A return-on-investment approach for prioritization of rigorous taxonomic research needed to inform responses to the biodiversity crisis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Melville J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8168848 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A return-on-investment approach for prioritization of rigorous taxonomic research needed to inform responses to the biodiversity crisis.
Melville Jane J Chapple David G DG Keogh J Scott JS Sumner Joanna J Amey Andrew A Bowles Phil P Brennan Ian G IG Couper Patrick P Donnellan Stephen C SC Doughty Paul P Edwards Danielle L DL Ellis Ryan J RJ Esquerré Damien D Fenker Jéssica J Gardner Michael G MG Georges Arthur A Haines Margaret L ML Hoskin Conrad J CJ Hutchinson Mark M Moritz Craig C Nankivell James J Oliver Paul P Pavón-Vázquez Carlos J CJ Pepper Mitzy M Rabosky Daniel L DL Sanders Kate K Shea Glenn G Singhal Sonal S Worthington Wilmer Jessica J Tingley Reid R
PLoS biology 20210601 6
Global biodiversity loss is a profound consequence of human activity. Disturbingly, biodiversity loss is greater than realized because of the unknown number of undocumented species. Conservation fundamentally relies on taxonomic recognition of species, but only a fraction of biodiversity is described. Here, we provide a new quantitative approach for prioritizing rigorous taxonomic research for conservation. We implement this approach in a highly diverse vertebrate group-Australian lizards and sn ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Investment in Strep A vaccine R&D is disproportionately low relative to the large burden of Strep A diseases globally. This study presents a novel Strep A vaccine global demand and financial forecast model with estimates of potential global demand and associated revenue and profits for a hypothetical Strep A vaccine as well as a net present value (NPV) analysis of return on capital investments required to develop the vaccine. A positive NPV was calculated for a variety of developer scenarios and target populations, including the global rollout of the vaccine in private and public markets by a multinational pharmaceutical corporation and a staged rollout by a developing country vaccine manufacturer for both infant and child populations. The results suggest there is a viable commercial market for a Strep A vaccine. It is hoped that this study will help to inform industry decision-making and drive increased prioritization of, and investment in, Strep A vaccine research and development.
| S-EPMC10412591 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConventional wisdom identifies biodiversity hotspots as priorities for conservation investment because they capture dense concentrations of species. However, density of species does not necessarily imply conservation 'efficiency'. Here we explicitly consider conservation efficiency in terms of species protected per dollar invested.Methodology/principal findingsWe apply a dynamic return on investment approach to a global biome and compare it with three alternate priority setting approaches and a random allocation of funding. After twenty years of acquiring habitat, the return on investment approach protects between 32% and 69% more species compared to the other priority setting approaches. To correct for potential inefficiencies of protecting the same species multiple times we account for the complementarity of species, protecting up to three times more distinct vertebrate species than alternate approaches.Conclusions/significanceIncorporating costs in a return on investment framework expands priorities to include areas not traditionally highlighted as priorities based on conventional irreplaceability and vulnerability approaches.
| S-EPMC2212107 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe mean cost of developing a new drug has been the subject of debate, with recent estimates ranging from $314 million to $2.8 billion.ObjectiveTo estimate the research and development investment required to bring a new therapeutic agent to market, using publicly available data.Design and settingData were analyzed on new therapeutic agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2009 and 2018 to estimate the research and development expenditure required to bring a new medicine to market. Data were accessed from the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Drugs@FDA database, and ClinicalTrials.gov, alongside published data on clinical trial success rates.ExposuresConduct of preclinical and clinical studies of new therapeutic agents.Main outcomes and measuresMedian and mean research and development spending on new therapeutic agents approved by the FDA, capitalized at a real cost of capital rate (the required rate of return for an investor) of 10.5% per year, with bootstrapped CIs. All amounts were reported in 2018 US dollars.ResultsThe FDA approved 355 new drugs and biologics over the study period. Research and development expenditures were available for 63 (18%) products, developed by 47 different companies. After accounting for the costs of failed trials, the median capitalized research and development investment to bring a new drug to market was estimated at $985.3 million (95% CI, $683.6 million-$1228.9 million), and the mean investment was estimated at $1335.9 million (95% CI, $1042.5 million-$1637.5 million) in the base case analysis. Median estimates by therapeutic area (for areas with ≥5 drugs) ranged from $765.9 million (95% CI, $323.0 million-$1473.5 million) for nervous system agents to $2771.6 million (95% CI, $2051.8 million-$5366.2 million) for antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents. Data were mainly accessible for smaller firms, orphan drugs, products in certain therapeutic areas, first-in-class drugs, therapeutic agents that received accelerated approval, and products approved between 2014 and 2018. Results varied in sensitivity analyses using different estimates of clinical trial success rates, preclinical expenditures, and cost of capital.Conclusions and relevanceThis study provides an estimate of research and development costs for new therapeutic agents based on publicly available data. Differences from previous studies may reflect the spectrum of products analyzed, the restricted availability of data in the public domain, and differences in underlying assumptions in the cost calculations.
