How long does biomedical research take? Studying the time taken between biomedical and health research and its translation into products, policy, and practice

Health Research Policy and Systems

Steven Wooding³  Jon Sussex²  Alexandra Pollitt³  Michele Pistollato²  Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz²  Chris Henshall⁴  Susan Guthrie³  Jonathan Grant¹  Sophie Castle-Clarke³  Stephen R Hanney⁴ 

[1] King’s Policy Institute, King’s College London, Virginia Woolf Building, 22 Kingsway, London WC2B 6NR, UK;Office of Health Economics, 105 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6QT, UK;RAND Europe, Westbrook Centre, Milton Road, Cambridge CB4 1YG, UK;Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University London, Kingston Lane, Uxbridge UB8 3PH, UK

关键词: Timelines;    Time lags;    Regulatory approval;    Process marker model;    Pharmaceutical industry;    Human research;    Economic impact of research;    Discovery research;    Clinical guidelines;    Basic research;   

Others  :  1133779
DOI  :  10.1186/1478-4505-13-1

 received in 2014-07-16, accepted in 2014-10-31,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

The time taken, or ‘time lags’, between biomedical/health research and its translation into health improvements is receiving growing attention. Reducing time lags should increase rates of return to such research. However, ways to measure time lags are under-developed, with little attention on where time lags arise within overall timelines. The process marker model has been proposed as a better way forward than the current focus on an increasingly complex series of translation ‘gaps’. Starting from that model, we aimed to develop better methods to measure and understand time lags and develop ways to identify policy options and produce recommendations for future studies.

Methods

Following reviews of the literature on time lags and of relevant policy documents, we developed a new approach to conduct case studies of time lags. We built on the process marker model, including developing a matrix with a series of overlapping tracks to allow us to present and measure elements within any overall time lag. We identified a reduced number of key markers or calibration points and tested our new approach in seven case studies of research leading to interventions in cardiovascular disease and mental health. Finally, we analysed the data to address our study’s key aims.

Results

The literature review illustrated the lack of agreement on starting points for measuring time lags. We mapped points from policy documents onto our matrix and thus highlighted key areas of concern, for example around delays before new therapies become widely available. Our seven completed case studies demonstrate we have made considerable progress in developing methods to measure and understand time lags. The matrix of overlapping tracks of activity in the research and implementation processes facilitated analysis of time lags along each track, and at the cross-over points where the next track started. We identified some factors that speed up translation through the actions of companies, researchers, funders, policymakers, and regulators. Recommendations for further work are built on progress made, limitations identified and revised terminology.

