Non-state Actors Seek More Inclusion at WHO 01/02/2022 Paul Adepoju Gaudenz Silberschmidt, WHO Director of Health and Multilateral Partnerships. The World Health Organization (WHO) is considering changing how it relates to non-state actors (NSAs), but some of these organisations are concerned that the changes envisaged by the global body may weaken their voices. In 2016, the WHO’s World Health Assembly (WHA) adopted a Framework for Engagement with NSAs – known as FENSA – to enable closer collaboration with a wide range of organisations to respond to national and global health challenges. An initial evaluation of its implementation was conducted in 2019, and a two-year timeframe was set to fully operationalise the framework. Over the past weekend, the WHO Executive Board considered a report on progress to implement FENSA , as well as inputs from various NSAs on how their relationships with the global body could be improved. According to the report, the WHO said it seeks to improve NSAs’ role, voice and contribution in its governance system including by introducing a global constituency for NSAs and grouping NSA statements accordingly. While welcoming the WHO’s intentions, a number of NSAs noted that the proposal could weaken and soften the NSAs’ contributions to WHO’s agenda. International humanitarian medical non-governmental organization Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) expressed concern with the proposal, saying that it fails to acknowledge the value of diversity and expertise inherent in NSA. MSF’s Dr Maria Guevara “The creation of a global constituency and the grouping of NSA statements risk diluting these voices and limiting their meaningful participation in the dialogue and in finding solutions to current health challenges,” MSF’s Dr Maria Guevara argued. The International Council of Nurses said that while it supports informal meetings before WHO meeting, it called for more notice and added that the selection of the agenda items must be agreed on between NSAsand WHO member states. “After testing [introducing] constituency statements at the 75th WHA, we strongly encourage consultation with NSAs before making a final decision on their implementation,” said the ICN, adding that constituency statements should not prevent individual statements. In its submission, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) also called for the WHO to allow non-state actors to still be able to make individual statements on issues that are in line with their core areas of expertise. To accommodate the contribution of more non-state actors, the society called for the WHO to publish each non-state actor’s statement on its website and for these to be included in meetings’ official minutes. “Non-state actors can submit individual statements on the WHO website and in a way that they are translated and reported in the official minutes of WHO meetings, allowing non-state actors for each agenda item,” ESMO’s Gracemarie Bricalli recommended. Meanwhile, the Save the Children Fund called on WHO Member States to also prioritize interactions with NSAs, especially the civil society, by actively participating in informal sessions and systematically sharing draft documents and resolutions for civil society organizations to engage in policy making. It also slammed the WHO Secretariat over lack of time and support provided to NSAs regarding new processes, including constituency statements. It said the process lacked transparency and open dialogue among the different actors. “We welcome all opportunities to engage with member states and the Secretariat to ensure the meaningful engagement of NSAs including when it comes to the development of a civil society engagement strategy.” IPPF’s Estelle Wagner The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) urged Member States to compel the Secretariat to constitute a diverse working group of member states and civil society organizations to review and develop proposals and report back at the 152nd executive board meeting next year on more robust recommendations to involve NSAs at the WHO beyond making general statements on agenda items. “More than ever, the pandemic has shown the essential role of NSAs in the work of the WHO and we look forward to a constructive and transparent process to define mechanisms for truly meaningful engagement with WHO governing bodies beyond generalized statements at the end of agenda items,” the federation’s Estelle Wagner stated. Canada, USA and UK side with NSAs Canada’s Elizabeth King The government of Canada noted that the positions of NSAs on topical issues need to be taken more seriously, adding member states need to hear from NSAs before positions are finalized. It pledged its continuous support for meeting with NSAs prior to the WHA in May, adding that sufficient notice should be provided. Canada also supported that NSAs should continue to have the option to deliver individual statements on all agenda items to ensure that member states benefit from the diversity of NSAs’ views. “This could be combined with a reasonable limit to the number of individual statements an NSA can deliver,” Canada stated. Canada and the United Kingdom also agreed that the WHO Secretariat should work with NSAs to identify the agenda items where constituency statements would be more valuable, rather than identifying them independently. “We’d like to reaffirm that hearing and understanding the voices of non state actors in all of our efforts to more meaningfully engage will increase our chances of success,” Canada’s Elizabeth King concluded. The US said the priority should be on ensuring WHO’s engagements and involvement of NSAs in its agenda are more meaningful and routine. It noted that NSAs were critical to the development of vaccines, therapeutics and other medical medical countermeasures, as well as their distribution and delivery to individuals across the globe. By working together with NSAs, the United States said the WHO and the global health community can become more effective, efficient and avoid duplication or miscommunications that could undermine joint aims and efforts. A concluding remark from Gaudenz Silberschmidt, Director of Health and Multilateral Partnerships at the WHO said the global health body is committed to making the engagements and interactions between NSAs, member states and the WHO Secretariat to be more meaningful. The challenge, according to him, is that the increased number of agenda items and interest have put pressure on the time for interventions for NSAs and delegates. He announced plans to organize a meeting with NSAs in February 2022 to consult both on the planning of the informal pre-meeting and on the constituency statements. “We propose to include a session on those engagement modalities in the informal pre-meeting of the World Health Assembly,” he added. Amid Mountains of COVID Waste, WHO Urges Sustainable Solutions 01/02/2022 Kerry Cullinan Billions of masks and gloves have been discarded during the pandemic. Almost four times the usual medical waste was generated in New Delhi during the height of India’s COVID-19 pandemic in May 2021 when all COVID-19 waste was mistakenly classified as infectious, according to a new report issued by the World Health Organization (WHO) on Tuesday. Most of the approximately 87,000 tonnes of personal protective equipment (PPE) procured between March 2020- November 2021 through a joint UN emergency initiative is expected to have ended up as waste. Over 140 million test kits, with a potential to generate 2,600 tonnes of waste and 731,000 litres of chemical waste have also been shipped, according to data from the United Nations (UN) COVID-19 supply portal. But the report authors warn that the portal’s data represents “a small fraction of global procurement”. “It does not take into account any of the COVID-19 commodities procured outside of the [UN] initiative, nor waste generated by the public like disposable medical masks,” they point out. One estimate suggests that up to 3.4 billion single use-masks were discarded every day in 2020. Over the past two years, over 296-million people have been confirmed with COVID-19. “Each of these cases, as well as hundreds of millions more people – because of exposure to COVID-19, travel, work or leisure obligations – will undergo COVID-19 testing. “Finally, over nine billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered, covering 35% of the global population. Billions more are planned. These activities all produce an enormous amount of COVID-19-related waste, a proportion of which is potentially infectious,” the report notes. About a third of all healthcare facilities (and 60% in the least developed countries) are not equipped to handle existing waste loads, let alone the additional COVID-19 load. Much of this will end up in landfills. Mistaken classification of all COVID waste as hazardous “Many facilities and countries mistakenly classified 100% of COVID-19 healthcare waste as hazardous, rather than the 10–15% level typically generated from routine health service provision,” according to the report. “ A number of major cities and countries that have experienced a large number of cases issued guidance that all waste generated by COVID-19 patients should be classified and treated as infectious. “This is despite the fact that SARS-CoV-2 is an enveloped virus, which means that it is inactivated relatively quickly by environmental factors such as sunlight or heat. Most evidence indicates that the main route of transmission of the virus is directly from person to person through exhaled respiratory particles, not fomites.” It points to gloves as one of the most commonly overused or misused items of PPE. In many cases, gloves are not necessary and proper hand-washing would suffice – such as vaccinations, measuring temperature and blood pressure – don’t need gloves. “Overuse of gloves was a longstanding problem even before COVID-19, resulting in unnecessary financial costs and adverse environmental impacts,” according to the report. “It is absolutely vital to provide health workers with the right PPE, “said Dr Michael Ryan, Executive Director, WHO Health Emergencies Programme. “But it is also vital to ensure that it can be used safely without impacting on the surrounding environment.” Dr Maria Neira, Director of WHO Environment, Climate Change and Health Reuse, recycle, don’t burn The report lays out a set of recommendations for integrating better, safer, and more environmentally sustainable waste practices into the current COVID-19 response and future pandemic preparedness. These include safe and reusable gloves, aprons and masks; using recyclable or biodegradable materials, and using non-burn waste treatment technologies, such as autoclaves (steam-cleaning machines). “Significant change at all levels, from the global to the hospital floor, in how we manage the health care waste stream is a basic requirement of climate-smart health care systems, which many countries committed to at the recent UN Climate Change Conference,” said said Dr Maria Neira, WHO Director of Environment, Climate Change and Health. Meanwhile, Dr Anne Woolridge, Chair of the Health Care Waste Working Group at the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), says that the “safe and rational use of PPE will not only reduce environmental harm from waste, it will also save money, reduce potential supply shortages and further support infection prevention by changing behaviours”. The tens of thousands of tonnes of extra medical waste from the response to the COVID-19 pandemic has put tremendous strain on health care waste management systems around the world, threatening human and environmental health and exposing a dire need to improve waste management practices, according to the report. Image Credits: Brian Yurasits/ Unsplash, Hermes Rivera/ Unsplash, Planetary Health Eastern Africa Hub. WHO ‘Health For Peace’ Initiative Hits Crosscurrents in WHO Executive Board Debate 31/01/2022 Maayan Hoffman WHO Executive Board Chair Dr Patrick Amoth and Director-General Dr Tedros at Friday’s EB150 session. An innovative WHO “Health for Peace Initiative” that aims to build bridges in conflict zone and humanitarian settings through global health initiatives ran into some rough waters at last week’s Executive Board meeting – with the United States saying that it should include a human rights element – while Russia warned WHO against “politicizing” its agenda. The initiative, conceived in 2019-2020, was planned and developed together with the International Labour Organization, the UN Peacebuilding Support Office, and the Swiss-based organization Interpeace, with some initial projects now being implemented in areas like the Ukraine. The initiative builds on earlier WHO “Bridges for Peace” projects that took place during the 1980s and 1990s. But this new GHPI edition also aims to “work on conflict” by ensuring that such programmes help address conflict’s underlying causes – while avoiding unintentionally fuelling of tensions. Other aims of the initiative include developing “innovative ways to address conflict, strengthen resilience to violence and empower people to (re)build peaceful relations with each other”. It aims to covers a wide range of areas – from infectious diseases to maternal and child health, nutrition, tobacco use and health systems strengthening. Synopsis of the health for peace initiative. Russia – don’t stray into other areas However, some leading member states gave the initiative a mixed reception in a discussion WHO Executive Board on Friday, the day before the 150th session closed. Russia warned WHO that it needs to to avoid “politicising” its agenda, asking for more discussion about the nuts and bolts of the initiative. It also warned WHO against “straying” into areas beyond its mandate, saying focusing on the core WHO mission of strengthening health systems already helps build trust between countries. “Russia continues to speak out against the politicization of the WHO agenda… We call upon WHO to strictly follow its mandate and not stray into other areas, those covered by other [United Nations] bodies, specialized agencies and so on,” Russia’s EB representative said. Russia also highlighted that the initiative had launched, based on discussion with only 24 countries and partners. “This issue has not been investigated by governing bodies of the WHO at another stage,” the Russian representative said. “We believe that there should be more broad discussions.” Representatives from WHO’s Eastern Mediterranean region also appeared hesitant, with one delegate stressing that “first and foremost, we should avoid causing any harm.” “Many interventions of health for peace will only be successful if they are well prepared and well designed, and therefore we need to coordinate our experiences and expertise,” he said. US asks for human rights inclusion Health for Peace Initiative as it was presented at the Paris Peace Conference in 2020. In contrast, the United States asked that human rights be included as one of the pillars of the initiative. While the US supports the draft of the GHPI, it said that the country “regrets that the text … fails to incorporate human rights as a fundamental pillar in addition to peace and development. “The WHO has an important role to play in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in coordination with other UN agencies,” the US representative said. Building vaccine confidence, including the need to address issues of vaccine misinformation and disinformation, could also be a valuable arena in which the new GHPI could act. In response to the concerns, WHO officials stated that discussions on the initiative with member states are ongoing, and would be managed in an open and inclusive manner. “I think that we have been very open to date,” said a WHO emergencies official. “It’s not a political initiative. Obviously, political decisions do have an impact on health and on peace and we’re all aware of this.” ‘There cannot be health without peace’ “There cannot be health without peace, and there cannot be peace without health,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who has championed the initiative, has explained. “Health can also be a bridge to peace. Health can contribute to peace by delivering services equitably to all people in society- especially disadvantaged groups,” he said in a recent message. “This can also help address the triggers of conflict, such as unequal access to health care, which can often leave to feelings of exclusion and resentment. “Equitable health services strengthen community trust, which in turn contribute to health systems and peacebuilding efforts.” Data and technology sharing key to managing pandemics In other discussions Friday, China, Singapore and Indonesia all stressed the need to address benefits and information sharing. “The current pandemic has shown us how important it is to make such information free and publicly available,” a representative from Singapore said, noting that the country “sees the sharing of such data … as part of ‘global public goods’” and that should be included in a larger conversation on the financing of such goods. Singapore also recommended that WHO establish a global health threats fund, invested in by nations based on pre-agreed contributions as a means of being better prepared for the next pandemic. “We would like to caution against lies in the lack of levels of preparedness with regard to the response to pandemics around our region,” a second representative from the Eastern Mediterranean region said. “We would like to see the continuation of the support for our preparedness in this regard.” He said that there should be better coordination among member states with regard to health, security, and preparation of emergency plans and plans with regard to specific diseases. Image Credits: WHO EB 150. Return to ‘Real’ vs ‘Edible’ Food is Needed After COVID-19 Pandemic 31/01/2022 Raisa Santos Food experts proposed a return to ‘real’ food over what is just ‘edible’ The explosion of unhealthy diets received considerable attention at last week’s WHO Executive Board meeting, as well as at last year’s UN Food Systems Summit – as key contributors to the global epidemic of chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases – which have also exacerbated the health risks of billions of people to COVID-19. Now, what is really needed, post-pandemic, is a return to healthy and sustainable ‘real’ foods that both dimish these disease risks – as well as the risks of another pathogen escape from the wild into human societies as a result of unsafe and unsustainable food practices – particularly around both wild and domestic meat production and consumption. This was a key message of a group of civil society experts at a recent panel – who also drew a distinction between what is merely “edible” food and what is “real”, healthy food. Making that seemingly simple distinction will be crucial post-COVID recovery to stem rising noncommunicable diseases while also ensuring that our planet remains within the boundaries of sustainable food production as well as making , nutrition experts emphasized during a recent Geneva Global Health Hub (G2H2) event. The event, “Sustainable healthy diets: Why are they so crucial after COVID-19?”, was hosted in collaboration with the Society for International Development (SID). Featured speakers from Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia discussed a broad range of proposed solutions that would alter the way food is produced, distributed, and consumed. Exiting the corporate food system Attaining healthier and more sustainable diets requires an ‘exit’ from the corporate food system, said Hernando Salcedo Fidalgo, of the Colombian NGO, FIAN. “The exit must make a distinction between real foods over what we call ‘edible products’”. Fidalgo described solutions as a “continued process” that would have to begin at the very foundations of government – with approaches that distinguish between “real food and just edible products.” SID Director Nicoletta Dentico added: “If we don’t want to see things as they are, for the reality they represent, after years of the pandemic – this is going to be a kind of criminal blindness.” Mexico as a case study example of the need to return to traditional ‘real’ foods A sustainable healthy diet requires increased vegetable and fruit intake, as well more whole grains. At the session, Mexico was cited as one example of a country in the crosshairs of pressures from corporate food manufactuers – who have undermined the once healthy diet of indigenous Mexican foods, leading to soaring problems with obesity and diabetes. Reverting back to a traditional Mexican diet – rich in beans, fibre and micronutrients – is one way to both promote both sustainability and health, said Juan Angel Rivera Dommarco, Director-General of the National Institute for Public Health in Mexico. “Our food system is really contributing to the degradation of the planet, and at the same time has created an epidemic of obesity and chronic illness without solving the undernutrition problems of the world.” Dr. Juan Ángel Rivera Dommarco of the National Institute for Public Health of Mexico (INSP) highlights the key is to shift #foodsystems, food environment, nutrition communication and education and health systems.