Comments on: What’s in it for Non-AIDS Infectious Diseases Researchers?

By: Callie Durbrow

Callie Durbrow — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:25:31 +0000

This is great, I can’t wait to see what happens with this research.

By: Cyriacus Ajaelu

Cyriacus Ajaelu — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 06:13:54 +0000

Since this wonderful idea is still evolving and in its embryonic stage, it will be proper to ask if the entire research initiative will be based only on biomedical prevention and treatment research programs.
Time and time again we have discovered that behavioral component of human health is often ignored or downplayed only to be realized when the anticipated biomedical intervention did not complete the job. As we work toward integrated health care initiative, we should not allow a repeat of the HIV/AIDS episode, when behavioral component was initially neglected.
Behavioral and mental health linkage to Immunology and Infectious Diseases (IID), TB and other infectious diseases has been implicated in research and evidence-based practices, as well as in many anecdotal evidences.

By: Robert Reinhard

Robert Reinhard — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 20:46:52 +0000

Thank you for this thorough and substantive post on a major initiative. I’d like to comment on what could be considered some minor features of the recompetition but which may have positive practical results, especially when CTUs or projects address multiple infections and co-morbidities
1) Data sharing and infrastructure – It’s my understanding the current groups vary to the extent data may be collected and shared in collaboration by central units. It is possible the data collected for specific AIDS or non-AIDS trials may be useful to colleagues across networks or groups. This may include both lab derived data and also behavioral and social data affecting outcome. Perhaps the leadership groups and others should plan data sharing systems that make the most of the opportunity provided by these coincident use of resources. The data sharing entities should be prompt, open source during prepublication periods (with appropriate governance) and – to the extent feasible – harmonized in format
2) Cross sharing diagnostics expertise. – It’s also my understanding that many non-AIDS infections are particularly difficult to diagnose when common symptoms such as fevers are the starting point. Malaria’s a good example or dengue fever. It may be useful for the leadership teams working with the CTUs to develop diagnostic protocols or algorithms that are a common resource if they haven’t already.
3) Speaking of shared and open source issues- NIH’s open access publishing policy has been implemented slowly. PLease find means to support the availability of all grant funded work results in open access formats immediately upon publication.
These AIDS.gov blog discussions, town meetings and other outreach are extremely useful. In a future blog could you report about the scope of similar outreach efforts on the recompetition at international sites where much of the research may take place? Please include discussion of the outreach to trial participants and communities on these questions.
Thanks again.

By: Kris Iyer

Kris Iyer — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:40:56 +0000

Thank you for the post. Very useful indeed.
We are an IND-stage Company with programs in Hepatitis B and C slated to enter IND and clinical trisl in Q 2011. We would like to explore clinical trial opportunity through the program that you described. We would appreciate the steps needed including whether we need to identify the potential clinical collaborators – NIAID-associated or independent clinicians/clinical network. Is there a program announcement regarding this? could you please guide us to the appropriate link/announcement?
Thank you
best
R. P. Iyer (Kris), Ph.D.
Spring Bank Pharmaceuticals, Inc.