Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41710508›Full record

ArticleHealth affairs scholar2026

Priority without progress: the FDA's neglected tropical disease voucher program after 18 years.

Maple Goh, Kevin Outterson, Aaron S Kesselheim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health affairs scholar, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Maple GohProgram On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02120, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0491-5385
Kevin OuttersonCARB-X, Boston University School of Law, Boston, MA 02215, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2513-3216
Aaron S KesselheimProgram On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02120, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8867-2666

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: To incentivize drug and vaccine development for neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), US Congress created the Priority Review Voucher (PRV) program in 2007. Sponsors that obtain Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for an eligible product receive a voucher redeemable to accelerate review of another product. Methods: We reviewed the program's public health impact by examining all 14 vouchers awarded for NTD products between 2007 and 2024, including the timing of FDA approval relative to World Health Organization (WHO) Prequalification, Essential Medicines List inclusion, first use in endemic countries, and voucher disposition. Results: Eight (57%) achieved WHO Prequalification, and 8 (57%) were listed in the Essential Medicines list. FDA approval occurred a median of 8.7 years after first regulatory approval or use in an endemic country and a median of 5.2 years after WHO Essential Medicines list inclusion. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the PRV program has primarily rewarded regulatory filings for long-established therapies rather than stimulating innovation or improving access. We propose reforms linking voucher eligibility to equitable pricing and endemic country registration.

Indexed as

drug approvalglobal healthhealth policyneglected tropical diseasespriority review vouchersWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID41710508
PMCPMC12911920

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.