#SustainableHealthyDiets #EB150 #HealthyDiets #People4FoodSystems pic.twitter.com/KSoTstTpOn — Society for International Development (@SID_INT) January 20, 2022 He bemoaned the gradual encroachment of meat, fat, and sugar-heavy ‘American diets’ into Mexico. “We lost so many years of building healthy diets in Mexico as a result of trying to imitate the consumption of food in the north, which is not a good example at all,” he noted. The traditional Mexican diet means reverting to a diet high in vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts or seeds, and whole grains – except in rural areas, where whole grains are already highly consumed. Milk and dairy intake also would need to be increased across rural populations, but decreased in urban ones. Substantial reductions in ultra-processed foods and reduced animal-source protein would also be needed to return back to the traditional Mexican diet. Average cost (MXN$) per capita per day of current Mexican diet vs Mexican healthy and sustainable diet Moving towards this healthy diet would also be beneficial to the Mexican economy, Dommarco added. The current average Mexican diet has been costed at $3.54 per day, whereas a traditionally healthy and sustainable Mexican diet would cost $3.06, while that proposed by the EAT-Lancet Commission would cost $2.52. Shift government subsidies from ‘wrong foods’ to healthy ones Schools are one place to implement healthy food use. Noting that the Mexican government currently offers too many subsidies for the “wrong foods”, he called on politcymakers to shift money and policy support to healthier foods – also providing a model for other countries to follow. Working with GISAMAC (Inter-Sectoral Group for Health Agriculture Environment and Competitiveness), Dommarco has helped to develop a Mexican toolkit with a full set of policy proposals to address the need for healthy diets in the country. Their proposals included increasing the availability of healthy foods in underserved areas, prioritizing these foods for government subsidies and procurement, and prioritizing healthy, fresh foods in school nutrition programs. Taxes from sugar-sweetened beverages and ultra-processed junk food should be doubled, with tax revenues used to ensure drinking water in underserved communities, he added. Policies from the toolkit emphasize a multisectoral and multisystemic intervention, including not only food systems and the food environment, but education, nutrition, community, and health systems. “The idea is that we really need a set of policies rather than one single policy that has a multi-systemic view,” said Dommarco. Image Credits: Noranna/Flickr, Juan Rivera Dommarco , Juan Rivera Dommarco, Flickr: Bart Verweij / World Bank. Long COVID: Researchers Find ‘Antibody Signature’ to Identify High-Risk Patients; Two Vaccine Shots Could Stop the Syndrome 31/01/2022 Maayan Hoffman Researchers find two antibodies in common in people with long-COVID, the lingering post-infection condition that was recognised by the World Health Organization (WHO) last October. But scientists say symptoms and how many people develop the virus are still unclear. Unconscious and intubated Covid-19 patients are treated in Vila Penteado Hospital’s ICU, in the Brasilandia neighbourhood of Sao Paulo. By Maayan Hoffman A sizable portion of the 370 million people infected with SARS-COV2 experience Post-Acute COVID Syndrome (PACS), otherwise known as “long COVID”. Doctors and scientists are starting to grapple with why people develop the syndrome and how to prevent and treat it. Their discoveries could have important implications on future healthcare. Researchers from the University Hospital Zurich announced last week that they had discovered an “antibody signature” that could help identify which patients are at the highest risk for developing long COVID. Specifically, they found that low levels of IgM and IGg3 antibodies were more common in those who developed the syndrome than those who did not. The team followed 134 individuals who tested positive for the virus for up to a year after the initial infection. They found that when combined with the patient’s age, how mild or severe a case of coronavirus the person experienced, and whether or not the individual suffered from asthma, the antibody signature was able to predict the risk of long COVID. These antibody levels, of course, cannot be measured before a person becomes infected with the virus and therefore this method cannot be used as a pre-virus prediction of the syndrome. However, early identification of patients at elevated risk for long COVID could facilitate the study of targeted treatments, the researchers wrote in their paper, which was published in Nature Communications. Full mRNA vaccination protects against long COVID A separate study by researchers in Israel found that individuals who received two shots of the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine were much less likely to develop long COVID symptoms than those who were unvaccinated – suggesting that vaccination protects against long COVID. These results were not observed in individuals who received just a single dose. Participating vaccinated and infected individuals reported no additional long COVID symptoms than individuals who were never infected with the virus. The study was published this month on the pre-print health server MedRxiv and has not been peer-reviewed. A child receives a vaccine through the Maccabi Health Fund in Israel in December 2021 (Credit: Maccabi) The scientists, led by Prof Michael Edelstein of Bar-Ilan University, examined 10 commonly reported post-COVID symptoms – fatigue, shortness of breath, joint pain, chest pain, headache, palpitations, physical limitations, depression and insomnia – among 3,000 participants. They said that there was between a 50% and 80% reduction in seven of the 10 most common symptoms four to 11 months among the vaccinated participants compared to the unvaccinated. “A double comparison of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated COVID-19 cases followed by comparing vaccinated COVID-19 cases to people reporting no infection enabled us to show not only that vaccinated people were experiencing much fewer long COVID symptoms than unvaccinated people, but that that they did not report any more symptoms than people never infected,” Edelstein said. He noted that the results seemed “logical.” “If we believe that these symptoms are related to the infection – caused by the virus itself – it makes sense that if you are vaccinated, even though you can still get infected, those who do get infected have less copies of the virus in the body and it hangs around in the body for less time, so it would have less opportunity to affect the body long term,” Edelstein said. He added that the study indicates that even those who are at less risk of developing severe COVID-19 should get jabbed, since these individuals seem to be at equal risk of developing long COVID. The study only included adults over the age of 18, but Edelstein said that the team hopes to examine the effect of the vaccine on long COVID in children, too. Up to 57% of COVID survivors could have long COVID symptoms He added that what is needed is a universal definition or understanding of long COVID in order to enable better studies. The World Health Organization (WHO) rolled out a definition of PACS last October but noted that “the definition may change as new evidence emerges and our understanding of the consequences of COVID-19 continues to evolve.” According to WHO, long COVID occurs around three months from the onset of the virus, lasts for at least two months and “cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis.” It lists fatigue, shortness of breath and cognitive dysfunction as common symptoms, but said others could apply and that symptoms could fluctuate or relapse over time. It is also unclear how many people actually develop long COVID. Edelstein cited Israeli studies that indicate around 30% of people infected with coronavirus will develop the syndrome, while some studies say closer to 60% of virus sufferers will have some form of PACS for up to six months. What proportion of symptoms are attributable to the virus and whether or not these symptoms can be detected in a clinical setting could impact the future of long COVID treatment, Edelstein said. “It is one thing reporting shortness of breath and another detecting reduced lung volume on standardized, objective testing in a clinical setting,” he said. Over the weekend, a small study in the United Kingdom revealed that some people who reported long-lasting breathlessness after COVID infection may have hidden lung damage. Scientists used a Hyperpolarized Xenon Magnetic Resonance (MRI) scan to pick up on lung abnormalities not identified by routine scans. They found that for the majority of people with long COVID, the xenon gas they inhaled during the MRI moved less effectively from the lungs into the bloodstream than it did among healthy, never infected individuals. The spectrum of medical imaging “Hyperpolarised xenon MRI requires the patient to lie in an MRI scanner and breathe in one litre of xenon gas that has had its atomic structure altered so it can be seen using MRI,” according to the study. “Xenon is an inert gas that behaves in a very similar way to oxygen, so radiologists then can observe how the gas moves from the lungs into the bloodstream.” The study included 11 non-hospitalized long COVID patients and 12 hospitalized patients, as well as 13 health controls. It was published by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford and has not yet been peer-reviewed. Researchers said that they plan to expand the study to include at least 200 patients. Long COVID therapeutics on the horizon? Doctors and scientists are also focusing on developing long COVID therapeutics. An article published on Clinical Trials Arena stated that 65% of planned COVID trials for 2022 will focus on therapeutics, according to a GlobalData report, but said that the majority of the long COVID trials (76.5%) are only in Phase I or Phase II. At least four long COVID drug trial readouts are expected in 2022, the report said, with each treatment targeting a different long COVID symptom or group of symptoms. These include PureTech, which is working on a drug for lung tissue damage stemming from a prior COVID-19 hospitalization; Axcella Health, which is working with Oxford university on a drug to reduce inflammation and restore mitochondrial function; Massachusetts General Hospital and 9 Meters Biopharma are studying a treatment for multisystem inflammatory syndrome; and MGC Pharma is assessing the potential of its ArtemiC Support for effectiveness in treating long COVID symptoms such as dyspnea, cough, asthenia, anosmia, ageusia, headache and mental confusion. Great article from @hannahkuchler @FinancialTimes discussing the impact of #LongCovid and highlighting our therapeutic candidate, LYT-100, which is in development for respiratory complications, as well as the work of our Founded Entity, @AkiliLabs, on brain fog. https://t.co/dF7tSORjcm — PureTech (@PureTechH) January 6, 2022 Edelstein said that researching long COVID is urgent and essential because the syndrome “is going to be one of the major concerns going down the line.” He explained that while the acute phase of the pandemic will eventually end, “that is not necessarily going to be the end of the impact of COVID-19, which could be felt for years due to the virus’s long-term effects.” Long COVID could have “massive implications on the burden that will be on healthcare services in the future.” Image Credits: Ninian Reid/Flickr, Maccabi Health Services, Martin Tornai, Wikimedia Commons . Executive Board Meeting Ends with Concerns about WHO’s Sustainability and Board´s Ability to Govern Efficiently 30/01/2022 Paul Adepoju & Elaine Ruth Fletcher Dr Patrick Amoth, Chair of the Executive Board, As the 150th Executive Board Meeting of the WHO closed Saturday, attention focused on the inability of the WHO governing board to reach consensus on critical issues that it had debated – including a more sustainable financing framework as well as a clear way forward on a proposed new pandemic legal accord, reforms of global pandemic response and related WHO emergency operations. Despite six days of hours-long discussions, EB agreement to increase WHO member states´ assessed contributions to 50% of the budget by 2028-29, remained elusive. Nor could EB members even agree on a way forward for changing the format for voluntary contributions – using newer, and more innovative fundraising models, such as the ¨replenishment drives¨ that have made other non-profit global health organizations like Gavi and The Global Fund even more financially robust than WHO. Decision to extend mandate of Sustainable Finance working group keeps hopes alive WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus on Saturday, the closing day of the EB´s 150th session In his closing remarks, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the WHO, noted that while a conclusion on funding for WHO, which is a crucial issue, could not be reached at the meeting, the decision to extend the mandate of the working group on sustainable financing until the World Health Assembly demonstrated optimism. “I sincerely hope that by working together, we can make substantive progress on this issue,” the DG said. In advance of this year’s World Health Assembly, Tedros said that the WHO Secretariat also will further develop proposals, in consultation with Member States, on strengthening the global health architecture for emergency preparedness, response and resilience. “In doing so, we will take into consideration the preliminary findings of the Working Group on strengthening WHO Preparedness and Response to Health Emergencies, and recommendations of recent review panels and committees,” he said. However, that Working Group, as well, failed to reach agreement on key reforms, such as bolstering WHO´s mandate to make visits early on to sites of suspected pathogen outbreaks. Long, unwieldy agenda proves frustrating Dr Clemens Martin Auer, Austria´s EB representative and vice-chair Before officially declaring the meeting closed, Dr Patrick Amoth, Chair of the Executive Board, also stressed the need for discussions on how to improve the efficiency of WHO’s Executive Board meetings, and other member state fora, in order to ensure that member states can help WHO to perform more effectively. In all, the board reviewed over 55 agenda items and sub items. That, Amoth admitted, was ambitious, given the number of days available. “This resulted in longer sessions than we anticipated,” the chair added. While he also described the sessions as ´rich and engaging´ other member states were more blunt about the fruits of hours, upon hours of rhetorical statements by member states – which obscured real debate and discussions about key decision points. EB Vice Chair, Dr Clemens Martin Auer, Austria´s Special Envoy for Health, said that the Executive Board´s inability to come to any real conclusions not only harms WHO´s ability to perform, but leaves it in a ¨critical¨ situation. “We have reached the situation where we still don’t act accordingly to what we are supposed to do. We are still not living up to what we have to do, colleagues. We have to be aware that we haven’t concluded on anything and that we are leaving this organization in a critical situation,” he said. Auer warned that failure of governance, not by the WHO Secretariat, but by member states failing to get their act together on how to implement better governance — could make the organization progressively less relevant – and create a vacuum into which other global actors such as the G-20 would step. “We are contributing to further fragmentation when it comes to global health issues and also emergency issues and we pay the price of non-inclusivity and that’s a high price. Don’t talk, act. Don’t say, show. Don’t promise proof,” Auer told member states. Hours and hours talking Last June, a G-20 High Level Panel proposed the creation of a ¨Global Health Threats Board¨ including health and finance representatives of the world´s major economies, working in conjuction with the WHO and another proposed body, a Global Health Threats Council, that would be overseen by the UN Secretary General´s office. During the EB, a US State Department spokesperson said that President Joe Biden wants to support the creation of such a new financing mechanism, housed at the World Bank, to ensure a reliable source of investments for helping countries increase their own global health emergency preparedness – rather than remaining so dependent on donor aid. The US and other supporters have stressed that such initiatives should not detract from the central role of WHO´s global health support to countries and emergency response. And indeed, as if to underline the central role the WHO will continue to play, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken also announced an additional $280 million more in fuding to the agency in late December. If that funding were to be added to the $ 365 million annually Washington provided last year, it might even put the US ahead of Germany once again as the WHO´s top donor for 2022. That, despite a statement by WHO Director General Tedros, on the opening day of last week´s EB session, to the effect that Germany is now WHO´s biggest donor. Greater efficiences a challenge both inside WHO and within its governing board But money aside, the struggle for greater efficiencies remains a challenge – both inside WHO and among the member states’ own governing board. Dr Ahmed Mohammed Al Saidi, Oman’s Minister of Health corroborated Auer´s call on the board members to actively seek more efficient ways of doing things in order to achieve desired results. “We need to find a more efficient way of doing things and implementing them. We spent hours and hours talking, but let’s find a way where we can do things more efficiently. It can be by limiting the interventions and making it easier for the Executive Board members via retreats during which we have free time to talk about issues that matter to health care, not in our countries, but worldwide,” he concluded. Other EB members also complained that even certain tactical procedures, such as the bundling together of numerous reports, action plans, and updates into the same EB document, made it more difficult to wade through the various background documents. In an age in which written presentations to busy executive boards typically rely heavily on indexing, infographics, bullet points, graphics and other visual aids, EB documents continue to be drafted like the text-heavy academic theses of the mid-20th century style – which makes it almost impossible to quickly read and seize key messages, issues of debate, decision and action points. Similarly, EB member state statements remain heavy on rhetorical flourish – but lacking slides, visuals or even, in many cases, a written text, to support better understanding. The old-fashioned, and very indirect, style of the deliberations certainly also serves certain diplomatic goals – allowing countries to voice criticism in nuanced, coded language that is inscrutable for most outsiders, preserves decorum and avoids out-and-out conflict. Still, the formulas of presentation are often as obscure as the countries´ commentaries on them. Notably, some items, such as the NCD agenda, covered over a dozen different issues, from healthy foods to mental health, wrapped up into one long run-on document followed by annexes – with nary even a table of contents. As the US EB representative Loyce Pace observed at one point such bundling together of so many action plans and statements into one document, made it all the more difficult for EB members to weed through, and consider all of the important issues being raised. Global Health Security Demands National as well as Global Responses 29/01/2022 Ilona Kickbusch, David Heymann, Chikwe Ihekweazu & Swee Kheng Khor National health systems are needed in tackling global health threats. As the world enters the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic, an increasing number of important efforts are underway to strengthen global health security. However, it is vital that, while strengthening our global health architecture, we do not lose sight of the fundamental role played by national level health systems in tackling global health threats. Throughout this and previous pandemics, the strength of countries’ national health systems has been a critical success factor against pathogens. For example, even many countries with well-organised, well-financed and well-staffed health systems suffered throughout COVID-19. Viewed through these lenses, global health security may exist only as the sum total of the performance of all national health systems of all countries, rather than as a standalone and separate entity. Since the onset of the pandemic, we have seen a plethora of new institutions and new ideas for improving global health governance. These include the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator and the COVAX Facility in April 2020, the Independent Panel on Pandemic Preparedness and Response proposal in May 2021 for a Global Health Threats Council and the World Health Assembly (WHA) agreement in December 2021 to proceed with the negotiation and drafting of a new international instrument to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. It is hoped that these new international institutions and platforms will support better pandemic governance and financing at the global level. However, although a strong global focus is essential for ensuring equitable distribution of those goods that are necessary for fighting COVID-19 and future pandemics, national efforts must be equally prioritised. In other words, global leaders must resist two great temptations: the desire to build new institutions instead of strengthening existing ones such as the WHO and the International Health Regulations, and the tendency to ‘securitize’ health at the global level instead of implementing strong public health measures at the national level. Three functions to achieve resilient health systems One interlocking function needed is resilient healthcare systems. Global health security demands strong and resilient health systems that can prevent, detect and respond to infectious disease threats, wherever they occur in the world. Therefore, we propose a new understanding that approaches this goal through the lens of three interlocking functions at the national level. The first key function is building resilient national healthcare systems. It is critical that they have built-in surge capacity (including for primary healthcare) to manage patients who have been infected and require care, while at the same time continuing and sustaining routine health services for those who have not been affected. In addition to deaths from infection during the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been an excess of deaths of non-infected persons over what would be expected, likely due to the fact that they were not able to access routine health care, especially that which required frequent attention. The same occurred in West Africa during outbreaks of Ebola in 2014 – health facilities could not accommodate most of the patients with Ebola infection resulting in a high level of death from Ebola virus diseases, and also, the number of deaths from children who could not get care for malaria and other childhood diseases because of the lack of resilience in the health system was documented as being higher than the number of deaths from Ebola virus disease. The second key function is developing strong core public health capacities that meet the WHO’s International Health Regulations. Countries with early detection surveillance systems that identified outbreaks rapidly at the start of the pandemic, and those that had strong response mechanisms including outbreak responses – especially Singapore, Japan, and South Korea – showed the importance of strong public health core capacities to manage pandemics. And rather than using blunt lockdowns of the entire economies, they were able to save lives by outbreak investigation, identification of sources of infection and then shutting them down with precision, rather than blunt lockdowns. Thirdly, countries need to invest in broader supportive environments that enable the health and wellbeing of their populations. Infection with SAR CoV2, as with many other viral and bacterial infections, resulted in more serious illness and death among the elderly and those with comorbidities such as diabetes, cardiac disease and obesity. By using smart regulations and other healthy-lifestyle-enabling measures, governments can ensure populations are healthier and more resistant to serious illness after infection, decreasing morbidity and mortality in an outbreak and/or pandemic. Healthy populations also require adequate health financing, strong health literacy and health-seeking behaviours, and improving the social determinants of health, like education, housing and working conditions. Synergistic approach as opposed to mutually exclusive strategies This synergistic approach to universal health coverage, health security, and health promotion is necessary to prepare for future pandemics. Currently, many countries seem to assume that public health, universal health coverage and creating the enabling environment for healthy populations are mutually exclusive strategies. This can be due to limited resources and/or donor funding pushing governments towards “false choices”. Such false distinctions are further enhanced by the “global nature” of global health security with accountability towards the international community, contrasted with the domestic nature of universal health coverage and health promotion, with accountability towards local voters, taxpayers and citizens. A strategy focused on the three interlocking functions provides countries with a middle way – an integrated approach that equally prioritises national and global health security. Each of the functions has a strong conceptual framework and large body of evidence to support its positive impact on global health security. Each is closely aligned with well-established and highly-visible health frameworks. It will take political and health leaders with courage, vision and ambition to rethink some of the many vertical (albeit well-meaning) global implementation and funding streams to ensure that they serve to strengthen these three functions and not bypass or weaken them. They will need understanding and support from the global health community. If implemented correctly, the three interlocking functions would be mutually synergistic, with progress in one function accelerating or enhancing progress in another. Taken together, they represent a more balanced approach to global health security and reduce the risk of over-globalizing, over-engineering or over-securitizing health. By better linking these three functions within WHO, and within its guidelines for epidemic and pandemic preparedness, WHO technical support to countries could provide better preparedness and response capacity for the next major outbreak or pandemic. Biographies Swee Kheng Khor Ilona Kickbusch David Heymann Dr Chikwe Ihekweazu Professor David Heymann is professor of infectious