Funding Opportunities

Environmental pollution is a major global issue affecting natural resources and the environment in generic terms and creating important concerns for human health in particular. Pollutants resulting from human action are detrimental to ecosystems at different functional levels, representing an important economic load for society.

Standard remediation strategies have different levels of efficiency; in certain cases they increase the health risk of workers or simply postpone the problem. Advanced bioremediation approaches, which use naturally occurring microorganisms, in the form of emerging technologies for the treatment of contamination in various ecosystems foresee more sustainable and gentle alternatives to physicochemical options. These technologies comprise, amongst others biomineralisation, electrobioremediation, microbe-assisted phytoremediation, protein and metabolic engineering, nano-biotechnology and systems biology.

While the merits of using microorganisms to depollute their environment and to transform harmful contaminants into harmless end-products are well known (environmental friendliness, low toxicity), a number of challenges remain. These include for instance, their effectiveness to treat compounds that are not biodegradable (e.g. toxic metals), time efficiency, specificity of the environment, level of concentration of the contaminants, the combined biological activity of the microbial community over time and space and the consumption of energy.

‍

More

Specific Challenge:

‍Vaccines are one of the most important medical breakthroughs in the last 100 years. Every year vaccines save millions of people around the world from illness, disability and death, and they continue to be one of the most cost-effective ways to increase the health and wellbeing of their citizens. Despite this, vaccination uptake faces significant challenges across Europe, and these have increased in particular over the past 20 years. Recent studies have shown Europe to be the world region with the most negative views towards the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and the importance of childhood vaccination[1].

Recent figures on collected by the World Health Organization (WHO) show that in 2016 only one vaccine had a coverage rate of over 95% in Europe.[2] Seasonal influenza vaccination also remains significantly below the 75% coverage target for older age groups.[3]

Thus, coverage for many vaccines is below the recommended limit. Due to the low vaccine coverage rates, several EU Member States have faced considerable outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases in recent years. For example, more than 14,000 cases of measles were reported across the EU in 2017[4], which is more than three times the number of cases reported in 2016. During the same period 50 people in the EU died due to measles[5].

These figures highlight the urgent need to get to grips with vaccine uptake issues, whether uptake of existing or new vaccines. Research has an essential role to play in understanding the underlying causes of poor vaccine uptake, including vaccine hesitancy, and to develop strategies and guidelines to help Member States and Associated countries increase vaccination coverage. A detailed understanding of the obstacles to, and drivers of, vaccination uptake in various settings is necessary to provide appropriate recommendations.

Scope:

Proposals should work to increase understanding of the determinants of low vaccine uptake in specific contexts situated in the EU and/or Associated Countries (AC) , and should develop strategies to increase vaccination rates of essential vaccines within these contexts. From this work, proposals should aim to develop a series of recommendations that national and regional public health authorities in the EU and/or Associated Countries could implement in order to increase vaccine coverage. Proposals should build on existing research, findings and available information in this domain, as well as existing guidelines and recommendations from public health authorities, including those from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and WHO/Europe (such as ECDC reports and guidance on vaccine coverage and hesitancy[6], "WHO/SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy"[7], WHO/Europe "Guide to tailoring immunization programmes (TIP)"[8].

The approach taken should include a detailed examination of the causes of reduced vaccine uptake, and the design and testing of one or more interventions to improve vaccine uptake. Factors influencing vaccine uptake such as access, inequality, social/cultural influences and vaccine/vaccination-specific issues in specific population(s) that are identified as having lower than average vaccination coverage should be examined. Interventions to improve vaccine uptake should be based on existing high-quality research findings, with a sound hypothesis for why the chosen intervention(s) could be effective at increasing vaccine coverage in the target population(s). These interventions could be made in a wide variety of ways, for example content and style of online or offline media, educational material, modification of primary healthcare practices, access to vaccination, incentivisation, or any other strategies that are supported by a strong hypothesis. Also, the proposals should include a strategy for measuring the impact/success of the proposed interventions.