| S-EPMC7054832 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the value of research of the RxPONDER study, an ongoing comparative effectiveness RCT designed to evaluate a 21-gene profile in early stage, node-positive breast cancer.MethodsWe developed a disease-based decision-analytic model to compare use of the 21-gene profile versus standard care. Key clinical data were derived from SWOG-8814, an RCT of chemotherapy in lymph node-positive breast cancer. Other model parameters were obtained from published sources. Probabilistic simulations and value of information calculations were used to assess the expected value of sample information (EVSI) and the expected value of sample parameter information (EVSPI).ResultsThe cost of the RxPONDER trial is expected to be at least $27 million. The expected value of research of the RxPONDER trial ranged from $450 million to $1 billion, representing a return of 17 to 39 times the projected cost of the trial. The primary objective of RxPONDER, to assess survival, had the largest estimated value relative to other model inputs. The value of RxPONDER increased by $50 million to $100 million after stakeholder input on additional data collection.ConclusionThe RxPONDER study appears to represent a good investment of public research funds. Stakeholder engagement and assessment of the return on investment should be considered to optimize and quantify the value of comparative effectiveness studies.
| S-EPMC3486702 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is a pressing need to increase the rigor of research in the life and biomedical sciences. To address this issue, we propose that communities of 'rigor champions' be established to campaign for reforms of the research culture that has led to shortcomings in rigor. These communities of rigor champions would also assist in the development and adoption of a comprehensive educational platform that would teach the principles of rigorous science to researchers at all career stages.
| S-EPMC7056268 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceEmployer-sponsored benefit programs aim to increase access to behavioral health care, which may help contain health care costs. However, research has either focused solely on clinical outcomes or demonstrated reductions in medical claims without accounting for the costs of behavioral health services, leaving the financial return on investment unknown.ObjectiveTo determine whether a clinically effective employer-sponsored behavioral health benefit is associated with net medical cost savings.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study included participants eligible for an employer-sponsored behavioral health benefit between November 1, 2019, and May 31, 2023. Eligibility criteria included having a behavioral health diagnosis and, in the program group, attending at least 1 behavioral health appointment. Program users were matched to nonusers on medical risk scores, behavioral health diagnoses, date of diagnosis, age, sex, and employer. Participants were followed up for 1 year before and after the benefit launch.ExposureA digital platform screened individuals for common behavioral health conditions and provided access to video and in-person psychotherapy, medication management, care navigation, and self-guided digital content.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were per member per month (PMPM) medical spending, inclusive of all medical claims and program costs. A difference-in-differences analysis was used to compare changes in net medical spending between groups from the year before and up to 1 year after an index mental health diagnosis.ResultsThis study included 13 990 participants: 4907 of 4949 (99.1%) eligible program group members were matched to 9083 control participants. Their mean (SD) age was 37 (13.2) years, and most participants (65.5%) were female. Costs decreased in the program group relative to the control group, with a net difference-in-differences of -$164 PMPM (95% CI, -$228 to -$100 PMPM), corresponding to savings of $1070 per participant in the first program year and a return on investment of 1.9 times the costs (ie, every $100 invested reduced medical claims costs by $190). Behavioral health costs in the program group increased relative to the control group but were more than offset by decreases in physical health care costs. Savings were larger for participants with higher medical risk.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, every $100 invested in an employer-sponsored behavioral health program with fast access to psychotherapy and medication management was associated with a reduction in medical claims costs by $190. These findings suggest that expanding access to behavioral health care may be a financially viable cost-reduction strategy for health care buyers.
| S-EPMC11800021 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Collaborative research prioritization (CRP) studies have become increasingly popular during the last decade. By bringing together a diverse group of stakeholders, and using a democratic process to create a list of research priorities, these methods purport to identify research topics that will better meet the needs of science users. Here, we review 41 CRP studies in the fields of ecology, biodiversity conservation and environmental science that collectively identify 2031 research priorities. We demonstrate that climate change, ecosystem services and protected areas are common terms found in the research priorities of many CRP studies, and that identified research priorities have become less unique over time. In addition, we show that there is a considerable variation in the size and composition of the groups involved in CRP studies, and that at least one aspect of the identified research priorities (lexical diversity) is related to the size of the CRP group. Although some CRP studies have been highly cited, the evidence that CRP studies have directly motivated research is weak, perhaps because most CRP studies have not directly involved organizations that fund science. We suggest that the most important impact of CRP studies may lie in their ability to connect individuals across sectors and help to build diverse communities of practice around important issues at the science-policy interface.