disease epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Professor Ilona Kickbusch is the Founder of the Global Health Centre at the Graduate Institute in Geneva. Chikwe Ihekweazu is the WHO assistant Director General of health emergency intelligence, the former Director General of the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) and was previously the Acting Director of the West Africa Regional Centre for Disease Control. Doctor Swee Kheng Khor is a physician specializing in health systems & policies and global health, focusing on south-east Asia. Image Credits: Nigeria Centre for Disease Control , Flickr: Maxim Malov/CDC. WHO Needs to Reform Accountability Systems to Prevent Sexual Exploitation and Abuse 28/01/2022 Elaine Ruth Fletcher & Raisa Santos 17 January 2019 – Beni, North Kivu region, Democratic Republic of Congo.Families go the Ebola Treatment Center to visit a family member who is held in quarantine in the centre. WHO needs to reform lines of authority and responsibility across all aspects of its emergencies response operations in order to effectively prevent, report, and take measures against sexual exploitation and harrassment. Those were the highlights of a final report by an Independent Oversight Advisory Committee (IOAC) of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme, examining the claims of sexual exploitation and harrassment that first emerged in connection with WHO’s 2018-2020 Ebola response in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The report, presented in a Friday afternoon session of the WHO Executive Board, marked another milestone in the follow-up to reports of sexual exploitation and abuse claims by some 75 Congolese women against 25 WHO workers deployed to the Democratic Republic of Congo’s 2018-2020 Ebola response – which was first reported by the New Humanitarian in 2020. Following the reports, WHO initiated an independent investigation, as well as initial internal reforms to improve staff training in the prevention of sexual exploitation and harrassment (PRSEH); deployment of more training staff; and new recruitment standards that also consider any exploitation and abuse issues in a candidate’s background, the IOAC report states. But there remains “ deep, lingering frustration expressed by Member States and staff about the lack of transparency, delays in responding to incidents and holding perpetrators accountable, and the defensiveness with which the Organization has dealt with SEAH in the past,” states the report, presented to the EB. Felicity Harvey, co-chair IOAC And more comprehensive cultural and structural changes need to occur across WHO to reduce the risks of abuse from ever occurring in the first place, said Felicity Harvey, co-chair of the IOAC committee, in her presentation of the report to the WHO Executive Board on Friday. “The second edition of The WHO Emergency Response framework should be further revised to provide greater clarity on the accountabilities and lines of authority across offices, regional offices and headquarters with explicit roles and responsibilities given to each player and updated procedures for all hazards emergency risk management,” she said. The IOAC report outlines five priority areas where more action is needed. Those include: Clarifying the lines of responsibility and delegation of authority across the three levels of the organization; Strengthening the accountability framework for emergency response and other field teams; Reform the organization’s PRSEH management structure, and accelerate organizational capacity to implement a “victim survivor-centered” approach to PRSEH; Financial investment in PRSEH programmes as an essential WHO function – and particularly in field operations, where WHO is currently responding to some 80 emergencies around the world; Periodic assessments of PRSEH in acute emergency response settings, including a mapping of community and local resources; identification of trusted local partners for PRSEH incident management; ensuring that field operations include a balance of experienced male and female personnel. Building a culture of equity, diversity and transparency “WHO needs to promote or advocate for institutionalized culture change to strengthen PRSEH, including greater gender and racial diversity, improved performance management, and a renewed commitment to WHO values – to build a culture of equity, diversity and transparency,” said Harvey, a former director-general of international health in the United Kingdom Department of Health. DG Proposal – separate line of investigation for sex abuse complaints WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Responding to the IOAC report, WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus noted that WHO has recently engaged an external investigator to follow up on further on the abuse allegations – and their perpetrators. “This is the first time a UN Organization has installed an independent investigation, opening up to an external investigator,” he noted. “One of the things that our member states emphasized is transparency; we are doing that, and we will continue to do more. We will continue to build on this, because more should be done,” Tedros said. Tedros also asked the EB to approve a draft decision that would create a separate line of authority to the investigator heading up the Organization’s investigations of sexual exploitation and abuse allegations – and reporting directly to the Director General. All sexual exploitation and abuse allegations would thus be treated separately from other WHO internal justice investigations, at least temporarily, according to the draft WHO proposal. The WHO DG also noted that in the last two weeks, the Organization had received three new complaints of alleged sexual harrassment and exploitation from the Central African Republic, DR Brazzavile, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) – the latter where Tedros also said that WHO was creating a model for rehabilitation and support to victims, helping them access livelihoods as well as other means of support. “We support zero tolerance and we will do everything to build a better culture,” he said. The DG’s proposal to create a separate chain of authority for sexual exploitation and harrassment cases churned up some initial resistance among some EB members – who said that it should have been discussed even before the EB convened, at a meeting of member states’ Planning and Budget Advisory Committee (PBAC). Harvey, however, said that the IOAC would “strongly endorse the decision to keep the PRSEH Investigation Unit separate from general investigations,” att least for the moment until progress has been made on the investigations still ongoing in the DR Congo and elsewhere. The EB members deferred debate on the draft WHO decision until Saturday morning. Country responses commend WHO and emphasize survivor-centered approach and ‘zero tolerance’ policy WHO Representative of France Representatives across Member States otherwise commended the WHO for its efforts towards prevention of sexual exploitation, abuse, and harrassment, with some emphasing the need to adopt a survivor-centered approach in responding to the allegations. “It is important that we create an environment conducive to effectively preventing sexual exploitation and abuse, and that means asking ourselves hard questions about responsibility,” said Tunisia, on behalf of the WHO Eastern Meditterean Region. Tunisia, and many other Member States noted that a zero tolerance policy is needed, and proposed that a common UN database be created. The database would be consulted before staff recruitment, ensuring that the necessary checks can be made. “We need to do this, making effective and efficient use of the resources we have available on gender equality.” France, on behalf of the European Union, echoed these sentiments, and also reiterated the need for “accountable culture within the organization.” “We think it is better to have people providing the information because peace is being swept under the carpet.” Concern and clarification needed on transparency and accountability Bathsheba Nell Crocker, US Ambassador to the United Nations However, some representatives continued to express their concern regarding the WHO’s work on sexual exploitation and abuse, including China and the United States. China noted the need for clarification from the WHO on the interim report and “transparency and accountability of the related work.” “We hope that WHO will further clarify on how it will communicate on concrete action taken both within and outside of the organization.” The US representative, Bathsheba Nell Crocker, acknowledged the recent progress of the WHO, but added that “broader organization reforms are needed, as well as the dedicated effort now required to translate division laid out for WHO’s work in this area into concrete results on the ground.” She also pointed out that WHO’s efforts to increase awareness, conduct training, and fill capacity are “essential but insufficient.” “[There is] absence of investment in evidence-driven survivor centered prevention, risk mitigation, and response protocols.” Crocker noted that WHO must encourage prompt reporting and delivery of survivor centered services. “Organizational change starts at the top with leadership. We call on WHO to ensure that roles and expectations are clear and to enforce whistleblower protections.” Image Credits: Flickr: World Bank / Vincent Tremeau, WHO EB 150. New Nigerian Lassa Fever Outbreak Underway – and Expanding its Range 28/01/2022 Paul Adepoju Nigeria has set up an emergency response centre to deal with outbreaks of the deadly Lassa fever in parts of the country. Following reports of an unusually large number of cases in January 2022 across some 12 states, Nigeria is stepping up its surveillance of Lassa fever, the deadly viral hemorrhagic illness transmitted by infected rodents, or through other infected people or tainted food. This year marks the fourth year in a row in which large outbreaks of the disease are being reported by Africa’s most populous state.. According to the Nigeria Center for Disease Control (NCDC), there have been a total of 759 suspected cases, 170 confirmed cases and 32 confirmed deaths in January – following the emergence of the first cluster of new LF cases in December. In a worrisome trend, January’s cases were reported from 37 local government areas (LGAs) spread across 12 states. That is about twice the number of LGAs and states where cases of Lassa fever were reported within the same period in 2021 (17 and 6 respectively). While the number of cases and states so far affected by the 2022 Lassa fever outbreak are higher, the case fatality rate of 18.8% remains lower than that of the 2021 outbreak where one out of four confirmed cases resulted in death (CFR — 25%). Notably, is also about 16 times higher than the CFR for COVID-19 in Nigeria (1.2%), Nigerian health authorities underline. Although cases have been reported from 12 states, three states (Edo, Ondo and Bauchi) are the epicenters for the outbreak, accounting for 74% of all confirmed cases. Expanding range nationally and global health threats This year mark’s the fourth in a row when large clusters of cases have been reported in Nigeria, “raising concerns about an ongoing, systematic emergence of LF nationally,” according to a recent Nature Communications review of the disease’s gradual expansion country-wide. In 2019, there were 833 confirmed cases of Lassa fever in Nigeria with 174 deaths (CFR — 20.9%). In 2020, Nigeria recorded a total of 1181 confirmed cases of Lassa fever and 244 deaths (a CFR of 20.7%) but the following year (2021), the number of confirmed cases reduced to 510 with 102 deaths among confirmed cases (CFR - 20%). In addition to the national and regional risks, Lassa Fever is a “WHO-listed priority pathogen and a major focus of international vaccine development funding3 and, although often framed as a global health threat.” Lassa fever is an acute viral illness and a viral haemorrhagic fever that is associated with high morbidity and mortality, and it thus has both economic and health security consequences. Some cases, however, can be mild and thus go undetected or be confused with other common febrile conditions, like malaria - underlining the need for surveillance and vigilance to stop its spread. First reported in Nigeria’s state of Borno in 1969 when two missionary nurses died from an unusual febrile illness, Lassa fever cases and outbreaks continue to be reported in Nigeria and the diseases is increasingly recognised to be endemic in many parts of West Africa, including Nigeria, Benin, Ghana, Mali and the Mano River region (Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea). The disease has typically been characterised as having two main endemic foci in West Africa, one centered around Sierra Leone and Liberia, and the other in Nigeria, but in recent years, Nigeria, in particular, has continued to record a trend of increasing numbers of cases - although most countries in the region have reported regular or sporadic cases, researchers report. Response measures In a statement this week, NCDC said it has activated the country’s national multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary Lassa fever Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) in response to the Lassa fever outbreak in some parts of the country. “This became necessary given the increase in the number of confirmed Lassa fever cases across the country and a joint risk assessment with partners and sister agencies,” the center said in the statement. It described the reports in weeks 1 and 2 as the highest number of confirmed cases recorded in Nigeria in the last four years for the same period. It however reassured Nigerians of its preparedness which hinged on the center’s experience in responding to Lassa fever outbreaks. “Since 2016, NCDC has worked hard to improve diagnostic capacity for the disease. Currently, seven laboratories can conduct confirmatory tests for Lassa fever in Nigeria and are coordinated by the NCDC National Reference Laboratory (NRL). This has improved active case detection for the disease,” NCDC stated. In the same vein, care for affected individuals has improved. NCDC said it is providing support to states including the provision of emergency medical and laboratory supplies as well as oral and intravenous Ribavirin for preventive and curative treatment to treatment centres across the country. “In addition, Nigeria through NCDC is participating in the largest-ever Lassa fever study that aims to provide an accurate assessment of the incidence of the disease in West Africa. This will also accelerate the development of vaccines and therapeutics for Lassa fever,” NCDC added. It has also commenced training for healthcare workers in Nigeria’s tertiary health institutions on Lassa fever case management and infection prevention control. Risk factors for exposure Contact with the rodent Mastomys natalensis is thought to be the reason for Lassa fever. According to a research report published in Nature Communications in October, 2021, the significant majority of observed LF cases—including those from recent years in Nigeria—are thought to arise directly from contact with the rodent rodent Mastomys natalensis, the main viral reservoir host and a common agricultural pest. Other cases have occured, however, via hospital-acquired infections and potentially, in other small clusters of human-to-human transmission. Risk factors for spillover of the virus, while not well understood, are thought to include factors that increase direct and indirect contact between rodents and people through poor food storage and housing quality, as well as certain crop processing practices. Correlations between human case surges and seasonal rainfall patterns “suggests that LF is a climate-sensitive disease whose incidence may be increasing with regional climatic change,” according to the Nature Communications study, led by David Redding of University College London and and Chikwe Ihekweazu, of the Nigerian Centre for Disease Control (NCDC). Image Credits: Channel Africa/Twitter, Sahara Reporters/Nigeria. Infectious Disease Funding Virtually Unchanged, Neglected Tropical Diseases Continue Trend of Stagnation 28/01/2022 Raisa Santos Neglected Tropical Diseases remain stagnant in their funding Despite the strains of COVID-19, global funding for poverty-related infectious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria, remains virtually unchanged at US $3.937 billion, with investment dropping only 4% in 2020, according to the fourteenth annual G-FINDER Report. The report, released by Australia-based Policy Cures Research group on Thursday, showed a drop of only US $172 million from 2019. This year’s funding remains the third highest ever seen by the group for neglected diseases. Funding for neglected diseases declined only 4% in 2020 But though the decline may be a marginal one, funding for neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) continued a decade of relative stagnation, with only snakebite envenoming seeing an increased investment in 2020. Resilient funding may be impacted by COVID-19 in the future Nick Chapman, CEO of Policy Cures Research The G-FINDER report is a comprehensive analysis of global investment of R&D for poverty-related neglected diseases. It is widely used by national governments, industry, civil society, and the World Health Organization to identify gaps in progress and areas where investments would be needed. Reactions to the report were cautiously optimistic regarding the sustained investment in global R&D, with concerns that COVID-19 still could shift the direction of funding. “These figures are reassuring for the neglected disease research and development community as they indicate continued commitment to advancing health innovations for some of the world’s most vulnerable populations,” said Nick Chapman, CEO of Policy Cures Research. “However, we can’t assume that resilient funding in the first year of the pandemic means that we are safe from impacts on funding in the future.” Paul Barnsley, senior analyst at Policy Cures Research, also expressed his concerns during the Thursday launch event of the report. “We’re still worried that a focus on COVID might capture some of the attention and resources of traditional funders, and that the cost of stimulus during the pandemic will lead to future reductions in overall government spending flowing through to neglected disease R&D,” he said. Funding for top three infectious diseases declines The top three infectious diseases – HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria – received the largest shares of funding, as they have every year, accounting for more than two-thirds of reported global investment. However, funding for all three of these diseases fell in 2020, taking their share of global funding to 68% to the usual annual average of 75%. In the case of HIV/AIDS, the vast majority of the decline was attributed to decreased investment from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Gates Foundation, and industry. Tuberculosis also experienced a decrease in funding from the NIH, but recond-high funding from the European Commission, a result of new funding for the European Regimen Accelerator for Tuberculosis, an initiative dedicated to new treatments for TB. Disruptions in clinical trials due to pandemic While investments in neglected disease R&D stayed near their historic highs, despite the turbulent first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the pandemic hindered product developers’ ability to conduct clinical trials in 2020. Barnsley anticipates these disruptions to have continued into 2021. In line with this trend, multinational pharmaceutical companies’ (MNC) investments in clinical development decreased for the second consecutive year in 2020. The previous G-FINDER report attributed this to normal fluctuations and the conclusion of late-stage trials in treatments. However, the report does warn that “another year of decreases in MNC funding could signal a trend.” “Although the 2020 decline is most likely due to pandemic-disrupted trials, it could indicate that half a decade of soaring MNC funding is coming to an end.” Philanthropic funding increases Philanthropies such as Wellcome Trust and Open Philanthropy have increased their infectious disease R&D Contributions from public and private sectors both dropped slightly in 2020 but funding from philanthropies saw record high levels of funding, an increase of US $28 million over the previous year. Both established and new philanthropies such as Wellcome Trust and Open Philanthropy, were the primary reason for this new increase, with Open Philanthropy nearly tripling its funding for neglected disease R&D between 2017 and 2020. Increased investment in platform technologies Funding for platform technologies continues to increase A key reason that overall funding to infectious diseases remained relatively stable, despite cuts to clinical development, was the US $33 million increase in total funding in platform technologies. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the largest funder of platform technologies, providing 40% of investment, followed by US government agencies, the US NIH and the US Department of defense. Though the increase predates the pandemic, a number of grants for platform technologies in fact cite COVID-19 as the reason for accelerated interest. “In light of that, we predict that the already hastened pace of investment in platform technologies we saw in 2019 and 2020 will continue in the neglected disease R&D space, at least in the immediate years to come,” said Chapman. Funding cannot rely on ‘coattails of the pandemic’ Though the response to COVID-19 has demonstrated the potential for new funding mechanisms, strategies, and technologies, the report does note that this is a “stark reminder that neglected diseases persist because of insufficient funding and momentum”. “The next challenge for global health stakeholders will be to ensure that neglected diseases benefit from opportunities and innovations that have emerged from the pandemic.” Barnsley pointed out how it “may be tempting to ride on the coattails of the pandemic” in order to increase investment, and instead addressed the need to craft a message of genuine self-interest in eliminating neglected diseases. “We need to be able to defend neglected disease funding during periods of austerity.” Image Credits: Policy Cures Research, Policy Cures Research. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy Loading Comments... You must be logged in to post a comment.
