SignificanceThis report shows that NIH funding contributed to published research associated with every one of the 210 new drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration from 2010–2016. Collectively, this research involved >200,000 years of grant funding totaling more than $100 billion. The analysis shows that >90% of this funding represents basic research related to the biological targets for drug action rather than the drugs themselves. The role of NIH funding thus complements industry research and development, which focuses predominantly on applied research. This work underscores the breath and significance of public investment in the development of new therapeutics and the risk that reduced research funding would slow the pipeline for treating morbid disease.

IMPORTANCE Understanding the profitability of pharmaceutical companies is essential to formulating evidence-based policies to reduce drug costs while maintaining the industry's ability to innovate and provide essential medicines. OBJECTIVE To compare the profitability of large pharmaceutical companies with other large companies. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cross-sectional study compared the annual profits of 35 large pharmaceutical companies with 357 companies in the S&P 500 Index from 2000 to 2018 using information from annual financial reports. A statistically significant differential profit margin favoring pharmaceutical companies was evidence of greater profitability. EXPOSURES Large pharmaceutical vs nonpharmaceutical companies. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The main outcomes were revenue and 3 measures of annual profit: gross profit (revenue minus the cost of goods sold); earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA; pretax profit from core business activities); and net income, also referred to as earnings (difference between all revenues and expenses). Profit measures are described as cumulative for all companies from 2000 to 2018 or annual profit as a fraction of revenue (margin).

The discovery and development of new medicines classically involves a linear process of basic biomedical research to uncover potential targets for drug action, followed by applied, or translational, research to identify candidate products and establish their effectiveness and safety. This Working Paper describes the public sector contribution to that process by tracing funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) related to published research on each of the 356 new drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from 2010-2019 as well as research on their 219 biological targets. Specifically, we describe the timelines of clinical development for these products and proxy measures of their importance, including designations as first-in- class or expedited approvals. We model the maturation of basic research on the biological targets to determine the initiation and established points of this research and demonstrate that none of these products were approved before this enabling research passed the established point. This body of essential research comprised 2 million publications, of which 424 thousand were supported by 515 thousand Funding Years of NIH Project support totaling $195 billion. Research on the 356 drugs comprised 244 thousand publications, of which 39 thousand were supported by 64 thousand Funding Years of NIH Project support totaling $36 billion. Overall, NIH funding contributed to research associated with every new drug approved from 2010-2019, totaling $230 billion. This funding supported investigator-initiated Research Projects, Cooperative Agreements for government-led research on topics of particular importance, as well as Research Program Projects and Centers and training to support the research infrastructure. This NIH funding also produced 22 thousand patents, which provided marketing exclusivity for 27 (8.6%) of the drugs approved 2010-2019. These data demonstrate the essential role of public sector-funded basic research in drug discovery and development, as well as the scale and character of this funding. It also demonstrates the limited mechanisms available for recognizing the value created by these early investments and ensuring appropriate public returns. This analysis demonstrates the importance of sustained public investment in basic biomedical science as well as the need for policy innovations that fully realize the value of public sector investments in pharmaceutical innovation that ensure that these investments yield meaningful improvements in health.

Increasing evidence points to an association of airborne pollutant exposure with respiratory, cardiovascular, and neurological pathology. We examined whether or not ground-level ozone or fine particulate matter ≤ 2.5 μm in diameter (PM2.5) was associated with accelerated cognitive decline. Using repeated measures mixed regression modeling, we analyzed cognitive performance of a geographically diverse sampling of individuals from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center between 2004–2008. Ambient air concentrations of ozone and PM2.5 were established using a space-time Hierarchical Bayesian Model that statistically merged air monitor data and modeled air quality estimates. We then compared the ambient regional concentrations of ozone and PM2.5 with the rate of cognitive decline in residents within those regions. Increased levels of ozone correlated with an increased rate of cognitive decline, following adjustment for key individual and community-level risk factors. Furthermore, individuals harboring one or more APOE4 alleles exhibited a faster rate of cognitive decline. The deleterious association of ozone was confined to individuals with normal cognition who eventually became cognitively impaired as opposed to those who entered the study with baseline impairment. In contrast to ozone, we did not observe any correlation between ambient PM2.5 and cognitive decline at regulatory limits set by the Environmental Protection Agency. Our findings suggest that prolonged exposure to ground-level ozone may accelerate cognitive decline during the initial stages of dementia development.

Rapid development of vaccines for COVID-19 has relied on the application of existing vaccine technologies. This work examines the maturity of ten technologies employed in candidate vaccines (as of July 2020) and NIH funding for published research on these technologies from 2000–2019. These technologies vary from established platforms, which have been used successfully in approved products, to emerging technologies with no prior clinical validation. A robust body of published research on vaccine technologies was supported by 16,358 fiscal years of NIH funding totaling $17.2 billion from 2000–2019. During this period, NIH funding for published vaccine research against specific pandemic threats such as coronavirus, Zika, Ebola, and dengue was not sustained. NIH funding contributed substantially to the advance of technologies available for rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines, suggesting the importance of sustained public sector funding for foundational technologies in the rapid response to emerging public health threats. Clinical Trial Registry: not applicable