Finally, the findings of the project will be gathered into a clear and coherent set of recommendations that can be readily utilised by public health authorities in Europe to improve vaccine coverage. Proposals should include in their work the development of a strategy to ensure the implementation of these guidelines.

Proposals should take into account the specific contexts of the population(s) that they are studying, including factors such as age, sex/gender, religion, politics, geography, and socio-economic situation. Proposals should include partners from social science and public health-related disciplines. Proposals will also be expected to create links with other existing initiatives, both in Europe and internationally. This should include specific budget for networking, travelling to or organising meetings for researchers and other stakeholders that work on vaccine uptake challenges.

The Commission considers that proposals requesting a contribution from the EU of between EUR 2 and 3 million would allow this specific challenge to be addressed appropriately. Nonetheless, this does not preclude submission and selection of proposals requesting other amounts.

‍

More

Specific Challenge:

Antimicrobial resistance represents a serious threat to public health in Europe and beyond. Within the last decades resistance has increased considerably in many clinically important pathogenic bacteria. Data collected by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)[1] shows that nowadays in several European countries prevalence levels of infections that can no longer be treated with last-line classes of antibiotics have reached levels where isolation measures may no longer be feasible. In addition to this, prevalence levels of resistant infections are likely to increase in countries where currently such levels are relatively low. This may lead to an increasing number of outbreaks of resistant infections in these countries. The challenge is to address this threat via a multi-disciplinary approach by developing suitable clinical management and infection prevention plans detailing how to deal with resistant bacterial infections in high prevalence settings. The spread of AMR across borders has been recognised globally and improving knowledge on clinical management and infection prevention in high prevalence settings might also benefit other countries around the globe, including low and middle income countries and thereby diminish the spread of resistant bacteria. This topic will contribute to the implementation of the EU One Health Action Plan against Antimicrobial Resistance[2].

‍

Scope:

Proposals should focus on the identification of best practices, and the development and validation of interventions, infection prevention and clinical management plans for dealing with resistant bacterial infections in high prevalence settings. The research needs to take into account the variety and capacities of local health care/nosocomial infrastructures, and the trends of resistance patterns on local, national and international level, as well as sex and/or gender differences, when relevant. Furthermore, research needs to lead to management plans that take into account commonalities as well as differences between different pathogens and resistance determinants.

The costs and benefits of the infection prevention and clinical management plans to be developed should be assessed as well as the feasibility of their implementation. Research into the practicalities and challenges to introduce such novel infection prevention and management plans is essential and their practical implementation, as pilot actions, in 2 or more European regions with high prevalence levels is strongly encouraged, while taking into account that the infection prevention and clinical management plans to be developed should be applicable for large geographical areas. The potential challenges in the uptake of interventions/management plans by national health systems should be researched and addressed and cooperation with the Joint action AMR and healthcare-associated infections (JAMRAI), ECDC and the EU Health Security Committee is recommended.

The Commission considers that proposals requesting a EU contribution of EUR 10-15 million would allow this specific challenge to be addressed appropriately. Nonetheless, this does not preclude submission and selection of proposals requesting other amounts.

‍

More

Specific Challenge:

‍

Global plastic production has increased exponentially over the past decades. A significant proportion of the plastic produced is not disposed of properly and persists in the environment, especially the marine environment. Plastic products can be slowly degraded into smaller pieces (micro- or even nanoplastics). Furthermore, micro-plastics are intentionally added to, for example, toothpaste and beauty products (referred to as microbeads) or are a secondary by-product of rubber from, e.g. textiles, tyre wear or artificial turf.

Plastic debris is associated with a “cocktail of contaminants” made up of chemical ingredients present originally in the plastic and chemical pollutants adsorbed to the plastic from the environment, including metals and other persistent contaminants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and flame retardants. The debris is filtered into marine species’ gastrointestinal tract mechanically or it may look like food to some species, thus entering the food chain, with unknown effects.

