Health Economics Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, Brunel University London, London, United Kingdom.
St Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2022 Sep 10;20(1):99. doi: 10.1186/s12961-022-00883-6.
During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, astonishingly rapid research averted millions of deaths worldwide through new vaccines and repurposed and new drugs. Evidence use informed life-saving national policies including non-pharmaceutical interventions. Simultaneously, there was unprecedented waste, with many underpowered trials on the same drugs. We identified lessons from COVID-19 research responses by applying WHO's framework for research systems. It has four functions-governance, securing finance, capacity-building, and production and use of research-and nine components. Two linked questions focused the analysis. First, to what extent have achievements in knowledge production and evidence use built on existing structures and capacity in national health research systems? Second, did the features of such systems mitigate waste? We collated evidence on seven countries, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, to identify examples of achievements and challenges.We used the data to develop lessons for each framework component. Research coordination, prioritization and expedited ethics approval contributed to rapid identification of new therapies, including dexamethasone in the United Kingdom and Brazil. Accelerated vaccines depended on extensive funding, especially through the Operation Warp Speed initiative in the United States, and new platforms created through long-term biomedical research capacity in the United Kingdom and, for messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines, in Canada, Germany and the United States. Research capacity embedded in the United Kingdom's healthcare system resulted in trial acceleration and waste avoidance. Faster publication of research saved lives, but raised challenges. Public/private collaborations made major contributions to vastly accelerating new products, available worldwide, though unequally. Effective developments of living (i.e. regularly updated) reviews and guidelines, especially in Australia and Canada, extended existing expertise in meeting users' needs. Despite complexities, effective national policy responses (less evident in Brazil, the United Kingdom and the United States) also saved lives by drawing on health research system features, including collaboration among politicians, civil servants and researchers; good communications; and willingness to use evidence. Comprehensive health research strategies contributed to success in research production in the United Kingdom and in evidence use by political leadership in New Zealand. In addition to waste, challenges included equity issues, public involvement and non-COVID research. We developed recommendations, but advocate studies of further countries.
在 SARS-CoV-2 大流行期间,通过新疫苗和重新利用及新药物,惊人的快速研究避免了全球数百万人的死亡。证据的使用为包括非药物干预在内的拯救生命的国家政策提供了信息。与此同时,也出现了前所未有的浪费,许多相同药物的试验都没有足够的效力。我们通过应用世卫组织的研究系统框架,从 COVID-19 研究应对中吸取了经验教训。该框架有四个功能——治理、确保资金、能力建设和研究的生产和利用,以及九个组成部分。两个相关问题是分析的重点。首先,在多大程度上,知识生产和证据利用方面的成果是建立在国家卫生研究系统现有的结构和能力之上的?其次,这样的系统的特点是否减轻了浪费?我们整理了澳大利亚、巴西、加拿大、德国、新西兰、英国和美国这七个国家的证据,以确定成就和挑战的例子。我们利用这些数据为每个框架组件制定了经验教训。研究协调、优先排序和加快伦理审批有助于快速确定新疗法,包括英国和巴西的地塞米松。加速疫苗的研发取决于广泛的资金,尤其是美国的“战疫”计划,以及英国长期的生物医学研究能力所创建的新平台,对于信使核糖核酸(mRNA)疫苗,加拿大、德国和美国也是如此。英国医疗体系中嵌入的研究能力促进了试验的加速和浪费的避免。更快地发表研究成果拯救了生命,但也带来了挑战。公私合作对大大加速新产品的开发做出了重大贡献,这些产品在全球范围内都有供应,但供应并不均衡。澳大利亚和加拿大等国有效地开发了实时(即定期更新)的综述和指南,扩大了现有专业知识,以满足用户的需求。尽管存在复杂性,但有效的国家政策应对措施(在巴西、英国和美国不太明显)也通过利用卫生研究系统的特点来拯救生命,包括政治家、公务员和研究人员之间的合作、良好的沟通以及使用证据的意愿。全面的卫生研究战略为英国的研究成果和新西兰政治领导层对证据的利用做出了贡献。除了浪费之外,还存在公平问题、公众参与和非 COVID 研究等挑战。我们提出了建议,但提倡对更多国家进行研究。