Background: Funding for neglected disease product development fell from 2009-2015, other than a brief injection of Ebola funding. One impediment to mobilizing resources is a lack of information on product candidates, the estimated costs to move them through the pipeline, and the likelihood of specific launches. This study aimed to help fill these information gaps. Methods: We conducted a pipeline portfolio review to identify current candidates for 35 neglected diseases. Using an adapted version of the Portfolio to Impact financial modelling tool, we estimated the costs to move these candidates through the pipeline over the next decade and the likely launches. Since the current pipeline is unlikely to yield several critical products, we estimated the costs to develop a set of priority “missing” products. Results: We found 685 neglected disease product candidates as of August 31, 2017; 538 candidates met inclusion criteria for input into the model. It would cost about $16.3 billion (range $13.4-19.8B) to move these candidates through the pipeline, with three-quarters of the costs incurred in the first 5 years, resulting in about 128 (89-160) expected product launches.  Based on the current pipeline, there would be few launches of complex new chemical entities; launches of highly efficacious HIV, tuberculosis, or malaria vaccines would be unlikely. Estimated additional costs to launch one of each of 18 key missing products are $13.6B assuming lowest product complexity or $21.8B assuming highest complexity ($8.1B-36.6B). Over the next 5 years, total estimated costs to move current candidates through the pipeline and develop these 18 missing products would be around $4.5B (low complexity missing products) or $5.8B/year (high complexity missing products). Conclusions: Since current annual global spending on product development is about $3B, this study suggests the annual funding gap over the next 5 years is at least $1.5-2.8B.

Background: Funding for neglected disease product development fell from 2009-2015, other than a brief injection of Ebola funding. One impediment to mobilizing resources is a lack of information on product candidates, the estimated costs to move them through the pipeline, and the likelihood of specific launches. This study aimed to help fill these information gaps. Methods: We conducted a pipeline portfolio review to identify current candidates for 35 neglected diseases. Using an adapted version of the Portfolio to Impact financial modelling tool, we estimated the costs to move these candidates through the pipeline over the next decade and the likely launches. Since the current pipeline is unlikely to yield several critical products, we estimated the costs to develop a set of priority “missing” products. Results: We found 685 neglected disease product candidates as of August 31, 2017; 538 candidates met inclusion criteria for input into the model. It would cost about $16.3 billion (range $13.4-19.8B) to move these candidates through the pipeline, with three-quarters of the costs incurred in the first 5 years, resulting in about 128 (89-160) expected product launches.  Based on the current pipeline, there would be few launches of complex new chemical entities; launches of highly efficacious HIV, tuberculosis, or malaria vaccines would be unlikely. Estimated additional costs to launch one of each of 18 key missing products are $13.6B assuming lowest product complexity or $21.8B assuming highest complexity ($8.1B-36.6B). Over the next 5 years, total estimated costs to move current candidates through the pipeline and develop these 18 missing products would be around $4.5B (low complexity missing products) or $5.8B/year (high complexity missing products). Conclusions: Since current annual global spending on product development is about $3B, this study suggests the annual funding gap over the next 5 years is at least $1.5-2.8B.

Background:  Funding for product development for neglected diseases fell from 2009-2015, other than a short-term injection of Ebola funding. One impediment to mobilizing resources is a lack of information on product candidates, the estimated costs to move them through the pipeline, and the likelihood of specific launches. This study aimed to help fill these information gaps. Methods: We conducted a pipeline portfolio review to identify current candidates for 35 neglected diseases. Using an adapted version of the Portfolio to Impact (P2I) financial modelling tool, we estimated the costs to move these candidates through the pipeline over the next decade and the likely launches. Since the current pipeline is unlikely to yield several critical products, we estimated the costs to develop a set of priority “missing” products. Results: We found 685 product candidates for neglected diseases as of August 31, 2017; 538 candidates met inclusion criteria for input into the model. It would cost about $16.3 billion (range $13.4-19.8B) to move these candidates through the pipeline, with three-quarters of the costs incurred in the first 5 years, resulting in about 128 (89-160) expected product launches.  Based on the current pipeline, there would be very few launches of complex new chemical entities; launches of highly efficacious vaccines for HIV, tuberculosis, or malaria would be unlikely. Estimated additional costs to launch one of each of 18 key missing products range from $13.6B-$21.8B, depending on product complexity. Over the next 5 years, total estimated costs to move current candidates through the pipeline and develop these 18 missing products would be around $4.5-5.8B/year. Conclusions: Since current annual global spending on product development is about $3B, this study suggests the annual funding gap over the next 5 years is at least $1.5-2.8B, which is probably an underestimate. The current portfolio is not balanced across health needs.

Background: To estimate how much additional funding is needed for poverty-related and neglected disease (PRND) product development and to target new resources effectively, policymakers need updated information on the development pipeline and estimated costs to fill pipeline gaps. Methods: We previously conducted a pipeline review to identify candidates for 35 neglected diseases as of August 31, 2017 (“2017 pipeline”). We used the Portfolio-to-Impact (P2I) tool to estimate costs to move these candidates through the pipeline, likely launches, and additional costs to develop “missing products.” We repeated this analysis, reviewing the pipeline to August 31, 2019 to get a time trend. We made a direct comparison based on the same 35 diseases (“2019 direct comparison pipeline”), then a comparison based on an expanded list of 45 diseases (“2019 complete pipeline”). Results: In the 2017 pipeline, 538 product candidates met inclusion criteria for input into the model; it would cost $16.3 billion (B) to move these through the pipeline, yielding 128 launches. In the 2019 direct comparison pipeline, we identified 690 candidates, an increase of 152 candidates from 2017; the largest increase was for Ebola.  The direct comparison 2019 pipeline yields 196 launches, costing $19.9B. In the 2019 complete pipeline, there were 754 candidates, an increase of 216 candidates from 2017, of which 152 reflected pipeline changes and 64 reflected changes in scope. The complete pipeline 2019 yields 207 launches, costing $21.0B. There would still be 16 “missing products” based on the complete 2019 pipeline; it would cost $5.5B-$14.2B (depending on product complexity) to develop these products. Conclusion: The PRNDs product development pipeline has grown by over a quarter in two years. The number of expected new product launches based on the 2019 pipeline increased by half compared to 2017; the cost of advancing the pipeline increased by a quarter.

No abstract