Risk assessments and reviews carried out in recent years have concluded that there is evidence that humans are exposed to micro- and nano-plastics through their diet, drinking water or inhalation. However, our understanding of the fate and toxicity of these plastic particles in humans constitutes a major knowledge gap, rendering it difficult to carry out proper science-based risk assessment and management.

Scope:

Proposals should use innovative approaches to provide policy relevant scientific data in support of improved human health hazard and risk assessment of micro and/or nano-plastics.

The following research priorities on micro- and/or nano-plastics, inter alia, can be considered[1]:

Environmental/food/water sources for micro- and/or nano-plastics and transmission to humans;
Methods for identification and quantification of micro and/or nano-plastics in foods, environmental media and tissues;
Exposure levels of humans to micro- and/or nano-plastics and methods for human biomonitoring;
Analytical methods for detection of micro- and/or nano-plastics particles and contaminants;
Microbial colonisation of micro- and/or nano-plastics as vectors for potential pathogens;
Micro- and/or nano-plastics as condensation nuclei and/or carriers for airborne particulate matter and chemicals harmful to health;
Toxicology and uptake of micro- and/or nano-plastics and additives/adsorbed contaminants;
Fate of micro- and/or nano-plastics in the gastro-intestinal or respiratory tracts and secondary organs;
Effects and transport of micro- and/or nano-plastics across biological barriers, and bioaccumulation and cell uptake of micro- and/or nano-plastics, including studies at the cellular and molecular levels;
Consideration of the effect of shape (as well as size) of micro- and/or nano-plastics, and comparison with the behaviour and effects of non-synthetic homologues, e.g. wool fibres;
Immune responses;
Preliminary investigations into long-term effects of micro- and/or nano-plastics.

Sex and gender differences should be investigated, where relevant.

‍

More

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic immune-mediated disease involving axial and peripheral joints, nails, skin and enthesis. Cutaneous manifestations often precede articular symptoms and it has been estimated that about 20-30 % of psoriatic patients develop arthritis or enthesitis over time. In fact, the precedence of cutaneous symptoms may give as much as about 7 years to predict, detect and potentially treat PsA.

Currently, it is felt that the earlier PsA can be diagnosed, the better the chances that treatment could influence the disease

There are still a large number of patients suffering from PsA that are diagnosed after several years of signs and symptoms (late diagnosis) and fail to respond to current standard of care treatments, or quickly relapse on, or following treatment.

The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) identified the following major unmet medical needs:

Early diagnosis of PsA either in psoriasis (PsO) patients or in patients without initial psoriasis skin manifestations. Significant delay in diagnosis contributes to poor clinical and radiographic outcome.
Early identification of patients at risk of progression to PsA. Defining the predictors of progression to PsA in patients with skin PsO will enable earlier intervention and possibly even prevent development of PsA.
Definition of the clinical, genetic, immune factors or protein biomarkers that predict disease progression in PsA patients at time of diagnosis.

Better prediction, at diagnosis, for prognosis and stratification by therapeutic needs.

Scope:

The aim of this topic is to characterise the natural history of PsA from psoriasis to “early” PsA to “full-fledged” PsA, as diagnosed by the Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR). This characterisation will be based on discovering new biomarkers and endotypes, constructed on genetic, epigenetic, transcriptomic, proteomic and/or clinical markers. To identify those endotypes, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) processes will be needed.

In particular, the topic aims to achieve the following specific objectives:

to enable rheumatologists, dermatologists and general practitioners to make an early diagnosis of PsA in patients with PsO and other rheumatic disorders;
to identify early patients at risk of progression to PsA in order to enable earlier interventions and possibly prevent PsA development;
to define the factors that predict disease progression in PsA patients, including early prediction of bone/joint damages, leading to the development of more adapted treatment strategies;
to develop rational and personalised treatment strategies (e.g. select the optimal first line or second line treatment based on patient characteristics) with optimised outcomes in PsA patients and reduce the disease burden.

‍

More

Funding

Open Calls

Ongoing Opportunities