Suchergebnisse

The Mexico (2004), Bamako (2008) and Algiers (2008) declarations committed the South African (SA) Ministry of Health to allocate 2% of the national health budget to research, while the National Health Research Policy (2001) proposed that the country budget for health research should be 2% of total public sector health expenditure. The National Health Research Committee has performed an audit to determine whether these goals have been met, judged by: (i) health research expenditure as proportions of gross expenditure on research and development (GERD) and the gross domestic product (GDP); and (ii) the proportion of the national health and Department of Health budgets apportioned to research. We found that total expenditure on health research in SA, aggregated across the public and private sectors, was R3.5 billion in 2009/10, equating to 16.7% of GERD. However, the total government plus science council spend on health research that year was only R729 million, equating to 3.5% of GERD (0.03% of the GDP) or 0.80% of the R91.4 billion consolidated government expenditure on health. We further found that R418 million was spent through the 2009/2010 Health Vote on health research, equating to 0.46% of the consolidated government expenditure on health or 0.9% of the R45.2 billion Health Vote. Data from other recent years were similar. Current SA public sector health research allocations therefore remain well below the aspirational goal of 2% of the national health budget. We recommend that new, realistic, clearly defined targets be adopted and an efficient monitoring mechanism be developed to track future health research expenditure.

Background. Over the past 18 years, the South African (SA) Ministry of Health has committed to allocate 2% of the national health budget to research, while the National Health Research Policy (2001) proposed that the health research budget should be 2% of total public sector health expenditure. A review was conducted by the National Health Research Committee (NHRC) in 2014 to determine whether these goals had been met, using available data up to 2009/10. It revealed that public sector health research funding remained below 2% of the national health budget, supporting the perception of reduced public sector health research funding.Objectives. To provide an update on the previous review to investigate changes in the health research landscape since 2009/10 and whether goals have been met.Methods. Various publicly available sources of information on public and private expenditure on health research in SA were used to investigate health research funding and expenditure. In addition, questionnaires were sent to 35 major national and international funders of health research in SA to obtain data on the level of funding provided and the fields of research funded.Results. Total health research expenditure in SA was ZAR6.9 billion in 2016/17, or 19.2% of gross expenditure on research and development, with 1.7% of the ZAR38.6 billion National Department of Health budget from National Treasury being spent on health research through the South African Medical Research Council (ZAR658 million), corresponding to 0.4% of the consolidated government expenditure on health. However, although the total government plus science council spend on health research in 2016/17 was ZAR1.45 billion, this represents just 0.033% of the gross domestic product (GDP), thus remaining well below the aspirational target of 0.15% of the GDP set by the NHRC in 2014. Based on feedback from the funders, the estimated baseline health research funding in 2016/17 was in excess of ZAR4.1 billion, which is considerably higher than many researchers may realise. Three-quarters of this funding originated from foreign sources, suggesting both strengths and opportunities for health research in SA, but also highlighting increasing dependence on foreign funding. Notably, the majority of funders approached were not able to readily break down expenditure according to disease area.Conclusions. Health research funding has changed significantly since our previous review, although the government's own commitments to it remain unmet. Improved mechanisms to track health research expenditure are urgently required for better alignment of funding priorities and increased co-ordination between science councils in health research funding.

The potential role for serological tests in the current COVID-19 pandemic has generated very considerable recent interest across many sectors worldwide, inter alia pathologists seeking additional weapons for their armoury of diagnostic tests; epidemiologists seeking tools to gain seroprevalence data that will inform improved models of the spread of disease; research scientists seeking tools to study the natural history of COVID-19 disease; vaccine developers seeking tools to assess vaccine efficacy in clinical trials; and companies and governments seeking tools to aid return-to-work decision-making. However, much of the local debate to date has centred on questions surrounding whether regulatory approval processes are limiting access to serological tests, and has not paused to consider the intrinsically limiting impact of underlying fundamental biology and immunology on where and how different COVID-19 serological tests can usefully be deployed in the response to the current pandemic. We review, from an immunological perspective, recent experimental evidence on the time-dependency of adaptive immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 infection and the impact of this on the sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 antibody tests made at different time points post infection. We interpret this scientific evidence in terms of mooted clinical applications for current COVID-19 antibody tests in identifying acute infections, in confirming recent or past infections at the individual and population level, and in detecting re-infection and protective immunity. We conclude with guidance on where current COVID-19 antibody tests can make a genuine impact in the pandemic.