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.

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

No abstract

Background In recent years, the surge in use and of clinical trials involving tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) has increased the need for sensitive and specific analytical assays to measure said compounds in patients, to establish dose-effect relationships and to gain knowledge of their pharmacokinetics and metabolism. We developed and validated an online extraction high-performance liquid chromatography- tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method for simultaneous quantification of 17 cannabinoids and metabolites including THC and its metabolites, CBD and its metabolites and other minor cannabinoids in human plasma. Methods CBD-glucuronide (CBD-gluc) standard was produced in-house by isolation of CBD-gluc from urine of patients using pure CBD oil. For calibration standards and quality control samples, human plasma was spiked with cannabinoids at varying concentrations within the working range of the respective compound and 200 µL was extracted using a simple one-step protein precipitation procedure. The extracts were analyzed using online trapping LC/LC-atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI)-MS/MS running in the positive multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode. Results The lower limit of quantification ranged from 0.78 ng/mL to 7.8 ng/mL and the upper limits of quantification were between 100 ng/mL and 2000 ng/mL. Inter-day analytical accuracy and imprecision ranged from 90.4 to 111% and from 3.1 to 17.4%, respectively. The analysis of plasma samples collected during clinical studies showed that (3R-trans)-Cannabidiol-7-oic Acid (7-CBD-COOH) was the major human metabolite with 5960% of CBD followed by 7-hydroxy-CBD (177%), CBD-gluc (157%) and 6α-hydroxy-CBD (39.8%); 6β-hydroxy-CBD was not detected in any of the samples. Conclusions In the present study, we developed and validated a robust LC-MS/MS assay for the simultaneous quantification of cannabinoids and their metabolites, which has been used to measure >5,000 samples in clinical studies. Moreover, we were able to quantify CBD-gluc and showed that 7-CBD-COOH, 7-hydroxy-CBD and CBD-gluc are the major CBD metabolites in human plasma.

ImportanceGovernment and the pharmaceutical industry make substantive contributions to pharmaceutical innovation. This study compared the investments by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and industry and estimated the cost basis for assessing the balance of social and private returns.ObjectivesTo compare NIH and industry investments in recent drug approvals.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study of NIH funding associated with drugs approved by the FDA from 2010 to 2019 was conducted from May 2020 to July 2022 and accounted for basic and applied research, failed clinical candidates, and discount rates for government spending compared with analogous estimates of industry investment.Main Outcomes and MeasuresCosts from the NIH for research associated with drug approvals.ResultsFunding from the NIH was contributed to 354 of 356 drugs (99.4%) approved from 2010 to 2019 totaling $187 billion, with a mean (SD) $1344.6 ($1433.1) million per target for basic research on drug targets and $51.8 ($96.8) million per drug for applied research on products. Including costs for failed clinical candidates, mean (SD) NIH costs were $1441.5 ($1372.0) million per approval or $1730.3 ($1657.6) million per approval, estimated with a 3% discount rate. The mean (SD) NIH spending was $2956.0 ($3106.3) million per approval with a 10.5% cost of capital, which estimates the cost savings to industry from NIH spending. Spending and approval by NIH for 81 first-to-target drugs was greater than reported industry spending on 63 drugs approved from 2010 to 2019 (difference, −$1998.4 million; 95% CI, −$3302.1 million to −$694.6 million; P = .003). Spending from the NIH was not less than industry spending considering clinical failures, a 3% discount rate for NIH spending, and a 10.5% cost of capital for the industry (difference, −$1435.3 million; 95% CI, −$3114.6 million to $244.0 million; P = .09) or when industry spending included prehuman research (difference, −$1394.8 million; 95% CI, −$3774.8 million to $985.2 million; P = .25). Accounting for spillovers of NIH-funded basic research on drug targets to multiple products, NIH costs were $711.3 million with a 3% discount rate, which was less than the range of reported industry costs with 10.5% cost of capital.Conclusions and RelevanceThe results of this cross-sectional study found that NIH investment in drugs approved from 2010 to 2019 was not less than investment by the pharmaceutical industry, with comparable accounting for basic and applied research, failed clinical trials, and cost of capital or discount rates. The relative scale of NIH and industry investment may provide a cost basis for calibrating the balance of social and private returns from investments in pharmaceutical innovation.