Center for Global Health R&D Policy Assessment

A team from R4D’s Center for Global Health R&D Policy Assessment, consisting of Managing Director Robert Hecht, Program Director Jean Arkedis, and Senior Consultant Paul Wilson attended the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s (BMFG) Product Development Partnership (PDP) Forum, from May 24-26 in Bellevue, Washington.

This year’s Forum brought together more than 250 persons including the CEOs and other senior managers from the 15 PDPs that are funded by the BMGF to develop new vaccines, drugs, diagnostic tests, and vector control measures to combat the major diseases of low and middle income countries. Bill Gates himself gave one of the keynote speeches.

The R4D team was asked to present to the Forum the main findings from our recently completed assessments on prizes and pooled funding, new policy instruments that have been proposed as ways to expand investments in health R&D and give stronger incentives for scientists, biopharmaceutical firms, and other product developers.

Following the Forum, Robert Hecht answered some questions about the event.

Han: What was the purpose of the PDP Forum?

Hecht: The Forum provided a shared learning environment for PDPs, where they could exchange new information and ideas—on things like how to conduct clinical trials, partner better with industry, and raise more money for R&D. Each PDP is so focused on its own area, like coming up with a TB vaccines or new malaria drugs, that they don’t have a lot of time to learn from each other.

The Forum also gave the Gates Foundation a chance to convey its overall views about the PDPs and their future. What Bill Gates and the head of the global health group, Tachi Yamada, said on this was pretty positive – the Foundation plans to continue to invest in the PDP model and in the organizations they are currently backing.

Han: What were the take home messages on PDPs?

Hecht: Gina Rabinovich who directs the Product Development section of the BMGF highlighted progress by the PDPs – already 10-12 licensed drugs and diagnostics that are being used to save lives, and nearly 100 candidates are in the pipeline. We heard about successes like the Meningitis Vaccine Project in West Africa and the partnership between Cepheid and the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) to develop the GeneXpert MTB/RIF machine for diagnosing TB.

At the same time, Dr. Yamada pointed to some areas where the Foundation wants to improve things, for example by getting the PDPs to share their trial sites and knowledge with each other, and by having the BMGF more directly involved in PDP portfolio decisions.

The Foundation said that more money would be needed over the coming decade to drive the PDPs’ efforts across the finish line to new drugs and vaccines – hundreds of millions of dollars of additional cash annually, on top of the $600 million a year the PDPs are already spending. Raising that money will be a big challenge.

Han: Why is more money needed?

Hecht: To some extent, it’s a natural outgrowth of the PDPs’ success. As drugs, tests, and vaccines move out of the lab and into larger and large clinical trials in humans, the costs go up. A single vaccine trial can take four or five years and cost $200 million or more.

Han: Your presentations at the Forum were about money for R&D?

Hecht: Yes, the presentations that Paul Wilson and I made played directly into the Foundation’s larger theme about mobilizing extra funds for PDPs and trying out innovative approaches to raise the additional money and use it better to stimulate faster innovation.

Pooling of grants from multiple donors, for example, might be a good way to raise a large pot of money for an expensive clinical trial, bringing new funders to the table. A prize could attract new biotech firms to develop better diagnostic tests for diseases like tuberculosis and malaria.

The Gates Foundation also spoke about their efforts to bring private investors into this kind of R&D, even though the commercial returns are not as attractive as in other areas of pharmaceutical research.

Han: How are PDPs thinking about the future?

Hecht: The PDPs are used to getting separate grants from individual donors like the US, Britain, and the BMGF, but many of them realize that this traditional way of funding is not going generate enough money to sustain their work over the coming decade. That makes them receptive to new ideas.

Much of the forum was focused on finding ways for the PDPs to continue improving performance and maximizing impact. Some of this will come from donors, and some will come from the PDPs themselves.

The questions we got following our session showed that PDPs and funders are thinking through the practical steps of moving forward with a prize. They were also eager to hear about modified versions of the pooled funding mechanisms that could help address funding gaps, such as a special fund for late stage trials. That level of interest was encouraging and will help inform our work going forward.

This forum was a great “one-stop shop” for us to catch up on what PDPs are doing and thinking. It was also an honor for R4D to be asked to present to such an important audience. We’ll also aim to engage with similar audiences in Europe and in places like India, where a lot of exciting health product development activities are taking place.