Amid Mountains of COVID Waste, WHO Urges Sustainable Solutions 01/02/2022 Kerry Cullinan Billions of masks and gloves have been discarded during the pandemic. Almost four times the usual medical waste was generated in New Delhi during the height of India’s COVID-19 pandemic in May 2021 when all COVID-19 waste was mistakenly classified as infectious, according to a new report issued by the World Health Organization (WHO) on Tuesday. Most of the approximately 87,000 tonnes of personal protective equipment (PPE) procured between March 2020- November 2021 through a joint UN emergency initiative is expected to have ended up as waste. Over 140 million test kits, with a potential to generate 2,600 tonnes of waste and 731,000 litres of chemical waste have also been shipped, according to data from the United Nations (UN) COVID-19 supply portal. But the report authors warn that the portal’s data represents “a small fraction of global procurement”. “It does not take into account any of the COVID-19 commodities procured outside of the [UN] initiative, nor waste generated by the public like disposable medical masks,” they point out. One estimate suggests that up to 3.4 billion single use-masks were discarded every day in 2020. Over the past two years, over 296-million people have been confirmed with COVID-19. “Each of these cases, as well as hundreds of millions more people – because of exposure to COVID-19, travel, work or leisure obligations – will undergo COVID-19 testing. “Finally, over nine billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered, covering 35% of the global population. Billions more are planned. These activities all produce an enormous amount of COVID-19-related waste, a proportion of which is potentially infectious,” the report notes. About a third of all healthcare facilities (and 60% in the least developed countries) are not equipped to handle existing waste loads, let alone the additional COVID-19 load. Much of this will end up in landfills. Mistaken classification of all COVID waste as hazardous “Many facilities and countries mistakenly classified 100% of COVID-19 healthcare waste as hazardous, rather than the 10–15% level typically generated from routine health service provision,” according to the report. “ A number of major cities and countries that have experienced a large number of cases issued guidance that all waste generated by COVID-19 patients should be classified and treated as infectious. “This is despite the fact that SARS-CoV-2 is an enveloped virus, which means that it is inactivated relatively quickly by environmental factors such as sunlight or heat. Most evidence indicates that the main route of transmission of the virus is directly from person to person through exhaled respiratory particles, not fomites.” It points to gloves as one of the most commonly overused or misused items of PPE. In many cases, gloves are not necessary and proper hand-washing would suffice – such as vaccinations, measuring temperature and blood pressure – don’t need gloves. “Overuse of gloves was a longstanding problem even before COVID-19, resulting in unnecessary financial costs and adverse environmental impacts,” according to the report. “It is absolutely vital to provide health workers with the right PPE, “said Dr Michael Ryan, Executive Director, WHO Health Emergencies Programme. “But it is also vital to ensure that it can be used safely without impacting on the surrounding environment.” Dr Maria Neira, Director of WHO Environment, Climate Change and Health Reuse, recycle, don’t burn The report lays out a set of recommendations for integrating better, safer, and more environmentally sustainable waste practices into the current COVID-19 response and future pandemic preparedness. These include safe and reusable gloves, aprons and masks; using recyclable or biodegradable materials, and using non-burn waste treatment technologies, such as autoclaves (steam-cleaning machines). “Significant change at all levels, from the global to the hospital floor, in how we manage the health care waste stream is a basic requirement of climate-smart health care systems, which many countries committed to at the recent UN Climate Change Conference,” said said Dr Maria Neira, WHO Director of Environment, Climate Change and Health. Meanwhile, Dr Anne Woolridge, Chair of the Health Care Waste Working Group at the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), says that the “safe and rational use of PPE will not only reduce environmental harm from waste, it will also save money, reduce potential supply shortages and further support infection prevention by changing behaviours”. The tens of thousands of tonnes of extra medical waste from the response to the COVID-19 pandemic has put tremendous strain on health care waste management systems around the world, threatening human and environmental health and exposing a dire need to improve waste management practices, according to the report. Image Credits: Brian Yurasits/ Unsplash, Hermes Rivera/ Unsplash, Planetary Health Eastern Africa Hub. WHO ‘Health For Peace’ Initiative Hits Crosscurrents in WHO Executive Board Debate 31/01/2022 Maayan Hoffman WHO Executive Board Chair Dr Patrick Amoth and Director-General Dr Tedros at Friday’s EB150 session. An innovative WHO “Health for Peace Initiative” that aims to build bridges in conflict zone and humanitarian settings through global health initiatives ran into some rough waters at last week’s Executive Board meeting – with the United States saying that it should include a human rights element – while Russia warned WHO against “politicizing” its agenda. The initiative, conceived in 2019-2020, was planned and developed together with the International Labour Organization, the UN Peacebuilding Support Office, and the Swiss-based organization Interpeace, with some initial projects now being implemented in areas like the Ukraine. The initiative builds on earlier WHO “Bridges for Peace” projects that took place during the 1980s and 1990s. But this new GHPI edition also aims to “work on conflict” by ensuring that such programmes help address conflict’s underlying causes – while avoiding unintentionally fuelling of tensions. Other aims of the initiative include developing “innovative ways to address conflict, strengthen resilience to violence and empower people to (re)build peaceful relations with each other”. It aims to covers a wide range of areas – from infectious diseases to maternal and child health, nutrition, tobacco use and health systems strengthening. Synopsis of the health for peace initiative. Russia – don’t stray into other areas However, some leading member states gave the initiative a mixed reception in a discussion WHO Executive Board on Friday, the day before the 150th session closed. Russia warned WHO that it needs to to avoid “politicising” its agenda, asking for more discussion about the nuts and bolts of the initiative. It also warned WHO against “straying” into areas beyond its mandate, saying focusing on the core WHO mission of strengthening health systems already helps build trust between countries. “Russia continues to speak out against the politicization of the WHO agenda… We call upon WHO to strictly follow its mandate and not stray into other areas, those covered by other [United Nations] bodies, specialized agencies and so on,” Russia’s EB representative said. Russia also highlighted that the initiative had launched, based on discussion with only 24 countries and partners. “This issue has not been investigated by governing bodies of the WHO at another stage,” the Russian representative said. “We believe that there should be more broad discussions.” Representatives from WHO’s Eastern Mediterranean region also appeared hesitant, with one delegate stressing that “first and foremost, we should avoid causing any harm.” “Many interventions of health for peace will only be successful if they are well prepared and well designed, and therefore we need to coordinate our experiences and expertise,” he said. US asks for human rights inclusion Health for Peace Initiative as it was presented at the Paris Peace Conference in 2020. In contrast, the United States asked that human rights be included as one of the pillars of the initiative. While the US supports the draft of the GHPI, it said that the country “regrets that the text … fails to incorporate human rights as a fundamental pillar in addition to peace and development. “The WHO has an important role to play in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in coordination with other UN agencies,” the US representative said. Building vaccine confidence, including the need to address issues of vaccine misinformation and disinformation, could also be a valuable arena in which the new GHPI could act. In response to the concerns, WHO officials stated that discussions on the initiative with member states are ongoing, and would be managed in an open and inclusive manner. “I think that we have been very open to date,” said a WHO emergencies official. “It’s not a political initiative. Obviously, political decisions do have an impact on health and on peace and we’re all aware of this.” ‘There cannot be health without peace’ “There cannot be health without peace, and there cannot be peace without health,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who has championed the initiative, has explained. “Health can also be a bridge to peace. Health can contribute to peace by delivering services equitably to all people in society- especially disadvantaged groups,” he said in a recent message. “This can also help address the triggers of conflict, such as unequal access to health care, which can often leave to feelings of exclusion and resentment. “Equitable health services strengthen community trust, which in turn contribute to health systems and peacebuilding efforts.” Data and technology sharing key to managing pandemics In other discussions Friday, China, Singapore and Indonesia all stressed the need to address benefits and information sharing. “The current pandemic has shown us how important it is to make such information free and publicly available,” a representative from Singapore said, noting that the country “sees the sharing of such data … as part of ‘global public goods’” and that should be included in a larger conversation on the financing of such goods. Singapore also recommended that WHO establish a global health threats fund, invested in by nations based on pre-agreed contributions as a means of being better prepared for the next pandemic. “We would like to caution against lies in the lack of levels of preparedness with regard to the response to pandemics around our region,” a second representative from the Eastern Mediterranean region said. “We would like to see the continuation of the support for our preparedness in this regard.” He said that there should be better coordination among member states with regard to health, security, and preparation of emergency plans and plans with regard to specific diseases. Image Credits: WHO EB 150. Return to ‘Real’ vs ‘Edible’ Food is Needed After COVID-19 Pandemic 31/01/2022 Raisa Santos Food experts proposed a return to ‘real’ food over what is just ‘edible’ The explosion of unhealthy diets received considerable attention at last week’s WHO Executive Board meeting, as well as at last year’s UN Food Systems Summit – as key contributors to the global epidemic of chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases – which have also exacerbated the health risks of billions of people to COVID-19. Now, what is really needed, post-pandemic, is a return to healthy and sustainable ‘real’ foods that both dimish these disease risks – as well as the risks of another pathogen escape from the wild into human societies as a result of unsafe and unsustainable food practices – particularly around both wild and domestic meat production and consumption. This was a key message of a group of civil society experts at a recent panel – who also drew a distinction between what is merely “edible” food and what is “real”, healthy food. Making that seemingly simple distinction will be crucial post-COVID recovery to stem rising noncommunicable diseases while also ensuring that our planet remains within the boundaries of sustainable food production as well as making , nutrition experts emphasized during a recent Geneva Global Health Hub (G2H2) event. The event, “Sustainable healthy diets: Why are they so crucial after COVID-19?”, was hosted in collaboration with the Society for International Development (SID). Featured speakers from Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia discussed a broad range of proposed solutions that would alter the way food is produced, distributed, and consumed. Exiting the corporate food system Attaining healthier and more sustainable diets requires an ‘exit’ from the corporate food system, said Hernando Salcedo Fidalgo, of the Colombian NGO, FIAN. “The exit must make a distinction between real foods over what we call ‘edible products’”. Fidalgo described solutions as a “continued process” that would have to begin at the very foundations of government – with approaches that distinguish between “real food and just edible products.” SID Director Nicoletta Dentico added: “If we don’t want to see things as they are, for the reality they represent, after years of the pandemic – this is going to be a kind of criminal blindness.” Mexico as a case study example of the need to return to traditional ‘real’ foods A sustainable healthy diet requires increased vegetable and fruit intake, as well more whole grains. At the session, Mexico was cited as one example of a country in the crosshairs of pressures from corporate food manufactuers – who have undermined the once healthy diet of indigenous Mexican foods, leading to soaring problems with obesity and diabetes. Reverting back to a traditional Mexican diet – rich in beans, fibre and micronutrients – is one way to both promote both sustainability and health, said Juan Angel Rivera Dommarco, Director-General of the National Institute for Public Health in Mexico. “Our food system is really contributing to the degradation of the planet, and at the same time has created an epidemic of obesity and chronic illness without solving the undernutrition problems of the world.” Dr. Juan Ángel Rivera Dommarco of the National Institute for Public Health of Mexico (INSP) highlights the key is to shift #foodsystems, food environment, nutrition communication and education and health systems.#SustainableHealthyDiets #EB150 #HealthyDiets #People4FoodSystems pic.twitter.com/KSoTstTpOn — Society for International Development (@SID_INT) January 20, 2022 He bemoaned the gradual encroachment of meat, fat, and sugar-heavy ‘American diets’ into Mexico. “We lost so many years of building healthy diets in Mexico as a result of trying to imitate the consumption of food in the north, which is not a good example at all,” he noted. The traditional Mexican diet means reverting to a diet high in vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts or seeds, and whole grains – except in rural areas, where whole grains are already highly consumed. Milk and dairy intake also would need to be increased across rural populations, but decreased in urban ones. Substantial reductions in ultra-processed foods and reduced animal-source protein would also be needed to return back to the traditional Mexican diet. Average cost (MXN$) per capita per day of current Mexican diet vs Mexican healthy and sustainable diet Moving towards this healthy diet would also be beneficial to the Mexican economy, Dommarco added. The current average Mexican diet has been costed at $3.54 per day, whereas a traditionally healthy and sustainable Mexican diet would cost $3.06, while that proposed by the EAT-Lancet Commission would cost $2.52. Shift government subsidies from ‘wrong foods’ to healthy ones Schools are one place to implement healthy food use. Noting that the Mexican government currently offers too many subsidies for the “wrong foods”, he called on politcymakers to shift money and policy support to healthier foods – also providing a model for other countries to follow. Working with GISAMAC (Inter-Sectoral Group for Health Agriculture Environment and Competitiveness), Dommarco has helped to develop a Mexican toolkit with a full set of policy proposals to address the need for healthy diets in the country. Their proposals included increasing the availability of healthy foods in underserved areas, prioritizing these foods for government subsidies and procurement, and prioritizing healthy, fresh foods in school nutrition programs. Taxes from sugar-sweetened beverages and ultra-processed junk food should be doubled, with tax revenues used to ensure drinking water in underserved communities, he added. Policies from the toolkit emphasize a multisectoral and multisystemic intervention, including not only food systems and the food environment, but education, nutrition, community, and health systems. “The idea is that we really need a set of policies rather than one single policy that has a multi-systemic view,” said Dommarco. Image Credits: Noranna/Flickr, Juan Rivera Dommarco , Juan Rivera Dommarco, Flickr: Bart Verweij / World Bank. Long COVID: Researchers Find ‘Antibody Signature’ to Identify High-Risk Patients; Two Vaccine Shots Could Stop the Syndrome 31/01/2022 Maayan Hoffman Researchers find two antibodies in common in people with long-COVID, the lingering post-infection condition that was recognised by the World Health Organization (WHO) last October. But scientists say symptoms and how many people develop the virus are still unclear. Unconscious and intubated Covid-19 patients are treated in Vila Penteado Hospital’s ICU, in the Brasilandia neighbourhood of Sao Paulo. By Maayan Hoffman A sizable portion of the 370 million people infected with SARS-COV2 experience Post-Acute COVID Syndrome (PACS), otherwise known as “long COVID”. Doctors and scientists are starting to grapple with why people develop the syndrome and how to prevent and treat it. Their discoveries could have important implications on future healthcare. Researchers from the University Hospital Zurich announced last week that they had discovered an “antibody signature” that could help identify which patients are at the highest risk for developing long COVID. Specifically, they found that low levels of IgM and IGg3 antibodies were more common in those who developed the syndrome than those who did not. The team followed 134 individuals who tested positive for the virus for up to a year after the initial infection. They found that when combined with the patient’s age, how mild or severe a case of coronavirus the person experienced, and whether or not the individual suffered from asthma, the antibody signature was able to predict the risk of long COVID. These antibody levels, of course, cannot be measured before a person becomes infected with the virus and therefore this method cannot be used as a pre-virus prediction of the syndrome. However, early identification of patients at elevated risk for long COVID could facilitate the study of targeted treatments, the researchers wrote in their paper, which was published in Nature Communications. Full mRNA vaccination protects against long COVID A separate study by researchers in Israel found that individuals who received two shots of the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine were much less likely to develop long COVID symptoms than those who were unvaccinated – suggesting that vaccination protects against long COVID. These results were not observed in individuals who received just a single dose. Participating vaccinated and infected individuals reported no additional long COVID symptoms than individuals who were never infected with the virus. The study was published this month on the pre-print health server MedRxiv and has not been peer-reviewed. A child receives a vaccine through the Maccabi Health Fund in Israel in December 2021 (Credit: Maccabi) The scientists, led by Prof Michael Edelstein of Bar-Ilan University, examined 10 commonly reported post-COVID symptoms – fatigue, shortness of breath, joint pain, chest pain, headache, palpitations, physical limitations, depression and insomnia – among 3,000 participants. They said that there was between a 50% and 80% reduction in seven of the 10 most common symptoms four to 11 months among the vaccinated participants compared to the unvaccinated. “A double comparison of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated COVID-19 cases followed by comparing vaccinated COVID-19 cases to people reporting no infection enabled us to show not only that vaccinated people were experiencing much fewer long COVID symptoms than unvaccinated people, but that that they did not report any more symptoms than people never infected,” Edelstein said. He noted that the results seemed “logical.” “If we believe that these symptoms are related to the infection – caused by the virus itself – it makes sense that if you are vaccinated, even though you can still get infected, those who do get infected have less copies of the virus in the body and it hangs around in the body for less time, so it would have less opportunity to affect the body long term,” Edelstein said. He added that the study indicates that even those who are at less risk of developing severe COVID-19 should get jabbed, since these individuals seem to be at equal risk of developing long COVID. The study only included adults over the age of 18, but Edelstein said that the team hopes to examine the effect of the vaccine on long COVID in children, too. Up to 57% of COVID survivors could have long COVID symptoms He added that what is needed is a universal definition or understanding of long COVID in order to enable better studies. The World Health Organization (WHO) rolled out a definition of PACS last October but noted that “the definition may change as new evidence emerges and our understanding of the consequences of COVID-19 continues to evolve.” According to WHO, long COVID occurs around three months from the onset of the virus, lasts for at least two months and “cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis.” It lists fatigue, shortness of breath and cognitive dysfunction as common symptoms, but said others could apply and that symptoms could fluctuate or relapse over time. It is also unclear how many people actually develop long COVID. Edelstein cited Israeli studies that indicate around 30% of people infected with coronavirus will develop the syndrome, while some studies say closer to 60% of virus sufferers will have some form of PACS for up to six months. What proportion of symptoms are attributable to the virus and whether or not these symptoms can be detected in a clinical setting could impact the future of long COVID treatment, Edelstein said. “It is one thing reporting shortness of breath and another detecting reduced lung volume on standardized, objective testing in a clinical setting,” he said. Over the weekend, a small study in the United Kingdom revealed that some people who reported long-lasting breathlessness after COVID infection may have hidden lung damage. Scientists used a Hyperpolarized Xenon Magnetic Resonance (MRI) scan to pick up on lung abnormalities not identified by routine scans. They found that for the majority of people with long COVID, the xenon gas they inhaled during the MRI moved less effectively from the lungs into the bloodstream than it did among healthy, never infected individuals. The spectrum of medical imaging “Hyperpolarised xenon MRI requires the patient to lie in an MRI scanner and breathe in one litre of xenon gas that has had its atomic structure altered so it can be seen using MRI,” according to the study. “Xenon is an inert gas that behaves in a very similar way to oxygen, so radiologists then can observe how the gas moves from the lungs into the bloodstream.” The study included 11 non-hospitalized long COVID patients and 12 hospitalized patients, as well as 13 health controls. It was published by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford and has not yet been peer-reviewed. Researchers said that they plan to expand the study to include at least 200 patients. Long COVID therapeutics on the horizon? Doctors and scientists are also focusing on developing long COVID therapeutics. An article published on Clinical Trials Arena stated that 65% of planned COVID trials for 2022 will focus on therapeutics, according to a GlobalData report, but said that the majority of the long COVID trials (76.5%) are only in Phase I or Phase II. At least four long COVID drug trial readouts are expected in 2022, the report said, with each treatment targeting a different long COVID symptom or group of symptoms. These include PureTech, which is working on a drug for lung tissue damage stemming from a prior COVID-19 hospitalization; Axcella Health, which is working with Oxford university on a drug to reduce inflammation and restore mitochondrial function; Massachusetts General Hospital and 9 Meters Biopharma are studying a treatment for multisystem inflammatory syndrome; and MGC Pharma is assessing the potential of its ArtemiC Support for effectiveness in treating long COVID symptoms such as dyspnea, cough, asthenia, anosmia, ageusia, headache and mental confusion. Great article from @hannahkuchler @FinancialTimes discussing the impact of #LongCovid and highlighting our therapeutic candidate, LYT-100, which is in development for respiratory complications, as well as the work of our Founded Entity, @AkiliLabs, on brain fog. https://t.co/dF7tSORjcm — PureTech (@PureTechH) January 6, 2022 Edelstein said that researching long COVID is urgent and essential because the syndrome “is going to be one of the major concerns going down the line.” He explained that while the acute phase of the pandemic will eventually end, “that is not necessarily going to be the end of the impact of COVID-19, which could be felt for years due to the virus’s long-term effects.” Long COVID could have “massive implications on the burden that