Erika L Hagstrom1, Shivani Patel2, Chante Karimkhani3, Lindsay N Boyers4, Hywel C Williams5, Roderick J Hay6, Martin A Weinstock7, April W Armstrong8, Cory A Dunnick9, David J Margolis10, Robert P Dellavalle11. 1. Loyola University of Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois. 2. Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. 3. Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York. 4. Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, District of Columbia. 5. Center of Evidence-based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom. 6. Department of Dermatology, Kings College Hospital National Health Service Trust, London, United Kingdom. 7. Dermatoepidemiology Unit, Veterans Affairs Medical Center Providence, Providence, Rhode Island; Department of Dermatology, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island; Departments of Dermatology and Epidemiology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. 8. Department of Dermatology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado; Dermatology Service, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Denver, Colorado. 9. Dermatology Service, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Denver, Colorado; Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology and Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 10. Department of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado. 11. Department of Dermatology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado; Dermatology Service, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Denver, Colorado; Department of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado. Electronic address: robert.dellavalle@ucdenver.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Disease burden should be an important component for guiding research funding. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the relationship between dermatologic research funded from 2012 to 2013 by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and US skin disease burden as measured by disability-adjusted life years in the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was independently performed by 2 researchers who matched projects from the 2012 to 2013 NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools with 15 skin conditions and their respective disability-adjusted life years from Global Burden of Disease 2010. RESULTS: The NIH funded 1108 projects spanning the 15 skin conditions. Melanoma received almost half of the total skin condition budget (49.5%). Melanoma, nonmelanoma skin cancer, and leprosy were funded above what would be suggested by their disease burden, whereas dermatitis, acne vulgaris, pruritus, urticaria, decubitus ulcer, fungal skin diseases, alopecia areata, cellulitis, and scabies appeared underfunded. Bacterial skin diseases, viral skin diseases, and psoriasis were well matched with disease burden. LIMITATIONS: Disease burden is one of many factors that may be used to guide priority-setting decisions. CONCLUSION: Skin disease burden measured by disability-adjusted life year metrics partially correlates with NIH funding prioritization. Comparing US disease burden with NIH funding suggests possible underfunded and overfunded skin diseases. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: Disease burden should be an important component for guiding research funding. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the relationship between dermatologic research funded from 2012 to 2013 by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and US skin disease burden as measured by disability-adjusted life years in the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was independently performed by 2 researchers who matched projects from the 2012 to 2013 NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools with 15 skin conditions and their respective disability-adjusted life years from Global Burden of Disease 2010. RESULTS: The NIH funded 1108 projects spanning the 15 skin conditions. Melanoma received almost half of the total skin condition budget (49.5%). Melanoma, nonmelanoma skin cancer, and leprosy were funded above what would be suggested by their disease burden, whereas dermatitis, acne vulgaris, pruritus, urticaria, decubitus ulcer, fungal skin diseases, alopecia areata, cellulitis, and scabies appeared underfunded. Bacterial skin diseases, viral skin diseases, and psoriasis were well matched with disease burden. LIMITATIONS: Disease burden is one of many factors that may be used to guide priority-setting decisions. CONCLUSION:Skin disease burden measured by disability-adjusted life year metrics partially correlates with NIH funding prioritization. Comparing US disease burden with NIH funding suggests possible underfunded and overfunded skin diseases. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
National Institutes of Health; dermatitis; disability-adjusted life years; disease burden; leprosy; melanoma; priority setting; skin conditions
Authors: Naomi van der Linden; Kees van Gool; Karen Gardner; Helen Dickinson; Jason Agostino; David G Regan; Michelle Dowden; Rosalie Viney Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2019-03-08
Authors: Poorni R Adikaram; Jian-Hua Zhang; Claire M Kittock; Mritunjay Pandey; Sergio A Hassan; Nicole G Lue; Guanghui Wang; Marjan Gucek; William F Simonds Journal: Commun Biol Date: 2019-09-13
Authors: Rebecca I Hartman; Yun Xue; Ryan Karmouta; Elizabeth Tkachenko; Sara J Li; David G Li; Cara Joyce; Arash Mostaghimi Journal: Dermatol Res Pract Date: 2022-08-16