Conclusions

Our advances identify complexities, provide a firm basis for further methodological work along and between tracks, and begin to indicate potential ways of reducing lags.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Hanney et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Cooksey D: A Review of UK Health Research Funding. Norwich: HMSO; 2006.
• [2]Westfall J, Mold J, Fagnan L: Practice-based research – “Blue Highways” on the NIH roadmap. JAMA 2007, 297:403-406.
• [3]Buxton M, Hanney S, Morris S, Sundmacher L, Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Garau M, Sussex J, Grant J, Ismail S, Nason E, Wooding S: Medical Research: What’s it Worth?. London: Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust and Academy of Medical Sciences; 2008.
• [4]Rogers E: Diffusion of Innovations. 4th edition. New York, NY: The Free Press; 1995.
• [5]Davis D, Evans M, Jadad A, Perrier L, Rath D, Ryan D, Sibbald G, Straus S, Rappolt S, Wowk M, Zwarenstein M: The case for knowledge translation: shortening the journey from evidence to effect. BMJ 2003, 33:33-35.
• [6]Packer C, Simpson S, Stevens A: International diffusion of new health technologies: a ten-country analysis of six health technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006, 22:419-428.
• [7]Graham I, Tetroe J, Group KTR: Some theoretical underpinnings of knowledge translation. Acad Emerg Med 2007, 14:936-941.
• [8]Lang ES, Wyer PC, Haynes RB: Knowledge translation: closing the evidence-to-practice gap. Ann Emerg Med 2007, 49:355-363.
• [9]Baumbusch J, Kirkham S, Khan K, McDonald H, Semeniuk P, Tan E, Anderson JM: Pursuing common agendas: a collaborative model for knowledge translation between research and practice in clinical settings. Res Nurs Health 2008, 31:130-140.
• [10]Trochim W: Translation Won’t Happen Without Dissemination and Implementation: Some Measurement and Evaluation Issues. Bethesda, MD: NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research; 2010. [3rd Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation]
• [11]Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O: Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 2004, 82:581-629.
• [12]Balas E, Boren S: Managing clinical knowledge for health care improvement. In Yearbook of Medical Informatics. Edited by van Bemmel JH, McCray AT. Stuttgart: Schattauer Verlagsgesellschaft mbH; 2000:65-70.
• [13]Grant J, Green L, Mason B: Basic research and health: a reassessment of the scientific basis for the support of biomedical science. Res Eval 2003, 12:217-224.
• [14]Wratschko K: Empirical Setting: The Pharmaceutical Industry. Strategic Orientation and Alliance Portfolio Configuration. New York, NY: Springer; 2009.
• [15]Morris ZS, Wooding S, Grant J: The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med 2011, 104:510-520.
• [16]Trochim W, Kane C, Graham M, Pincus HA: Evaluating translational research: a process marker model. Clin Transl Sci 2011, 4:153-162.
• [17]Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Sussex J, Towse A: The R&D Cost of a New Medicine. London: Office of Health Economics; 2012.
• [18]DiMasi JA: Success rates for new drugs entering clinical testing in the US. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995, 58(1):1-14.
• [19]Adams CP, Brantner VV: Estimating the cost of new drug development: is it really $802million? Health Aff 2006, 25(2):420-428.
• [20]DiMasi JA, Grabowsk HG: Economics of new oncology drug development. J Clin Oncol 2007, 25(2):209-216.
• [21]Kaitin KI, DiMasi JA: Pharmaceutical innovation on the 21st century: new drug approvals in the first decade, 2000–2009. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011, 89:183-188.
• [22]O’Neill P: Shedding the Pounds: Obesity Management, NICE Guidance and Bariatric Surgery in England. London: Office of Health Economics; 2010.
• [23]Wooding S, Hanney S, Buxton M, Grant J: Payback arising from research funding: evaluation of the Arthritis Research Campaign. Rheumatology 2005, 44:1145-1156.
• [24]Hanney S, Buxton M, Green C, Coulson D, Raftery JL: An assessment of the impact of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Health Technol Assess 2007, 11:53.
• [25]Hanney SR, Watt A, Jones TH, Metcalf L: Conducting retrospective impact analysis to inform a medical research charity’s funding strategies: the case of Asthma UK. All Asth Clin Immun 2013, 9:17. BioMed Central Full Text
• [26]Downing NS, Aminawung JA, Shah ND, Braunstein JB, Krumholz HM, Ross JS: Regulatory review of novel therapeutics – comparison of three regulatory agencies. N Engl J Med 2012, 366:2284-2293.