will be on healthcare services in the future.” Image Credits: Ninian Reid/Flickr, Maccabi Health Services, Martin Tornai, Wikimedia Commons . Executive Board Meeting Ends with Concerns about WHO’s Sustainability and Board´s Ability to Govern Efficiently 30/01/2022 Paul Adepoju & Elaine Ruth Fletcher Dr Patrick Amoth, Chair of the Executive Board, As the 150th Executive Board Meeting of the WHO closed Saturday, attention focused on the inability of the WHO governing board to reach consensus on critical issues that it had debated – including a more sustainable financing framework as well as a clear way forward on a proposed new pandemic legal accord, reforms of global pandemic response and related WHO emergency operations. Despite six days of hours-long discussions, EB agreement to increase WHO member states´ assessed contributions to 50% of the budget by 2028-29, remained elusive. Nor could EB members even agree on a way forward for changing the format for voluntary contributions – using newer, and more innovative fundraising models, such as the ¨replenishment drives¨ that have made other non-profit global health organizations like Gavi and The Global Fund even more financially robust than WHO. Decision to extend mandate of Sustainable Finance working group keeps hopes alive WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus on Saturday, the closing day of the EB´s 150th session In his closing remarks, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the WHO, noted that while a conclusion on funding for WHO, which is a crucial issue, could not be reached at the meeting, the decision to extend the mandate of the working group on sustainable financing until the World Health Assembly demonstrated optimism. “I sincerely hope that by working together, we can make substantive progress on this issue,” the DG said. In advance of this year’s World Health Assembly, Tedros said that the WHO Secretariat also will further develop proposals, in consultation with Member States, on strengthening the global health architecture for emergency preparedness, response and resilience. “In doing so, we will take into consideration the preliminary findings of the Working Group on strengthening WHO Preparedness and Response to Health Emergencies, and recommendations of recent review panels and committees,” he said. However, that Working Group, as well, failed to reach agreement on key reforms, such as bolstering WHO´s mandate to make visits early on to sites of suspected pathogen outbreaks. Long, unwieldy agenda proves frustrating Dr Clemens Martin Auer, Austria´s EB representative and vice-chair Before officially declaring the meeting closed, Dr Patrick Amoth, Chair of the Executive Board, also stressed the need for discussions on how to improve the efficiency of WHO’s Executive Board meetings, and other member state fora, in order to ensure that member states can help WHO to perform more effectively. In all, the board reviewed over 55 agenda items and sub items. That, Amoth admitted, was ambitious, given the number of days available. “This resulted in longer sessions than we anticipated,” the chair added. While he also described the sessions as ´rich and engaging´ other member states were more blunt about the fruits of hours, upon hours of rhetorical statements by member states – which obscured real debate and discussions about key decision points. EB Vice Chair, Dr Clemens Martin Auer, Austria´s Special Envoy for Health, said that the Executive Board´s inability to come to any real conclusions not only harms WHO´s ability to perform, but leaves it in a ¨critical¨ situation. “We have reached the situation where we still don’t act accordingly to what we are supposed to do. We are still not living up to what we have to do, colleagues. We have to be aware that we haven’t concluded on anything and that we are leaving this organization in a critical situation,” he said. Auer warned that failure of governance, not by the WHO Secretariat, but by member states failing to get their act together on how to implement better governance — could make the organization progressively less relevant – and create a vacuum into which other global actors such as the G-20 would step. “We are contributing to further fragmentation when it comes to global health issues and also emergency issues and we pay the price of non-inclusivity and that’s a high price. Don’t talk, act. Don’t say, show. Don’t promise proof,” Auer told member states. Hours and hours talking Last June, a G-20 High Level Panel proposed the creation of a ¨Global Health Threats Board¨ including health and finance representatives of the world´s major economies, working in conjuction with the WHO and another proposed body, a Global Health Threats Council, that would be overseen by the UN Secretary General´s office. During the EB, a US State Department spokesperson said that President Joe Biden wants to support the creation of such a new financing mechanism, housed at the World Bank, to ensure a reliable source of investments for helping countries increase their own global health emergency preparedness – rather than remaining so dependent on donor aid. The US and other supporters have stressed that such initiatives should not detract from the central role of WHO´s global health support to countries and emergency response. And indeed, as if to underline the central role the WHO will continue to play, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken also announced an additional $280 million more in fuding to the agency in late December. If that funding were to be added to the $ 365 million annually Washington provided last year, it might even put the US ahead of Germany once again as the WHO´s top donor for 2022. That, despite a statement by WHO Director General Tedros, on the opening day of last week´s EB session, to the effect that Germany is now WHO´s biggest donor. Greater efficiences a challenge both inside WHO and within its governing board But money aside, the struggle for greater efficiencies remains a challenge – both inside WHO and among the member states’ own governing board. Dr Ahmed Mohammed Al Saidi, Oman’s Minister of Health corroborated Auer´s call on the board members to actively seek more efficient ways of doing things in order to achieve desired results. “We need to find a more efficient way of doing things and implementing them. We spent hours and hours talking, but let’s find a way where we can do things more efficiently. It can be by limiting the interventions and making it easier for the Executive Board members via retreats during which we have free time to talk about issues that matter to health care, not in our countries, but worldwide,” he concluded. Other EB members also complained that even certain tactical procedures, such as the bundling together of numerous reports, action plans, and updates into the same EB document, made it more difficult to wade through the various background documents. In an age in which written presentations to busy executive boards typically rely heavily on indexing, infographics, bullet points, graphics and other visual aids, EB documents continue to be drafted like the text-heavy academic theses of the mid-20th century style – which makes it almost impossible to quickly read and seize key messages, issues of debate, decision and action points. Similarly, EB member state statements remain heavy on rhetorical flourish – but lacking slides, visuals or even, in many cases, a written text, to support better understanding. The old-fashioned, and very indirect, style of the deliberations certainly also serves certain diplomatic goals – allowing countries to voice criticism in nuanced, coded language that is inscrutable for most outsiders, preserves decorum and avoids out-and-out conflict. Still, the formulas of presentation are often as obscure as the countries´ commentaries on them. Notably, some items, such as the NCD agenda, covered over a dozen different issues, from healthy foods to mental health, wrapped up into one long run-on document followed by annexes – with nary even a table of contents. As the US EB representative Loyce Pace observed at one point such bundling together of so many action plans and statements into one document, made it all the more difficult for EB members to weed through, and consider all of the important issues being raised. Global Health Security Demands National as well as Global Responses 29/01/2022 Ilona Kickbusch, David Heymann, Chikwe Ihekweazu & Swee Kheng Khor National health systems are needed in tackling global health threats. As the world enters the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic, an increasing number of important efforts are underway to strengthen global health security. However, it is vital that, while strengthening our global health architecture, we do not lose sight of the fundamental role played by national level health systems in tackling global health threats. Throughout this and previous pandemics, the strength of countries’ national health systems has been a critical success factor against pathogens. For example, even many countries with well-organised, well-financed and well-staffed health systems suffered throughout COVID-19. Viewed through these lenses, global health security may exist only as the sum total of the performance of all national health systems of all countries, rather than as a standalone and separate entity. Since the onset of the pandemic, we have seen a plethora of new institutions and new ideas for improving global health governance. These include the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator and the COVAX Facility in April 2020, the Independent Panel on Pandemic Preparedness and Response proposal in May 2021 for a Global Health Threats Council and the World Health Assembly (WHA) agreement in December 2021 to proceed with the negotiation and drafting of a new international instrument to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. It is hoped that these new international institutions and platforms will support better pandemic governance and financing at the global level. However, although a strong global focus is essential for ensuring equitable distribution of those goods that are necessary for fighting COVID-19 and future pandemics, national efforts must be equally prioritised. In other words, global leaders must resist two great temptations: the desire to build new institutions instead of strengthening existing ones such as the WHO and the International Health Regulations, and the tendency to ‘securitize’ health at the global level instead of implementing strong public health measures at the national level. Three functions to achieve resilient health systems One interlocking function needed is resilient healthcare systems. Global health security demands strong and resilient health systems that can prevent, detect and respond to infectious disease threats, wherever they occur in the world. Therefore, we propose a new understanding that approaches this goal through the lens of three interlocking functions at the national level. The first key function is building resilient national healthcare systems. It is critical that they have built-in surge capacity (including for primary healthcare) to manage patients who have been infected and require care, while at the same time continuing and sustaining routine health services for those who have not been affected. In addition to deaths from infection during the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been an excess of deaths of non-infected persons over what would be expected, likely due to the fact that they were not able to access routine health care, especially that which required frequent attention. The same occurred in West Africa during outbreaks of Ebola in 2014 – health facilities could not accommodate most of the patients with Ebola infection resulting in a high level of death from Ebola virus diseases, and also, the number of deaths from children who could not get care for malaria and other childhood diseases because of the lack of resilience in the health system was documented as being higher than the number of deaths from Ebola virus disease. The second key function is developing strong core public health capacities that meet the WHO’s International Health Regulations. Countries with early detection surveillance systems that identified outbreaks rapidly at the start of the pandemic, and those that had strong response mechanisms including outbreak responses – especially Singapore, Japan, and South Korea – showed the importance of strong public health core capacities to manage pandemics. And rather than using blunt lockdowns of the entire economies, they were able to save lives by outbreak investigation, identification of sources of infection and then shutting them down with precision, rather than blunt lockdowns. Thirdly, countries need to invest in broader supportive environments that enable the health and wellbeing of their populations. Infection with SAR CoV2, as with many other viral and bacterial infections, resulted in more serious illness and death among the elderly and those with comorbidities such as diabetes, cardiac disease and obesity. By using smart regulations and other healthy-lifestyle-enabling measures, governments can ensure populations are healthier and more resistant to serious illness after infection, decreasing morbidity and mortality in an outbreak and/or pandemic. Healthy populations also require adequate health financing, strong health literacy and health-seeking behaviours, and improving the social determinants of health, like education, housing and working conditions. Synergistic approach as opposed to mutually exclusive strategies This synergistic approach to universal health coverage, health security, and health promotion is necessary to prepare for future pandemics. Currently, many countries seem to assume that public health, universal health coverage and creating the enabling environment for healthy populations are mutually exclusive strategies. This can be due to limited resources and/or donor funding pushing governments towards “false choices”. Such false distinctions are further enhanced by the “global nature” of global health security with accountability towards the international community, contrasted with the domestic nature of universal health coverage and health promotion, with accountability towards local voters, taxpayers and citizens. A strategy focused on the three interlocking functions provides countries with a middle way – an integrated approach that equally prioritises national and global health security. Each of the functions has a strong conceptual framework and large body of evidence to support its positive impact on global health security. Each is closely aligned with well-established and highly-visible health frameworks. It will take political and health leaders with courage, vision and ambition to rethink some of the many vertical (albeit well-meaning) global implementation and funding streams to ensure that they serve to strengthen these three functions and not bypass or weaken them. They will need understanding and support from the global health community. If implemented correctly, the three interlocking functions would be mutually synergistic, with progress in one function accelerating or enhancing progress in another. Taken together, they represent a more balanced approach to global health security and reduce the risk of over-globalizing, over-engineering or over-securitizing health. By better linking these three functions within WHO, and within its guidelines for epidemic and pandemic preparedness, WHO technical support to countries could provide better preparedness and response capacity for the next major outbreak or pandemic. Biographies Swee Kheng Khor Ilona Kickbusch David Heymann Dr Chikwe Ihekweazu Professor David Heymann is professor of infectious disease epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Professor Ilona Kickbusch is the Founder of the Global Health Centre at the Graduate Institute in Geneva. Chikwe Ihekweazu is the WHO assistant Director General of health emergency intelligence, the former Director General of the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) and was previously the Acting Director of the West Africa Regional Centre for Disease Control. Doctor Swee Kheng Khor is a physician specializing in health systems & policies and global health, focusing on south-east Asia. Image Credits: Nigeria Centre for Disease Control , Flickr: Maxim Malov/CDC. WHO Needs to Reform Accountability Systems to Prevent Sexual Exploitation and Abuse 28/01/2022 Elaine Ruth Fletcher & Raisa Santos 17 January 2019 – Beni, North Kivu region, Democratic Republic of Congo.Families go the Ebola Treatment Center to visit a family member who is held in quarantine in the centre. WHO needs to reform lines of authority and responsibility across all aspects of its emergencies response operations in order to effectively prevent, report, and take measures against sexual exploitation and harrassment. Those were the highlights of a final report by an Independent Oversight Advisory Committee (IOAC) of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme, examining the claims of sexual exploitation and harrassment that first emerged in connection with WHO’s 2018-2020 Ebola response in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The report, presented in a Friday afternoon session of the WHO Executive Board, marked another milestone in the follow-up to reports of sexual exploitation and abuse claims by some 75 Congolese women against 25 WHO workers deployed to the Democratic Republic of Congo’s 2018-2020 Ebola response – which was first reported by the New Humanitarian in 2020. Following the reports, WHO initiated an independent investigation, as well as initial internal reforms to improve staff training in the prevention of sexual exploitation and harrassment (PRSEH); deployment of more training staff; and new recruitment standards that also consider any exploitation and abuse issues in a candidate’s background, the IOAC report states. But there remains “ deep, lingering frustration expressed by Member States and staff about the lack of transparency, delays in responding to incidents and holding perpetrators accountable, and the defensiveness with which the Organization has dealt with SEAH in the past,” states the report, presented to the EB. Felicity Harvey, co-chair IOAC And more comprehensive cultural and structural changes need to occur across WHO to reduce the risks of abuse from ever occurring in the first place, said Felicity Harvey, co-chair of the IOAC committee, in her presentation of the report to the WHO Executive Board on Friday. “The second edition of The WHO Emergency Response framework should be further revised to provide greater clarity on the accountabilities and lines of authority across offices, regional offices and headquarters with explicit roles and responsibilities given to each player and updated procedures for all hazards emergency risk management,” she said. The IOAC report outlines five priority areas where more action is needed. Those include: Clarifying the lines of responsibility and delegation of authority across the three levels of the organization; Strengthening the accountability framework for emergency response and other field teams; Reform the organization’s PRSEH management structure, and accelerate organizational capacity to implement a “victim survivor-centered” approach to PRSEH; Financial investment in PRSEH programmes as an essential WHO function – and particularly in field operations, where WHO is currently responding to some 80 emergencies around the world; Periodic assessments of PRSEH in acute emergency response settings, including a mapping of community and local resources; identification of trusted local partners for PRSEH incident management; ensuring that field operations include a balance of experienced male and female personnel. Building a culture of equity, diversity and transparency “WHO needs to promote or advocate for institutionalized culture change to strengthen PRSEH, including greater gender and racial diversity, improved performance management, and a renewed commitment to WHO values – to build a culture of equity, diversity and transparency,” said Harvey, a former director-general of international health in the United Kingdom Department of Health. DG Proposal – separate line of investigation for sex abuse complaints WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Responding to the IOAC report, WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus noted that WHO has recently engaged an external investigator to follow up on further on the abuse allegations – and their perpetrators. “This is the first time a UN Organization has installed an independent investigation, opening up to an external investigator,” he noted. “One of the things that our member states emphasized is transparency; we are doing that, and we will continue to do more. We will continue to build on this, because more should be done,” Tedros said. Tedros also asked the EB to approve a draft decision that would create a separate line of authority to the investigator heading up the Organization’s investigations of sexual exploitation and abuse allegations – and reporting directly to the Director General. All sexual exploitation and abuse allegations would thus be treated separately from other WHO internal justice investigations, at least temporarily, according to the draft WHO proposal. The WHO DG also noted that in the last two weeks, the Organization had received three new complaints of alleged sexual harrassment and exploitation from the Central African Republic, DR Brazzavile, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) – the latter where Tedros also said that WHO was creating a model for rehabilitation and support to victims, helping them access livelihoods as well as other means of support. “We support zero tolerance and we will do everything to build a better culture,” he said. The DG’s proposal to create a separate chain of authority for sexual exploitation and harrassment cases churned up some initial resistance among some EB members – who said that it should have been discussed even before the EB convened, at a meeting of member states’ Planning and Budget Advisory Committee (PBAC). Harvey, however, said that the IOAC would “strongly endorse the decision to keep the PRSEH Investigation Unit separate from general investigations,” att least for the moment until progress has been made on the investigations still ongoing in the DR Congo and elsewhere. The EB members deferred debate on the draft WHO decision until Saturday morning. Country responses commend WHO and emphasize survivor-centered approach and ‘zero tolerance’ policy WHO Representative of France Representatives across Member States otherwise commended the WHO for its efforts towards prevention of sexual exploitation, abuse, and harrassment, with some emphasing the need to adopt a survivor-centered approach in responding to the allegations. “It is important that we create an environment conducive to effectively preventing sexual exploitation and abuse, and that means asking ourselves hard questions about responsibility,” said Tunisia, on behalf of the WHO Eastern Meditterean Region. Tunisia, and many other Member States noted that a zero tolerance policy is needed, and proposed that a common UN database be created. The database would be consulted before staff recruitment, ensuring that the necessary checks can be made. “We need to do this, making effective and efficient use of the resources we have available on gender equality.” France, on behalf of the European Union, echoed these sentiments, and also reiterated the need for “accountable culture within the organization.” “We think it is better to have people providing the information because peace is being swept under the carpet.” Concern and clarification needed on transparency and accountability Bathsheba Nell Crocker, US Ambassador to the United Nations However, some representatives continued to express their concern regarding the WHO’s work on sexual exploitation and abuse, including China and the United States. China noted the need for clarification from the WHO on the interim report and “transparency and accountability of the related work.” “We hope that WHO will further clarify on how it will