to directly or indirectly reduce infections and antibiotic resistance in animal agricultural settings. We searched 17 scientific databases (including Web of Science, PubMed, and regional databases) and grey literature from database inception to Dec 31, 2019 for articles that assessed biosecurity or WASH interventions measuring our outcomes of interest; namely, infection burden, microbial loads, antibiotic use, and antibiotic resistance in animals, humans, or the environment. Risk of bias was assessed with the Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation tool, Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions, and the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies, although no studies were excluded as a result. Due to the heterogeneity of interventions found, we conducted a narrative synthesis. The protocol was pre-registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020162345). Of the 20 672 publications screened, 104 were included in this systematic review. 64 studies were conducted in high-income countries, 24 studies in upper-middle-income countries, 13 studies in lower-middle-income countries, two in low-income countries, and one included both upper-middle-income countries and lower-middle-income countries. 48 interventions focused on livestock (mainly pigs), 43 poultry (mainly chickens), one on livestock and poultry, and 12 on aquaculture farms. 68 of 104 interventions took place on intensive farms, 22 in experimental settings, and ten in smallholder or subsistence farms. Positive outcomes were reported for ten of 23 water studies, 17 of 35 hygiene studies, 15 of 24 sanitation studies, all three air-quality studies, and 11 of 17 other biosecurity-related interventions. In total, 18 of 26 studies reported reduced infection or diseases, 37 of 71 studies reported reduced microbial loads, four of five studies reported reduced antibiotic use, and seven of 20 studies reported reduced antibiotic resistance. Overall, risk of bias was high in 28 of 57 studies with positive interventions and 17 of 30 studies with negative or neutral interventions. Farm-management interventions successfully reduced antibiotic use by up to 57%. Manure-oriented interventions reduced antibiotic resistance genes or antibiotic-resistant bacteria in animal waste by up to 99%. This systematic review highlights the challenges of preventing and controlling infections and antimicrobial resistance, even in well resourced agricultural settings. Most of the evidence emerges from studies that focus on the farm itself, rather than targeting agricultural communities or the broader social, economic, and policy environment that could affect their outcomes. WASH and biosecurity interventions could complement each other when addressing antimicrobial resistance in the human, animal, and environmental interface