Background: Priority setting for research on epidemic/pandemic-prone pathogens is essential for the allocation of limited resources to optimise impact. It involves the identification of gaps in knowledge crucial to effective preparedness and response to outbreaks. This review maps priority-setting exercises, reviews their approaches to research prioritisation and describes associated monitoring and evaluation processes for research priorities on high-consequence pathogens.

Methods: Using search terms associated with high-consequence pathogens, as defined by the WHO (2020), EMERGE (2019), European CDC (2022) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2021), and research prioritisation, we searched WHO Global Index Medicus; Ovid Medline; Ovid Embase; Ovid Global Health; and Scopus. Grey literature sources were Google Scholar and the WHO websites, complemented by recommendations from stakeholder consultation. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full-texts including documents describing research prioritisation activities. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis.

Results: We identified 125 publications presenting priority setting activities on 17 high-consequence pathogens published between 1975 and 2022. Most (62%) were related to SARS-CoV-2, 5.6% to Ebola virus and 5% to Zika virus. Three different broad approaches to setting priorities were identified, most (53%) involved external consultations with experts. Few (6%) indicated plans to monitor progress against set priorities.

Conclusions: Our results highlight the diversity in research prioritisation practice in the context of high-consequence pathogens and a limited application of the existing standards in health research prioritisation. An increased uptake of these standards and harmonisation of practice may improve quality and confidence and ultimately improve alignment of funded research with the resulting priorities.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11892158PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-025-03973-8DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

high-consequence pathogens
16
preparedness response
8
response outbreaks
8
priority setting
8
prioritisation
6
high-consequence
5
pathogens
5
prioritisation preparedness
4
outbreaks high-consequence
4
pathogens scoping
4

Similar Publications

Cases of high-consequence infectious diseases identified in the UK, 1962-2023.

J Med Microbiol

March 2025

NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections, UK.

The management of patients with acute infectious diseases can present significant challenges, especially if the causative agent has a propensity for person-to-person transmission. In such cases, effective patient management is dependent on both rapid identification of disease and the provision of necessary medical care while adhering to suitable infection prevention and control measures to reduce the potential for onwards transmission. The UK has operated a defined system for managing patients with high-consequence infectious diseases (HCIDs) since the 1970s, when protocols were first implemented following the first descriptions of several viral haemorrhagic fever diseases, including Marburg virus disease, Lassa fever and Ebola virus disease (EVD).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Early in the 2022 mpox outbreak, the U.S. recommendation was to administer two doses of the JYNNEOS® vaccine 4 weeks apart.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Priority setting for research on epidemic/pandemic-prone pathogens is essential for the allocation of limited resources to optimise impact. It involves the identification of gaps in knowledge crucial to effective preparedness and response to outbreaks. This review maps priority-setting exercises, reviews their approaches to research prioritisation and describes associated monitoring and evaluation processes for research priorities on high-consequence pathogens.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Introduction: Nipah virus is a high-consequence pathogen that causes sporadic outbreaks with high mortality, and there are currently no vaccines or therapeutics available for Nipah. Vaccine development against Nipah faces challenges due to its current epidemiology with limited outbreak sizes, which impedes the feasibility of conducting vaccine efficacy trials focused on disease endpoints.

Areas Covered: We review the progress of Nipah vaccine candidates in human clinical trials and highlight the challenges in evaluating the vaccine efficacy due to the sporadic nature of Nipah outbreaks, given the epidemic potential of Nipah virus and its implications for pandemic preparedness.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Objective: West Nile virus (WNV) is the most common cause of arboviral disease in the United States. Approximately 1% of infections involve the nervous system, most commonly resulting in West Nile encephalitis (WNE), West Nile meningitis (WNM), or acute flaccid paralysis (AFP).

Methods: In this systematic review, we characterized comprehensively the diagnostic and clinical features of WNV neuroinvasive disease (WNND) in the United States, as well as the evidence regarding prognostic factors and long-term outcomes of WNND.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!