communicate on concrete action taken both within and outside of the organization.” The US representative, Bathsheba Nell Crocker, acknowledged the recent progress of the WHO, but added that “broader organization reforms are needed, as well as the dedicated effort now required to translate division laid out for WHO’s work in this area into concrete results on the ground.” She also pointed out that WHO’s efforts to increase awareness, conduct training, and fill capacity are “essential but insufficient.” “[There is] absence of investment in evidence-driven survivor centered prevention, risk mitigation, and response protocols.” Crocker noted that WHO must encourage prompt reporting and delivery of survivor centered services. “Organizational change starts at the top with leadership. We call on WHO to ensure that roles and expectations are clear and to enforce whistleblower protections.” Image Credits: Flickr: World Bank / Vincent Tremeau, WHO EB 150. New Nigerian Lassa Fever Outbreak Underway – and Expanding its Range 28/01/2022 Paul Adepoju Nigeria has set up an emergency response centre to deal with outbreaks of the deadly Lassa fever in parts of the country. Following reports of an unusually large number of cases in January 2022 across some 12 states, Nigeria is stepping up its surveillance of Lassa fever, the deadly viral hemorrhagic illness transmitted by infected rodents, or through other infected people or tainted food. This year marks the fourth year in a row in which large outbreaks of the disease are being reported by Africa’s most populous state.. According to the Nigeria Center for Disease Control (NCDC), there have been a total of 759 suspected cases, 170 confirmed cases and 32 confirmed deaths in January – following the emergence of the first cluster of new LF cases in December. In a worrisome trend, January’s cases were reported from 37 local government areas (LGAs) spread across 12 states. That is about twice the number of LGAs and states where cases of Lassa fever were reported within the same period in 2021 (17 and 6 respectively). While the number of cases and states so far affected by the 2022 Lassa fever outbreak are higher, the case fatality rate of 18.8% remains lower than that of the 2021 outbreak where one out of four confirmed cases resulted in death (CFR — 25%). Notably, is also about 16 times higher than the CFR for COVID-19 in Nigeria (1.2%), Nigerian health authorities underline. Although cases have been reported from 12 states, three states (Edo, Ondo and Bauchi) are the epicenters for the outbreak, accounting for 74% of all confirmed cases. Expanding range nationally and global health threats This year mark’s the fourth in a row when large clusters of cases have been reported in Nigeria, “raising concerns about an ongoing, systematic emergence of LF nationally,” according to a recent Nature Communications review of the disease’s gradual expansion country-wide. In 2019, there were 833 confirmed cases of Lassa fever in Nigeria with 174 deaths (CFR — 20.9%). In 2020, Nigeria recorded a total of 1181 confirmed cases of Lassa fever and 244 deaths (a CFR of 20.7%) but the following year (2021), the number of confirmed cases reduced to 510 with 102 deaths among confirmed cases (CFR - 20%). In addition to the national and regional risks, Lassa Fever is a “WHO-listed priority pathogen and a major focus of international vaccine development funding3 and, although often framed as a global health threat.” Lassa fever is an acute viral illness and a viral haemorrhagic fever that is associated with high morbidity and mortality, and it thus has both economic and health security consequences. Some cases, however, can be mild and thus go undetected or be confused with other common febrile conditions, like malaria - underlining the need for surveillance and vigilance to stop its spread. First reported in Nigeria’s state of Borno in 1969 when two missionary nurses died from an unusual febrile illness, Lassa fever cases and outbreaks continue to be reported in Nigeria and the diseases is increasingly recognised to be endemic in many parts of West Africa, including Nigeria, Benin, Ghana, Mali and the Mano River region (Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea). The disease has typically been characterised as having two main endemic foci in West Africa, one centered around Sierra Leone and Liberia, and the other in Nigeria, but in recent years, Nigeria, in particular, has continued to record a trend of increasing numbers of cases - although most countries in the region have reported regular or sporadic cases, researchers report. Response measures In a statement this week, NCDC said it has activated the country’s national multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary Lassa fever Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) in response to the Lassa fever outbreak in some parts of the country. “This became necessary given the increase in the number of confirmed Lassa fever cases across the country and a joint risk assessment with partners and sister agencies,” the center said in the statement. It described the reports in weeks 1 and 2 as the highest number of confirmed cases recorded in Nigeria in the last four years for the same period. It however reassured Nigerians of its preparedness which hinged on the center’s experience in responding to Lassa fever outbreaks. “Since 2016, NCDC has worked hard to improve diagnostic capacity for the disease. Currently, seven laboratories can conduct confirmatory tests for Lassa fever in Nigeria and are coordinated by the NCDC National Reference Laboratory (NRL). This has improved active case detection for the disease,” NCDC stated. In the same vein, care for affected individuals has improved. NCDC said it is providing support to states including the provision of emergency medical and laboratory supplies as well as oral and intravenous Ribavirin for preventive and curative treatment to treatment centres across the country. “In addition, Nigeria through NCDC is participating in the largest-ever Lassa fever study that aims to provide an accurate assessment of the incidence of the disease in West Africa. This will also accelerate the development of vaccines and therapeutics for Lassa fever,” NCDC added. It has also commenced training for healthcare workers in Nigeria’s tertiary health institutions on Lassa fever case management and infection prevention control. Risk factors for exposure Contact with the rodent Mastomys natalensis is thought to be the reason for Lassa fever. According to a research report published in Nature Communications in October, 2021, the significant majority of observed LF cases—including those from recent years in Nigeria—are thought to arise directly from contact with the rodent rodent Mastomys natalensis, the main viral reservoir host and a common agricultural pest. Other cases have occured, however, via hospital-acquired infections and potentially, in other small clusters of human-to-human transmission. Risk factors for spillover of the virus, while not well understood, are thought to include factors that increase direct and indirect contact between rodents and people through poor food storage and housing quality, as well as certain crop processing practices. Correlations between human case surges and seasonal rainfall patterns “suggests that LF is a climate-sensitive disease whose incidence may be increasing with regional climatic change,” according to the Nature Communications study, led by David Redding of University College London and and Chikwe Ihekweazu, of the Nigerian Centre for Disease Control (NCDC). Image Credits: Channel Africa/Twitter, Sahara Reporters/Nigeria. Infectious Disease Funding Virtually Unchanged, Neglected Tropical Diseases Continue Trend of Stagnation 28/01/2022 Raisa Santos Neglected Tropical Diseases remain stagnant in their funding Despite the strains of COVID-19, global funding for poverty-related infectious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria, remains virtually unchanged at US $3.937 billion, with investment dropping only 4% in 2020, according to the fourteenth annual G-FINDER Report. The report, released by Australia-based Policy Cures Research group on Thursday, showed a drop of only US $172 million from 2019. This year’s funding remains the third highest ever seen by the group for neglected diseases. Funding for neglected diseases declined only 4% in 2020 But though the decline may be a marginal one, funding for neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) continued a decade of relative stagnation, with only snakebite envenoming seeing an increased investment in 2020. Resilient funding may be impacted by COVID-19 in the future Nick Chapman, CEO of Policy Cures Research The G-FINDER report is a comprehensive analysis of global investment of R&D for poverty-related neglected diseases. It is widely used by national governments, industry, civil society, and the World Health Organization to identify gaps in progress and areas where investments would be needed. Reactions to the report were cautiously optimistic regarding the sustained investment in global R&D, with concerns that COVID-19 still could shift the direction of funding. “These figures are reassuring for the neglected disease research and development community as they indicate continued commitment to advancing health innovations for some of the world’s most vulnerable populations,” said Nick Chapman, CEO of Policy Cures Research. “However, we can’t assume that resilient funding in the first year of the pandemic means that we are safe from impacts on funding in the future.” Paul Barnsley, senior analyst at Policy Cures Research, also expressed his concerns during the Thursday launch event of the report. “We’re still worried that a focus on COVID might capture some of the attention and resources of traditional funders, and that the cost of stimulus during the pandemic will lead to future reductions in overall government spending flowing through to neglected disease R&D,” he said. Funding for top three infectious diseases declines The top three infectious diseases – HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria – received the largest shares of funding, as they have every year, accounting for more than two-thirds of reported global investment. However, funding for all three of these diseases fell in 2020, taking their share of global funding to 68% to the usual annual average of 75%. In the case of HIV/AIDS, the vast majority of the decline was attributed to decreased investment from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Gates Foundation, and industry. Tuberculosis also experienced a decrease in funding from the NIH, but recond-high funding from the European Commission, a result of new funding for the European Regimen Accelerator for Tuberculosis, an initiative dedicated to new treatments for TB. Disruptions in clinical trials due to pandemic While investments in neglected disease R&D stayed near their historic highs, despite the turbulent first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the pandemic hindered product developers’ ability to conduct clinical trials in 2020. Barnsley anticipates these disruptions to have continued into 2021. In line with this trend, multinational pharmaceutical companies’ (MNC) investments in clinical development decreased for the second consecutive year in 2020. The previous G-FINDER report attributed this to normal fluctuations and the conclusion of late-stage trials in treatments. However, the report does warn that “another year of decreases in MNC funding could signal a trend.” “Although the 2020 decline is most likely due to pandemic-disrupted trials, it could indicate that half a decade of soaring MNC funding is coming to an end.” Philanthropic funding increases Philanthropies such as Wellcome Trust and Open Philanthropy have increased their infectious disease R&D Contributions from public and private sectors both dropped slightly in 2020 but funding from philanthropies saw record high levels of funding, an increase of US $28 million over the previous year. Both established and new philanthropies such as Wellcome Trust and Open Philanthropy, were the primary reason for this new increase, with Open Philanthropy nearly tripling its funding for neglected disease R&D between 2017 and 2020. Increased investment in platform technologies Funding for platform technologies continues to increase A key reason that overall funding to infectious diseases remained relatively stable, despite cuts to clinical development, was the US $33 million increase in total funding in platform technologies. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the largest funder of platform technologies, providing 40% of investment, followed by US government agencies, the US NIH and the US Department of defense. Though the increase predates the pandemic, a number of grants for platform technologies in fact cite COVID-19 as the reason for accelerated interest. “In light of that, we predict that the already hastened pace of investment in platform technologies we saw in 2019 and 2020 will continue in the neglected disease R&D space, at least in the immediate years to come,” said Chapman. Funding cannot rely on ‘coattails of the pandemic’ Though the response to COVID-19 has demonstrated the potential for new funding mechanisms, strategies, and technologies, the report does note that this is a “stark reminder that neglected diseases persist because of insufficient funding and momentum”. “The next challenge for global health stakeholders will be to ensure that neglected diseases benefit from opportunities and innovations that have emerged from the pandemic.” Barnsley pointed out how it “may be tempting to ride on the coattails of the pandemic” in order to increase investment, and instead addressed the need to craft a message of genuine self-interest in eliminating neglected diseases. “We need to be able to defend neglected disease funding during periods of austerity.” Image Credits: Policy Cures Research, Policy Cures Research. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy Loading Comments... You must be logged in to post a comment.
WHO ‘Health For Peace’ Initiative Hits Crosscurrents in WHO Executive Board Debate 31/01/2022 Maayan Hoffman WHO Executive Board Chair Dr Patrick Amoth and Director-General Dr Tedros at Friday’s EB150 session. An innovative WHO “Health for Peace Initiative” that aims to build bridges in conflict zone and humanitarian settings through global health initiatives ran into some rough waters at last week’s Executive Board meeting – with the United States saying that it should include a human rights element – while Russia warned WHO against “politicizing” its agenda. The initiative, conceived in 2019-2020, was planned and developed together with the International Labour Organization, the UN Peacebuilding Support Office, and the Swiss-based organization Interpeace, with some initial projects now being implemented in areas like the Ukraine. The initiative builds on earlier WHO “Bridges for Peace” projects that took place during the 1980s and 1990s. But this new GHPI edition also aims to “work on conflict” by ensuring that such programmes help address conflict’s underlying causes – while avoiding unintentionally fuelling of tensions. Other aims of the initiative include developing “innovative ways to address conflict, strengthen resilience to violence and empower people to (re)build peaceful relations with each other”. It aims to covers a wide range of areas – from infectious diseases to maternal and child health, nutrition, tobacco use and health systems strengthening. Synopsis of the health for peace initiative. Russia – don’t stray into other areas However, some leading member states gave the initiative a mixed reception in a discussion WHO Executive Board on Friday, the day before the 150th session closed. Russia warned WHO that it needs to to avoid “politicising” its agenda, asking for more discussion about the nuts and bolts of the initiative. It also warned WHO against “straying” into areas beyond its mandate, saying focusing on the core WHO mission of strengthening health systems already helps build trust between countries. “Russia continues to speak out against the politicization of the WHO agenda… We call upon WHO to strictly follow its mandate and not stray into other areas, those covered by other [United Nations] bodies, specialized agencies and so on,” Russia’s EB representative said. Russia also highlighted that the initiative had launched, based on discussion with only 24 countries and partners. “This issue has not been investigated by governing bodies of the WHO at another stage,” the Russian representative said. “We believe that there should be more broad discussions.” Representatives from WHO’s Eastern Mediterranean region also appeared hesitant, with one delegate stressing that “first and foremost, we should avoid causing any harm.” “Many interventions of health for peace will only be successful if they are well prepared and well designed, and therefore we need to coordinate our experiences and expertise,” he said. US asks for human rights inclusion Health for Peace Initiative as it was presented at the Paris Peace Conference in 2020. In contrast, the United States asked that human rights be included as one of the pillars of the initiative. While the US supports the draft of the GHPI, it said that the country “regrets that the text … fails to incorporate human rights as a fundamental pillar in addition to peace and development. “The WHO has an important role to play in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in coordination with other UN agencies,” the US representative said. Building vaccine confidence, including the need to address issues of vaccine misinformation and disinformation, could also be a valuable arena in which the new GHPI could act. In response to the concerns, WHO officials stated that discussions on the initiative with member states are ongoing, and would be managed in an open and inclusive manner. “I think that we have been very open to date,” said a WHO emergencies official. “It’s not a political initiative. Obviously, political decisions do have an impact on health and on peace and we’re all aware of this.” ‘There cannot be health without peace’ “There cannot be health without peace, and there cannot be peace without health,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who has championed the initiative, has explained. “Health can also be a bridge to peace. Health can contribute to peace by delivering services equitably to all people in society- especially disadvantaged groups,” he said in a recent message. “This can also help address the triggers of conflict, such as unequal access to health care, which can often leave to feelings of exclusion and resentment. “Equitable health services strengthen community trust, which in turn contribute to health systems and peacebuilding efforts.” Data and technology sharing key to managing pandemics In other discussions Friday, China, Singapore and Indonesia all stressed the need to address benefits and information sharing. “The current pandemic has shown us how important it is to make such information free and publicly available,” a representative from Singapore said, noting that the country “sees the sharing of such data … as part of ‘global public goods’” and that should be included in a larger conversation on the financing of such goods. Singapore also recommended that WHO establish a global health threats fund, invested in by nations based on pre-agreed contributions as a means of being better prepared for the next pandemic. “We would like to caution against lies in the lack of levels of preparedness with regard to the response to pandemics around our region,” a second representative from the Eastern Mediterranean region said. “We would like to see the continuation of the support for our preparedness in this regard.” He said that there should be better coordination among member states with regard to health, security, and preparation of emergency plans and plans with regard to specific diseases. Image Credits: WHO EB 150. Return to ‘Real’ vs ‘Edible’ Food is Needed After COVID-19 Pandemic 31/01/2022 Raisa Santos Food experts proposed a return to ‘real’ food over what is just ‘edible’ The explosion of unhealthy diets received considerable attention at last week’s WHO Executive Board meeting, as well as at last year’s UN Food Systems Summit – as key contributors to the global epidemic of chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases – which have also exacerbated the health risks of billions of people to COVID-19. Now, what is really needed, post-pandemic, is a return to healthy and sustainable ‘real’ foods that both dimish these disease risks – as well as the risks of another pathogen escape from the wild into human societies as a result of unsafe and unsustainable food practices – particularly around both wild and domestic meat production and consumption. This was a key message of a group of civil society experts at a recent panel – who also drew a distinction between what is merely “edible” food and what is “real”, healthy food. Making that seemingly simple distinction will be crucial post-COVID recovery to stem rising noncommunicable diseases while also ensuring that our planet remains within the boundaries of sustainable food production as well as making , nutrition experts emphasized during a recent Geneva Global Health Hub (G2H2) event. The event, “Sustainable healthy diets: Why are they so crucial after COVID-19?”, was hosted in collaboration with the Society for International Development (SID). Featured speakers from Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia discussed a broad range of proposed solutions that would alter the way food is produced, distributed, and consumed. Exiting the corporate food system Attaining healthier and more sustainable diets requires an ‘exit’ from the corporate food system, said Hernando Salcedo Fidalgo, of the Colombian NGO, FIAN. “The exit must make a distinction between real foods over what we call ‘edible products’”. Fidalgo described solutions as a “continued process” that would have to begin at the very foundations of government – with approaches that distinguish between “real food and just edible products.” SID Director Nicoletta Dentico added: “If we don’t want to see things as they are, for the reality they represent, after years of the pandemic – this is going to be a kind of criminal blindness.” Mexico as a case study example of the need to return to traditional ‘real’ foods A sustainable healthy diet requires increased vegetable and fruit intake, as well more whole grains. At the session, Mexico was cited as one example of a country in the crosshairs of pressures from corporate food manufactuers – who have undermined the once healthy diet of indigenous Mexican foods, leading to soaring problems with obesity and diabetes. Reverting back to a traditional Mexican diet – rich in beans, fibre and micronutrients – is one way to both promote both sustainability and health, said Juan Angel Rivera Dommarco, Director-General of the National Institute for Public Health in Mexico. “Our food system is really contributing to the degradation of the planet, and at the same time has created an epidemic of obesity and chronic illness without solving the undernutrition problems of the world.” Dr. Juan Ángel Rivera Dommarco of the National Institute for Public Health of Mexico (INSP) highlights the key is to shift #foodsystems, food environment, nutrition communication and education and health systems.