• [27]Hanney S, Mugford M, Grant J, Buxton M: Assessing the benefits of health research: lessons from research into the use of antenatal corticosteroids for the prevention of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Soc Sci Med 2005, 60:937-947.
• [28]Paul SM, Mytelka DS, Dunwiddie CT, Persinger CC, Munos BH, Lindborg SR, Schacht AL: How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry’s grand challenge. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2010, 9:203-214.
• [29]Salimi Y, Shahandeh K, Malekafzali H, Loori N, Kheiltash A, Jamshidi E, Frouzan AS, Majdzadeh R: Is community-based participatory research (CBPR) useful? A systematic review on papers in a decade. Int J Prev Med 2012, 3:386-393.
• [30]Wooding S, Hanney SR, Pollitt A, Grant J, Buxton MJ: Understanding factors associated with the translation of cardiovascular research: a multinational case study approach. Implement Sci 2014, 9:47. BioMed Central Full Text
• [31]Wooding S, Pollitt A, Castle-Clarke S, Cochrane G, Diepeveen S, Guthrie S, Horvitz-Lennon M, Larivière V, Morgan Jones M, Chonaill SN, O’Brien C, Olmsted SS, Schultz D, Winpenny E, Pincus HA, Grant J: Mental Health Retrosight: Understanding the Returns from Research (Lessons from Schizophrenia): Policy Report. Cambridge, UK: RAND Europe; 2013.
• [32]Chandy R, Hopstaken B, Narasimhan O, Prabhu J: From invention to innovation: conversion ability in product development. J Marketing Research 2006, 43:494-508.
• [33]Bioscience Innovation and Growth Team (BIGT): BioScience 2015: Improving National Health, Increasing National Wealth. A Report to Government by the Bioscience Innovation and Growth Team. London: Department of Trade and Industry; 2003.
• [34]National Audit Office (NAO): Getting the Evidence: Using Research in Policy Making. Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. London: NAO; 2003.
• [35]Academy of Medical Sciences: Strengthening Clinical Research. A Report from the Academy of Medical Sciences. London: AMS; 2003.
• [36]UK Clinical Research Collaboration: Clinical Research in the UK: Towards a Single System that Reliably Delivers Distinctive Quality and Rapid Access at Reasonable Cost (McKinsey Report). London: UK Clinical Research Collaboration; 2005.
• [37]Institute of Medicine: Evidence-Based Medicine and the Changing Nature of Healthcare: Meeting Summary (IOM Roundtable on Evidence-Based Medicine). Washington DC: IOM; 2008.
• [38]Department of Health: High Quality Care for All: NHS Next Stage Review Final Report by Lord Darzi. London: DH; 2008.
• [39]National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts: Total Innovation: Why Harnessing the Hidden Innovation in High-Technology Sectors is Crucial to Retaining the UK’s Innovation Edge. London: NESTA; 2008.
• [40]UK Clinical Research Collaboration: UK Clinical Research Collaboration: Progress Report 2006–2008. London: UKCRC; 2008.
• [41]Pharmaceutical Industry Competitiveness Task Force: Ministerial Industry Strategy Group Pharmaceutical Industry: Competitiveness and Performance Indicators 2009. London: PICTF; 2009.
• [42]Institute of Medicine: Transforming Clinical Research in the United States: Challenges and Opportunities: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: IOM; 2009.
• [43]Department for Business Innovation and Skills and Department of Health: Life Sciences in the UK – Economic Analysis and Evidence for ‘Life Sciences 2010: Delivering the Blueprint’. London: BIS/DH; 2010.
• [44]Office for Life Sciences: Life Sciences 2010: Delivering the Blueprint. London: Office for Life Sciences; 2010.
• [45]Scott RAP, Ashton HA, Kay DN: Abdominal aortic aneurysm in 4327 screened patients: prevalence, development and management over 6 years. Br J Surg 1991, 78:1122-1125.
• [46]Dahlöf B, Sever PS, Poulter NR, Wedel H, Beevers DG, Caulfield M, Collins R, Kjeldsen SE, Kristinsson A, McInnes GT, Mehlsen J, Nieminen M, O’Brien E, Ostergren J, ASCOT Investigators: Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihypertensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol adding bendroflumethiazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005, 366:895-906.
• [47]National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions: Hypertension: Management in Primary Care: Pharmacological Update. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2006.
• [48]Medical Research Council: Researchfish. [http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Achievementsimpact/Researchfish/index.htm webcite]
• [49]Blei DM: Probabilistic topic models. Commun ACM 2012, 55:77-84.