| S-EPMC7126043 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe aim of the study was to investigate the development of evidence-based monitoring strategies in a population with progressive or recurrent disease. A simulation study of monitoring strategies using a new biomarker (ELF) for the detection of liver cirrhosis in people with known liver fibrosis was undertaken alongside a randomised controlled trial (ELUCIDATE).MethodsExisting data and expert opinion were used to estimate the progression of disease and the performance of repeat testing with ELF. Knowledge of the true disease status in addition to the observed test results for a cohort of simulated patients allowed various monitoring strategies to be implemented, evaluated and validated against trial data.ResultsSeveral monitoring strategies ranging in complexity were successfully modelled and compared regarding the timing of detection of disease, the duration of monitoring, and the predictive value of a positive test result. The results of sensitivity analysis showed the importance of accurate data to inform the simulation. Results of the simulation were similar to those from the trial.ConclusionMonitoring data can be simulated and strategies compared given adequate knowledge of disease progression and test performance. Such exercises should be carried out to ensure optimal strategies are evaluated in trials thus reducing research waste. Monitoring data can be generated and monitoring strategies can be assessed if data is available on the monitoring test performance and the test variability. This work highlights the data necessary and the general method for evaluating the performance of monitoring strategies, allowing appropriate strategies to be selected for evaluation. Modelling work should be conducted prior to full scale investigation of monitoring strategies, allowing optimal monitoring strategies to be assessed.
| S-EPMC11660973 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This paper highlights the pressing need for updated, robust evidence to inform biopharmaceutical policy, particularly in light of recent initiatives such as the Inflation Reduction Act. Current estimates that inform such policies, including those from the Congressional Budget Office, rely on outdated data and models that fail to fully capture the complexities of modern investment decisions or the broader impact of policies on drug development in areas like oncology, rare diseases, and vaccines. Understanding how expectations of financial returns influence investment in all stages of drug development is critical for evaluating these policies' long-term effects on innovation. This piece reviews the current evidence on the relationship between financial returns and research and development investment and considers how this evidence is being used to shape biopharmaceutical policy. It also highlights gaps in data and methodology, emphasizing the need for better models that reflect real-world trade-offs, investment risks, and therapeutic area-specific impacts. Finally, this paper calls for improved access to federal and private data to better inform evidence-based policymaking and to study policy impact on investments in the next generation of medicines, particularly in emerging fields like gene and cell therapies, where the implications of policy decisions are not yet fully understood.
| S-EPMC11631377 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rheumatic Heart Disease (RHD) remains endemic in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) despite its virtual elimination in high-income countries. RHD Action was launched to amplify global efforts to control RHD in 2015 by World Heart Federation and Reach, with demonstration projects in Uganda and Tanzania, and support from Medtronic Foundation. The Small Grants Programme focuses on three domains: People and Communities, Medicines and Technologies, and Systems and Services. It is designed to support patient and community groups in promoting awareness, advocacy, and to build health workers' capacity to prevent and treat RHD in LMICs. Our study evaluates the impact and effectiveness of the RHD Action Small Grants Programme. Methods: We conducted a mixed method study that involved both quantitative and qualitative surveys, through phone interviews and online surveys amongst the grant beneficiaries, to assess the impact and effectiveness of the small grant programme. An invitation to complete an online survey, using a Google Forms format, was issued to Small Grant Project Directors and Co-Directors that received funding for projects between 2017 and 2019. The online survey requested basic project information using tick boxes, Likert scales, and short answer open-ended questions about successes and challenges faced by recipients. The questionnaire also addressed recipients' experience with the RHD Action Small Grants process - applying for the grant, nature and quality of support received to carry out project, the reporting process, and any media coverage provided. For the phone interviews, responses to the short-answer questions were used as the basis for follow up phone interviews. The discussions were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed for new and recurring themes emerging from the in-depth discussions. Initiated in 2017, RHD Action has funded 21 proposals from a pool of 60 submissions. Recipient countries include Zambia, Uganda (2), Namibia, Kenya, Malawi (2), Egypt, Ethiopia, Nigeria (3), Rwanda (2), Mozambique, and Cameroon (2) as well as Fiji (2), the Philippines and Nepal. Five recipients were funded in 2017, eight in 2018 and eight in 2019. Project directors are primarily junior doctors and project managers supervised by senior mentors. In most cases, this is their first funding award. These projects have demonstrated tangible impact and have provided content for first manuscript and abstract submissions and presentations at professional conferences. Grant reports are presented as website stories showcasing the achievements of small local efforts with meaningful impact. For RHD Action, there is large return on a modest monetary investment resulting in a very visible, viable global RHD networking platform for enthusiastic community and provider activists.
| S-EPMC8086735 | biostudies-literature