This study aimed to assess the research investments made to UK institutions for all infectious disease research and identify the direction of spend by institution.

Viral hepatitis is responsible for great health, social and economic burden both globally and in the UK. This study aimed to assess the research funding awarded to UK institutions for viral hepatitis research and the relationship of funded research to clinical and public health burden of viral hepatitis. Databases and websites were systematically searched for information on infectious disease research studies funded for the period 1997-2010. Studies specifically related to viral hepatitis research were identified and categorized in terms of funding by pathogen, disease and by a research and development value chain describing the type of science. The overall data set included 6165 studies (total investment £2.6 billion) of which £76.9 million (3.0%) was directed towards viral hepatitis across 323 studies (5.2%). By pathogen, there were four studies specifically investigating hepatitis A (£3.8 million), 69 studies for hepatitis B (21.4%) with total investment of £14.7 million (19.1%) and 236 (73.1%) hepatitis C studies (£62.7 million, 81.5%). There were 4 studies investigating hepatitis G, and none specifying hepatitis D or E. By associated area, viral hepatitis and therapeutics research received £17.0 million, vaccinology £3.1 million and diagnostics £2.9 million. Preclinical research received £50.3 million (65.4%) across 173 studies, whilst implementation and operational research received £19.4 million (25.3%) across 128 studies. The UK is engaged in much hepatology research, but there are areas where the burden is great and may require greater focus, such as hepatitis E, development of a vaccine for hepatitis C, and further research into hepatitis-associated cancers. Private sector data, and funding information from other countries, would also be useful in priority setting.

Many studies report the high prevalence of multiply drug-resistant (MDR) strains. Because MDR infections are often significantly harder and more expensive to treat, they represent a growing public health threat. However, for different pathogens, different underlying mechanisms are traditionally used to explain these observations, and it is unclear whether each bacterial taxon has its own mechanism(s) for multidrug resistance or whether there are common mechanisms between distantly related pathogens. In this review, we provide a systematic overview of the causes of the excess of MDR infections and define testable predictions made by each hypothetical mechanism, including experimental, epidemiological, population genomic, and other tests of these hypotheses. Better understanding the cause(s) of the excess of MDR is the first step to rational design of more effective interventions to prevent the origin and/or proliferation of MDR.

This paper argues that the global health agenda tends to privilege short-term global interests at the expense of long-term capacity building within national and community health systems. The Health Systems Strengthening (HSS) movement needs to focus on developing the capacity of local organizations and the institutions that influence how such organizations interact with local and international stakeholders.