#SustainableHealthyDiets #EB150 #HealthyDiets #People4FoodSystems pic.twitter.com/KSoTstTpOn — Society for International Development (@SID_INT) January 20, 2022 He bemoaned the gradual encroachment of meat, fat, and sugar-heavy ‘American diets’ into Mexico. “We lost so many years of building healthy diets in Mexico as a result of trying to imitate the consumption of food in the north, which is not a good example at all,” he noted. The traditional Mexican diet means reverting to a diet high in vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts or seeds, and whole grains – except in rural areas, where whole grains are already highly consumed. Milk and dairy intake also would need to be increased across rural populations, but decreased in urban ones. Substantial reductions in ultra-processed foods and reduced animal-source protein would also be needed to return back to the traditional Mexican diet. Average cost (MXN$) per capita per day of current Mexican diet vs Mexican healthy and sustainable diet Moving towards this healthy diet would also be beneficial to the Mexican economy, Dommarco added. The current average Mexican diet has been costed at $3.54 per day, whereas a traditionally healthy and sustainable Mexican diet would cost $3.06, while that proposed by the EAT-Lancet Commission would cost $2.52. Shift government subsidies from ‘wrong foods’ to healthy ones Schools are one place to implement healthy food use. Noting that the Mexican government currently offers too many subsidies for the “wrong foods”, he called on politcymakers to shift money and policy support to healthier foods – also providing a model for other countries to follow. Working with GISAMAC (Inter-Sectoral Group for Health Agriculture Environment and Competitiveness), Dommarco has helped to develop a Mexican toolkit with a full set of policy proposals to address the need for healthy diets in the country. Their proposals included increasing the availability of healthy foods in underserved areas, prioritizing these foods for government subsidies and procurement, and prioritizing healthy, fresh foods in school nutrition programs. Taxes from sugar-sweetened beverages and ultra-processed junk food should be doubled, with tax revenues used to ensure drinking water in underserved communities, he added. Policies from the toolkit emphasize a multisectoral and multisystemic intervention, including not only food systems and the food environment, but education, nutrition, community, and health systems. “The idea is that we really need a set of policies rather than one single policy that has a multi-systemic view,” said Dommarco. Image Credits: Noranna/Flickr, Juan Rivera Dommarco , Juan Rivera Dommarco, Flickr: Bart Verweij / World Bank. Long COVID: Researchers Find ‘Antibody Signature’ to Identify High-Risk Patients; Two Vaccine Shots Could Stop the Syndrome 31/01/2022 Maayan Hoffman Researchers find two antibodies in common in people with long-COVID, the lingering post-infection condition that was recognised by the World Health Organization (WHO) last October. But scientists say symptoms and how many people develop the virus are still unclear. Unconscious and intubated Covid-19 patients are treated in Vila Penteado Hospital’s ICU, in the Brasilandia neighbourhood of Sao Paulo. By Maayan Hoffman A sizable portion of the 370 million people infected with SARS-COV2 experience Post-Acute COVID Syndrome (PACS), otherwise known as “long COVID”. Doctors and scientists are starting to grapple with why people develop the syndrome and how to prevent and treat it. Their discoveries could have important implications on future healthcare. Researchers from the University Hospital Zurich announced last week that they had discovered an “antibody signature” that could help identify which patients are at the highest risk for developing long COVID. Specifically, they found that low levels of IgM and IGg3 antibodies were more common in those who developed the syndrome than those who did not. The team followed 134 individuals who tested positive for the virus for up to a year after the initial infection. They found that when combined with the patient’s age, how mild or severe a case of coronavirus the person experienced, and whether or not the individual suffered from asthma, the antibody signature was able to predict the risk of long COVID. These antibody levels, of course, cannot be measured before a person becomes infected with the virus and therefore this method cannot be used as a pre-virus prediction of the syndrome. However, early identification of patients at elevated risk for long COVID could facilitate the study of targeted treatments, the researchers wrote in their paper, which was published in Nature Communications. Full mRNA vaccination protects against long COVID A separate study by researchers in Israel found that individuals who received two shots of the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine were much less likely to develop long COVID symptoms than those who were unvaccinated – suggesting that vaccination protects against long COVID. These results were not observed in individuals who received just a single dose. Participating vaccinated and infected individuals reported no additional long COVID symptoms than individuals who were never infected with the virus. The study was published this month on the pre-print health server MedRxiv and has not been peer-reviewed. A child receives a vaccine through the Maccabi Health Fund in Israel in December 2021 (Credit: Maccabi) The scientists, led by Prof Michael Edelstein of Bar-Ilan University, examined 10 commonly reported post-COVID symptoms – fatigue, shortness of breath, joint pain, chest pain, headache, palpitations, physical limitations, depression and insomnia – among 3,000 participants. They said that there was between a 50% and 80% reduction in seven of the 10 most common symptoms four to 11 months among the vaccinated participants compared to the unvaccinated. “A double comparison of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated COVID-19 cases followed by comparing vaccinated COVID-19 cases to people reporting no infection enabled us to show not only that vaccinated people were experiencing much fewer long COVID symptoms than unvaccinated people, but that that they did not report any more symptoms than people never infected,” Edelstein said. He noted that the results seemed “logical.” “If we believe that these symptoms are related to the infection – caused by the virus itself – it makes sense that if you are vaccinated, even though you can still get infected, those who do get infected have less copies of the virus in the body and it hangs around in the body for less time, so it would have less opportunity to affect the body long term,” Edelstein said. He added that the study indicates that even those who are at less risk of developing severe COVID-19 should get jabbed, since these individuals seem to be at equal risk of developing long COVID. The study only included adults over the age of 18, but Edelstein said that the team hopes to examine the effect of the vaccine on long COVID in children, too. Up to 57% of COVID survivors could have long COVID symptoms He added that what is needed is a universal definition or understanding of long COVID in order to enable better studies. The World Health Organization (WHO) rolled out a definition of PACS last October but noted that “the definition may change as new evidence emerges and our understanding of the consequences of COVID-19 continues to evolve.” According to WHO, long COVID occurs around three months from the onset of the virus, lasts for at least two months and “cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis.” It lists fatigue, shortness of breath and cognitive dysfunction as common symptoms, but said others could apply and that symptoms could fluctuate or relapse over time. It is also unclear how many people actually develop long COVID. Edelstein cited Israeli studies that indicate around 30% of people infected with coronavirus will develop the syndrome, while some studies say closer to 60% of virus sufferers will have some form of PACS for up to six months. What proportion of symptoms are attributable to the virus and whether or not these symptoms can be detected in a clinical setting could impact the future of long COVID treatment, Edelstein said. “It is one thing reporting shortness of breath and another detecting reduced lung volume on standardized, objective testing in a clinical setting,” he said. Over the weekend, a small study in the United Kingdom revealed that some people who reported long-lasting breathlessness after COVID infection may have hidden lung damage. Scientists used a Hyperpolarized Xenon Magnetic Resonance (MRI) scan to pick up on lung abnormalities not identified by routine scans. They found that for the majority of people with long COVID, the xenon gas they inhaled during the MRI moved less effectively from the lungs into the bloodstream than it did among healthy, never infected individuals. The spectrum of medical imaging “Hyperpolarised xenon MRI requires the patient to lie in an MRI scanner and breathe in one litre of xenon gas that has had its atomic structure altered so it can be seen using MRI,” according to the study. “Xenon is an inert gas that behaves in a very similar way to oxygen, so radiologists then can observe how the gas moves from the lungs into the bloodstream.” The study included 11 non-hospitalized long COVID patients and 12 hospitalized patients, as well as 13 health controls. It was published by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford and has not yet been peer-reviewed. Researchers said that they plan to expand the study to include at least 200 patients. Long COVID therapeutics on the horizon? Doctors and scientists are also focusing on developing long COVID therapeutics. An article published on Clinical Trials Arena stated that 65% of planned COVID trials for 2022 will focus on therapeutics, according to a GlobalData report, but said that the majority of the long COVID trials (76.5%) are only in Phase I or Phase II. At least four long COVID drug trial readouts are expected in 2022, the report said, with each treatment targeting a different long COVID symptom or group of symptoms. These include PureTech, which is working on a drug for lung tissue damage stemming from a prior COVID-19 hospitalization; Axcella Health, which is working with Oxford university on a drug to reduce inflammation and restore mitochondrial function; Massachusetts General Hospital and 9 Meters Biopharma are studying a treatment for multisystem inflammatory syndrome; and MGC Pharma is assessing the potential of its ArtemiC Support for effectiveness in treating long COVID symptoms such as dyspnea, cough, asthenia, anosmia, ageusia, headache and mental confusion. Great article from @hannahkuchler @FinancialTimes discussing the impact of #LongCovid and highlighting our therapeutic candidate, LYT-100, which is in development for respiratory complications, as well as the work of our Founded Entity, @AkiliLabs, on brain fog. https://t.co/dF7tSORjcm — PureTech (@PureTechH) January 6, 2022 Edelstein said that researching long COVID is urgent and essential because the syndrome “is going to be one of the major concerns going down the line.” He explained that while the acute phase of the pandemic will eventually end, “that is not necessarily going to be the end of the impact of COVID-19, which could be felt for years due to the virus’s long-term effects.” Long COVID could have “massive implications on the burden that will be on healthcare services in the future.” Image Credits: Ninian Reid/Flickr, Maccabi Health Services, Martin Tornai, Wikimedia Commons . Executive Board Meeting Ends with Concerns about WHO’s Sustainability and Board´s Ability to Govern Efficiently 30/01/2022 Paul Adepoju & Elaine Ruth Fletcher Dr Patrick Amoth, Chair of the Executive Board, As the 150th Executive Board Meeting of the WHO closed Saturday, attention focused on the inability of the WHO governing board to reach consensus on critical issues that it had debated – including a more sustainable financing framework as well as a clear way forward on a proposed new pandemic legal accord, reforms of global pandemic response and related WHO emergency operations. Despite six days of hours-long discussions, EB agreement to increase WHO member states´ assessed contributions to 50% of the budget by 2028-29, remained elusive. Nor could EB members even agree on a way forward for changing the format for voluntary contributions – using newer, and more innovative fundraising models, such as the ¨replenishment drives¨ that have made other non-profit global health organizations like Gavi and The Global Fund even more financially robust than WHO. Decision to extend mandate of Sustainable Finance working group keeps hopes alive WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus on Saturday, the closing day of the EB´s 150th session In his closing remarks, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the WHO, noted that while a conclusion on funding for WHO, which is a crucial issue, could not be reached at the meeting, the decision to extend the mandate of the working group on sustainable financing until the World Health Assembly demonstrated optimism. “I sincerely hope that by working together, we can make substantive progress on this issue,” the DG said. In advance of this year’s World Health Assembly, Tedros said that the WHO Secretariat also will further develop proposals, in consultation with Member States, on strengthening the global health architecture for emergency preparedness, response and resilience. “In doing so, we will take into consideration the preliminary findings of the Working Group on strengthening WHO Preparedness and Response to Health Emergencies, and recommendations of recent review panels and committees,” he said. However, that Working Group, as well, failed to reach agreement on key reforms, such as bolstering WHO´s mandate to make visits early on to sites of suspected pathogen outbreaks. Long, unwieldy agenda proves frustrating Dr Clemens Martin Auer, Austria´s EB representative and vice-chair Before officially declaring the meeting closed, Dr Patrick Amoth, Chair of the Executive Board, also stressed the need for discussions on how to improve the efficiency of WHO’s Executive Board meetings, and other member state fora, in order to ensure that member states can help WHO to perform more effectively. In all, the board reviewed over 55 agenda items and sub items. That, Amoth admitted, was ambitious, given the number of days available. “This resulted in longer sessions than we anticipated,” the chair added. While he also described the sessions as ´rich and engaging´ other member states were more blunt about the fruits of hours, upon hours of rhetorical statements by member states – which obscured real debate and discussions about key decision points. EB Vice Chair, Dr Clemens Martin Auer, Austria´s Special Envoy for Health, said that the Executive Board´s inability to come to any real conclusions not only harms WHO´s ability to perform, but leaves it in a ¨critical¨ situation. “We have reached the situation where we still don’t act accordingly to what we are supposed to do. We are still not living up to what we have to do, colleagues. We have to be aware that we haven’t concluded on anything and that we are leaving this organization in a critical situation,” he said. Auer warned that failure of governance, not by the WHO Secretariat, but by member states failing to get their act together on how to implement better governance — could make the organization progressively less relevant – and create a vacuum into which other global actors such as the G-20 would step. “We are contributing to further fragmentation when it comes to global health issues and also emergency issues and we pay the price of non-inclusivity and that’s a high price. Don’t talk, act. Don’t say, show. Don’t promise proof,” Auer told member states. Hours and hours talking Last June, a G-20 High Level Panel proposed the creation of a ¨Global Health Threats Board¨ including health and finance representatives of the world´s major economies, working in conjuction with the WHO and another proposed body, a Global Health Threats Council, that would be overseen by the UN Secretary General´s office. During the EB, a US State Department spokesperson said that President Joe Biden wants to support the creation of such a new financing mechanism, housed at the World Bank, to ensure a reliable source of investments for helping countries increase their own global health emergency preparedness – rather than remaining so dependent on donor aid. The US and other supporters have stressed that such initiatives should not detract from the central role of WHO´s global health support to countries and emergency response. And indeed, as if to underline the central role the WHO will continue to play, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken also announced an additional $280 million more in fuding to the agency in late December. If that funding were to be added to the $ 365 million annually Washington provided last year, it might even put the US ahead of Germany once again as the WHO´s top donor for 2022. That, despite a statement by WHO Director General Tedros, on the opening day of last week´s EB session, to the effect that Germany is now WHO´s biggest donor. Greater efficiences a challenge both inside WHO and within its governing board But money aside, the struggle for greater efficiencies remains a challenge – both inside WHO and among the member states’ own governing board. Dr Ahmed Mohammed Al Saidi, Oman’s Minister of Health corroborated Auer´s call on the board members to actively seek more efficient ways of doing things in order to achieve desired results. “We need to find a more efficient way of doing things and implementing them. We spent hours and hours talking, but let’s find a way where we can do things more efficiently. It can be by limiting the interventions and making it easier for the Executive Board members via retreats during which we have free time to talk about issues that matter to health care, not in our countries, but worldwide,” he concluded. Other EB members also complained that even certain tactical procedures, such as the bundling together of numerous reports, action plans, and updates into the same EB document, made it more difficult to wade through the various background documents. In an age in which written presentations to busy executive boards typically rely heavily on indexing, infographics, bullet points, graphics and other visual aids, EB documents continue to be drafted like the text-heavy academic theses of the mid-20th century style – which makes it almost impossible to quickly read and seize key messages, issues of debate, decision and action points. Similarly, EB member state statements remain heavy on rhetorical flourish – but lacking slides, visuals or even, in many cases, a written text, to support better understanding. The old-fashioned, and very indirect, style of the deliberations certainly also serves certain diplomatic goals – allowing countries to voice criticism in nuanced, coded language that is inscrutable for most outsiders, preserves decorum and avoids out-and-out conflict. Still, the formulas of presentation are often as obscure as the countries´ commentaries on them. Notably, some items, such as the NCD agenda, covered over a dozen different issues, from healthy foods to mental health, wrapped up into one long run-on document followed by annexes – with nary even a table of contents. As the US EB representative Loyce Pace observed at one point such bundling together of so many action plans and statements into one document, made it all the more difficult for EB members to weed through, and consider all of the important issues being raised. Global Health Security Demands National as well as Global Responses 29/01/2022 Ilona Kickbusch, David Heymann, Chikwe Ihekweazu & Swee Kheng Khor National health systems are needed in tackling global health threats. As the world enters the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic, an increasing number of important efforts are underway to strengthen global health security. However, it is vital that, while strengthening our global health architecture, we do not lose sight of the fundamental role played by national level health systems in tackling global health threats. Throughout this and previous pandemics, the strength of countries’ national health systems has been a critical success factor against pathogens. For example, even many countries with well-organised, well-financed and well-staffed health systems suffered throughout COVID-19. Viewed through these lenses, global health security may exist only as the sum total of the performance of all national health systems of all countries, rather than as a standalone and separate entity. Since the onset of the pandemic, we have seen a plethora of new institutions and new ideas for improving global health governance. These include the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator and the COVAX Facility in April 2020, the Independent Panel on Pandemic Preparedness and Response proposal in May 2021 for a Global Health Threats Council and the World Health Assembly (WHA) agreement in December 2021 to proceed with the negotiation and drafting of a new international instrument to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. It is hoped that these new international institutions and platforms will support better pandemic governance and financing at the global level. However, although a strong global focus is essential for ensuring equitable distribution of those goods that are necessary for fighting COVID-19 and future pandemics, national efforts must be equally prioritised. In other words, global leaders must resist two great temptations: the desire to build new institutions instead of strengthening existing ones such as the WHO and the International Health Regulations, and the tendency to ‘securitize’ health at the global level instead of implementing strong public health measures at the national level. Three functions to achieve resilient health systems One interlocking function needed is resilient healthcare systems. Global health security demands strong and resilient health systems that can prevent, detect and respond to infectious disease threats, wherever they occur in the world. Therefore, we propose a new understanding that approaches this goal through the lens of three interlocking functions at the national level. The first key function is building resilient national healthcare systems. It is critical that they have built-in surge capacity (including for primary healthcare) to manage patients who have been infected and require care, while at the same time continuing and sustaining routine health services for those who have not been affected. In addition to deaths from infection during the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been an excess of deaths of non-infected persons over what would be expected, likely due to the fact that they were not able to access routine health care, especially that which required frequent attention. The same occurred in West Africa during outbreaks of Ebola in 2014 – health facilities could not accommodate most of the patients with Ebola infection resulting in a high level of death from Ebola virus diseases, and also, the number of deaths from children who could not get care for malaria and other childhood diseases because of the lack of resilience in the health system was documented as being higher than the number of deaths from Ebola virus disease. The second key function is developing strong core public health capacities that meet the WHO’s International Health Regulations. Countries with early detection surveillance systems that identified outbreaks rapidly at the start of the pandemic, and those that had strong response mechanisms including outbreak responses – especially Singapore, Japan, and South Korea – showed the importance of strong public health core capacities to manage pandemics. And rather than using blunt lockdowns of the entire economies, they were able to save lives by outbreak investigation, identification of sources of infection and then shutting them down with precision, rather than blunt lockdowns. Thirdly, countries need to invest in broader supportive environments that enable the health and wellbeing of their populations. Infection with SAR CoV2, as with many other viral and bacterial infections, resulted in more serious illness and death among the elderly and those with comorbidities such as diabetes, cardiac disease and obesity. By using smart regulations and other healthy-lifestyle-enabling measures, governments can ensure populations are healthier and more resistant to serious illness after infection, decreasing morbidity and mortality in an outbreak and/or pandemic. Healthy populations also require adequate health financing, strong health literacy and health-seeking behaviours, and improving the social determinants of health, like education, housing and working conditions. Synergistic approach as opposed to mutually exclusive strategies This synergistic approach to universal health coverage, health security, and health promotion is necessary to prepare for future pandemics. Currently, many countries seem to assume that public health, universal health coverage and creating the enabling environment for healthy populations are mutually exclusive strategies. This can be due to limited resources and/or donor funding pushing governments towards “false choices”. Such false distinctions are further enhanced by the “global nature” of global health security with accountability towards the international community, contrasted with the domestic nature of universal health coverage and health promotion, with accountability towards local voters, taxpayers and citizens. A strategy focused on the three interlocking functions provides countries with a middle way – an integrated approach that equally prioritises national and global health security. Each of the functions has a strong conceptual framework and large body of evidence to support its positive impact on global health security. Each is closely aligned with well-established and highly-visible health frameworks. It will take political and health leaders with courage, vision and ambition to rethink some of the many vertical (albeit well-meaning) global implementation and funding streams to ensure that they serve to strengthen these three functions and not bypass or weaken them. They will need understanding and support from the global health community. If implemented correctly, the three interlocking functions would be mutually synergistic, with progress in one function accelerating or enhancing progress in another. Taken together, they represent a more balanced approach to global health security and reduce the risk of over-globalizing, over-engineering or over-securitizing health. By better linking these three functions within WHO, and within its guidelines for epidemic and pandemic preparedness, WHO technical support to countries could provide better preparedness and response capacity for the next major outbreak or pandemic. Biographies Swee Kheng Khor Ilona Kickbusch David Heymann Dr Chikwe Ihekweazu Professor David Heymann is professor of infectious disease epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Professor Ilona Kickbusch is the Founder of the Global Health Centre at the Graduate Institute in Geneva. Chikwe Ihekweazu is the WHO assistant Director General of health emergency intelligence, the former Director General of the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) and was previously the Acting Director of the West Africa Regional Centre for Disease Control. Doctor Swee Kheng Khor is a physician specializing in health systems & policies and global health, focusing on south-east Asia. Image Credits: Nigeria Centre for Disease Control , Flickr: Maxim Malov/CDC. WHO Needs to Reform Accountability Systems to Prevent Sexual Exploitation and Abuse 28/01/2022 Elaine Ruth Fletcher & Raisa Santos 17 January 2019 – Beni, North Kivu region, Democratic Republic of Congo.Families go the Ebola Treatment Center to visit a family member who is held in quarantine in the centre. WHO needs to reform lines of authority and responsibility across all aspects of its emergencies response operations in order to effectively prevent, report, and take measures against sexual exploitation and harrassment. Those were the highlights of a final report by an Independent Oversight Advisory Committee (IOAC) of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme, examining the claims of sexual exploitation and harrassment that first emerged in connection with WHO’s 2018-2020 Ebola response in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The report, presented in a Friday afternoon session of the WHO Executive Board, marked another milestone in the follow-up to reports of sexual exploitation and abuse claims by some 75 Congolese women against 25 WHO workers deployed to the Democratic Republic of Congo’s 2018-2020 Ebola response – which was first reported by the New Humanitarian in 2020. Following the reports, WHO initiated an independent investigation, as well as initial internal reforms to improve staff training in the prevention of sexual exploitation and harrassment (PRSEH); deployment of more training staff; and new recruitment standards that also consider any exploitation and abuse issues in a candidate’s background, the IOAC report states. But there remains “ deep, lingering frustration expressed by Member States and staff about the lack of transparency, delays in responding to incidents and holding perpetrators accountable, and the defensiveness with which the Organization has dealt with SEAH in the past,” states the report, presented to the EB. Felicity Harvey, co-chair IOAC And more comprehensive cultural and structural changes need to occur across WHO to reduce the risks of abuse from ever occurring in the first place, said Felicity Harvey, co-chair of the IOAC committee, in her presentation of the report to the WHO Executive Board on Friday. “The second edition of The WHO Emergency Response framework should be further revised to provide greater clarity on the accountabilities and lines of authority across offices, regional offices and headquarters with explicit roles and responsibilities given to each player and updated procedures for all hazards emergency risk management,” she said. The IOAC report outlines five priority areas where more action is needed. Those include: Clarifying the lines of responsibility and delegation of authority across the three levels of the organization; Strengthening the accountability framework for emergency response and other field teams; Reform the organization’s PRSEH management structure, and accelerate organizational capacity to implement a “victim survivor-centered” approach to PRSEH; Financial investment in PRSEH programmes as an essential WHO function – and particularly in field operations, where WHO is currently responding to some 80 emergencies around the world; Periodic assessments of PRSEH in acute emergency response settings, including a mapping of community and local resources; identification of trusted local partners for PRSEH incident management; ensuring that field operations include a balance of experienced male and female personnel. Building a culture of equity, diversity and transparency “WHO needs to promote or advocate for institutionalized culture change to strengthen PRSEH, including greater gender and racial diversity, improved performance management, and a renewed commitment to WHO values – to build a culture of equity, diversity and transparency,” said Harvey, a former director-general of international health in the United Kingdom Department of Health. DG Proposal – separate line of investigation for sex abuse complaints WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Responding to the IOAC report, WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus noted that WHO has recently engaged an external investigator to follow up on further on the abuse allegations – and their perpetrators. “This is the first time a UN Organization has installed an independent investigation, opening up to an external investigator,” he noted. “One of the things that our member states emphasized is transparency; we are doing that, and we will continue to do more. We will continue to build on this, because more should be done,” Tedros said. Tedros also asked the EB to approve a draft decision that would create a separate line of authority to the investigator heading up the Organization’s investigations of sexual exploitation and abuse allegations – and reporting directly to the Director General. All sexual exploitation and abuse allegations would thus be treated separately from other WHO internal justice investigations, at least temporarily, according to the draft WHO proposal. The WHO DG also noted that in the last two weeks, the Organization had received three new complaints of alleged sexual harrassment and exploitation from the Central African Republic, DR Brazzavile, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) – the latter where Tedros also said that WHO was creating a model for rehabilitation and support to victims, helping them access livelihoods as well as other means of support. “We support zero tolerance and we will do everything to build a better culture,” he said. The DG’s proposal to create a separate chain of authority for sexual exploitation and harrassment cases churned up some initial resistance among some EB members – who said that it should have been discussed even before the EB convened, at a meeting of member states’ Planning and Budget Advisory Committee (PBAC). Harvey, however, said that the IOAC would “strongly endorse the decision to keep the PRSEH Investigation Unit separate from general investigations,” att least for the moment until progress has been made on the investigations still ongoing in the DR Congo and elsewhere. The EB members deferred debate on the draft WHO decision until Saturday morning. Country responses commend WHO and emphasize survivor-centered approach and ‘zero tolerance’ policy WHO Representative of France Representatives across Member States otherwise commended the WHO for its efforts towards prevention of sexual exploitation, abuse, and harrassment, with some emphasing the need to adopt a survivor-centered approach in responding to the allegations. “It is important that we create an environment conducive to effectively preventing sexual exploitation and abuse, and that means asking ourselves hard questions about responsibility,” said Tunisia, on behalf of the WHO Eastern Meditterean Region. Tunisia, and many other Member States noted that a zero tolerance policy is needed, and proposed that a common UN database be created. The database would be consulted before staff recruitment, ensuring that the necessary checks can be made. “We need to do this, making effective and efficient use of the resources we have available on gender equality.” France, on behalf of the European Union, echoed these sentiments, and also reiterated the need for “accountable culture within the organization.” “We think it is better to have people providing the information because peace is being swept under the carpet.” Concern and clarification needed on transparency and accountability Bathsheba Nell Crocker, US Ambassador to the United Nations However, some representatives continued to express their concern regarding the WHO’s work on sexual exploitation and abuse, including China and the United States. China noted the need for clarification from the WHO on the interim report and “transparency and accountability of the related work.” “We hope that WHO will further clarify on how it will communicate on concrete action taken both within and outside of the organization.” The US representative, Bathsheba Nell Crocker, acknowledged the recent progress of the WHO, but added that “broader organization reforms are needed, as well as the dedicated effort now required to translate division laid out for WHO’s work in this area into concrete results on the ground.” She also pointed out that WHO’s efforts to increase awareness, conduct training, and fill capacity are “essential but insufficient.” “[There is] absence of investment in evidence-driven survivor centered prevention, risk mitigation, and response protocols.” Crocker noted that WHO must encourage prompt reporting and delivery of survivor centered services. “Organizational change starts at the top with leadership. We call on WHO to ensure that roles and expectations are clear and to enforce whistleblower protections.” Image Credits: Flickr: World Bank / Vincent Tremeau, WHO EB 150. New Nigerian Lassa Fever Outbreak Underway – and Expanding its Range 28/01/2022 Paul Adepoju Nigeria has set up an emergency response centre to deal with outbreaks of the deadly Lassa fever in parts of the country. Following reports of an unusually large number of cases in January 2022 across some 12 states, Nigeria is stepping up its surveillance of Lassa fever, the deadly viral hemorrhagic illness transmitted by infected rodents, or through other infected people or tainted food. This year marks the fourth year in a row in which large outbreaks of the disease are being reported by Africa’s most populous state.. According to the Nigeria Center for Disease Control (NCDC), there have been a total of 759 suspected cases, 170 confirmed cases and 32 confirmed deaths in January – following the emergence of the first cluster of new LF cases in December. In a worrisome trend, January’s cases were reported from 37 local government areas (LGAs) spread across 12 states. That is about twice the number of LGAs and states where cases of Lassa fever were reported within the same period in 2021 (17 and 6 respectively). While the number of cases and states so far affected by the 2022 Lassa fever outbreak are higher, the case fatality rate of 18.8% remains lower than that of the 2021 outbreak where one out of four confirmed cases resulted in death (CFR — 25%). Notably, is also about 16 times higher than the CFR for COVID-19 in Nigeria (1.2%), Nigerian health authorities underline. Although cases have been reported from 12 states, three states (Edo, Ondo and Bauchi) are the epicenters for the outbreak, accounting for 74% of all confirmed cases. Expanding range nationally and global health threats This year mark’s the fourth in a row when large clusters of cases have been reported in Nigeria, “raising concerns about an ongoing, systematic emergence of LF nationally,” according to a recent Nature Communications review of the disease’s gradual expansion country-wide. In 2019, there were 833 confirmed cases of Lassa fever in Nigeria with 174 deaths (CFR — 20.9%). In 2020, Nigeria recorded a total of 1181 confirmed cases of Lassa fever and 244 deaths (a CFR of 20.7%) but the following year (2021), the number of confirmed cases reduced to 510 with 102 deaths among confirmed cases (CFR - 20%). In addition to the national and regional risks, Lassa Fever is a “WHO-listed priority pathogen and a major focus of international vaccine development funding3 and, although often framed as a global health threat.” Lassa fever is an acute viral illness and a viral haemorrhagic fever that is associated with high morbidity and mortality, and it thus has both economic and health security consequences. Some cases, however, can be mild and thus go undetected or be confused with other common febrile conditions, like malaria - underlining the need for surveillance and vigilance to stop its spread. First reported in Nigeria’s state of Borno in 1969 when two missionary nurses died from an unusual febrile illness, Lassa fever cases and outbreaks continue to be reported in Nigeria and the diseases is increasingly recognised to be endemic in many parts of West Africa, including Nigeria, Benin, Ghana, Mali and the Mano River region (Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea). The disease has typically been characterised as having two main endemic foci in West Africa, one centered around Sierra Leone and Liberia, and the other in Nigeria, but in recent years, Nigeria, in particular, has continued to record a trend of increasing numbers of cases - although most countries in the region have reported regular or sporadic cases, researchers report. Response measures In a statement this week, NCDC said it has activated the country’s national multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary Lassa fever Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) in response to the Lassa fever outbreak in some parts of the country. “This became necessary given the increase in the number of confirmed Lassa fever cases across the country and a joint risk assessment with partners and sister agencies,” the center said in the statement. It described the reports in weeks 1 and 2 as the highest number of confirmed cases recorded in Nigeria in the last four years for the same period. It however reassured Nigerians of its preparedness which hinged on the center’s experience in responding to Lassa fever outbreaks. “Since 2016, NCDC has worked hard to improve diagnostic capacity for the disease. Currently, seven laboratories can conduct confirmatory tests for Lassa fever in Nigeria and are coordinated by the NCDC National Reference Laboratory (NRL). This has improved active case detection for the disease,” NCDC stated. In the same vein, care for affected individuals has improved. NCDC said it is providing support to states including the provision of emergency medical and laboratory supplies as well as oral and intravenous Ribavirin for preventive and curative treatment to treatment centres across the country. “In addition, Nigeria through NCDC is participating in the largest-ever Lassa fever study that aims to provide an accurate assessment of the incidence of the disease in West Africa. This will also accelerate the development of vaccines and therapeutics for Lassa fever,” NCDC added. It has also commenced training for healthcare workers in Nigeria’s tertiary health institutions on Lassa fever case management and infection prevention control. Risk factors for exposure Contact with the rodent Mastomys natalensis is thought to be the reason for Lassa fever. According to a research report published in Nature Communications in October, 2021, the significant majority of observed LF cases—including those from recent years in Nigeria—are thought to arise directly from contact with the rodent rodent Mastomys natalensis, the main viral reservoir host and a common agricultural pest. Other cases have occured, however, via hospital-acquired infections and potentially, in other small clusters of human-to-human transmission. Risk factors for spillover of the virus, while not well understood, are thought to include factors that increase direct and indirect contact between rodents and people through poor food storage and housing quality, as well as certain crop processing practices. Correlations between human case surges and seasonal rainfall patterns “suggests that LF is a climate-sensitive disease whose incidence may be increasing with regional climatic change,” according to the Nature Communications study, led by David Redding of University College London and and Chikwe Ihekweazu, of the Nigerian Centre for Disease Control (NCDC). Image Credits: Channel Africa/Twitter, Sahara Reporters/Nigeria. Infectious Disease Funding Virtually Unchanged, Neglected Tropical Diseases Continue Trend of Stagnation 28/01/2022 Raisa Santos Neglected Tropical Diseases remain stagnant in their funding Despite the strains of COVID-19, global funding for poverty-related infectious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria, remains virtually unchanged at US $3.937 billion, with investment dropping only 4% in 2020, according to the fourteenth annual G-FINDER Report. The report, released by Australia-based Policy Cures Research group on Thursday, showed a drop of only US $172 million from 2019. This year’s funding remains the third highest ever seen by the group for neglected diseases. Funding for neglected diseases declined only 4% in 2020 But though the decline may be a marginal one, funding for neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) continued a decade of relative stagnation, with only snakebite envenoming seeing an increased investment in 2020. Resilient funding may be impacted by COVID-19 in the future Nick Chapman, CEO of Policy Cures Research The G-FINDER report is a comprehensive analysis of global investment of R&D for poverty-related neglected diseases. It is widely used by national governments, industry, civil society, and the World Health Organization to identify gaps in progress and areas where investments would be needed. Reactions to the report were cautiously optimistic regarding the sustained investment in global R&D, with concerns that COVID-19 still could shift the direction of funding. “These figures are reassuring for the neglected disease research and development community as they indicate continued commitment to advancing health innovations for some of the world’s most vulnerable populations,” said Nick Chapman, CEO of Policy Cures Research. “However, we can’t assume that resilient funding in the first year of the pandemic means that we are safe from impacts on funding in the future.” Paul Barnsley, senior analyst at Policy Cures Research, also expressed his concerns during the Thursday launch event of the report. “We’re still worried that a focus on COVID might capture some of the attention and resources of traditional funders, and that the cost of stimulus during the pandemic will lead to future reductions in overall government spending flowing through to neglected disease R&D,” he said. Funding for top three infectious diseases declines The top three infectious diseases – HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria – received the largest shares of funding, as they have every year, accounting for more than two-thirds of reported global investment. However, funding for all three of these diseases fell in 2020, taking their share of global funding to 68% to the usual annual average of 75%. In the case of HIV/AIDS, the vast majority of the decline was attributed to decreased investment from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Gates Foundation, and industry. Tuberculosis also experienced a decrease in funding from the NIH, but recond-high funding from the European Commission, a result of new funding for the European Regimen Accelerator for Tuberculosis, an initiative dedicated to new treatments for TB. Disruptions in clinical trials due to pandemic While investments in neglected disease R&D stayed near their historic highs, despite the turbulent first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the pandemic hindered product developers’ ability to conduct clinical trials in 2020. Barnsley anticipates these disruptions to have continued into 2021. In line with this trend, multinational pharmaceutical companies’ (MNC) investments in clinical development decreased for the second consecutive year in 2020. The previous G-FINDER report attributed this to normal fluctuations and the conclusion of late-stage trials in treatments. However, the report does warn that “another year of decreases in MNC funding could signal a trend.” “Although the 2020 decline is most likely due to pandemic-disrupted trials, it could indicate that half a decade of soaring MNC funding is coming to an end.” Philanthropic funding increases Philanthropies such as Wellcome Trust and Open Philanthropy have increased their infectious disease R&D Contributions from public and private sectors both dropped slightly in 2020 but funding from philanthropies saw record high levels of funding, an increase of US $28 million over the previous year. Both established and new philanthropies such as Wellcome Trust and Open Philanthropy, were the primary reason for this new increase, with Open Philanthropy nearly tripling its funding for neglected disease R&D between 2017 and 2020. Increased investment in platform technologies Funding for platform technologies continues to increase A key reason that overall funding to infectious diseases remained relatively stable, despite cuts to clinical development, was the US $33 million increase in total funding in platform technologies. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the largest funder of platform technologies, providing 40% of investment, followed by US government agencies, the US NIH and the US Department of defense. Though the increase predates the pandemic, a number of grants for platform technologies in fact cite COVID-19 as the reason for accelerated interest. “In light of that, we predict that the already hastened pace of investment in platform technologies we saw in 2019 and 2020 will continue in the neglected disease R&D space, at least in the immediate years to come,” said Chapman. Funding cannot rely on ‘coattails of the pandemic’ Though the response to COVID-19 has demonstrated the potential for new funding mechanisms, strategies, and technologies, the report does note that this is a “stark reminder that neglected diseases persist because of insufficient funding and momentum”. “The next challenge for global health stakeholders will be to ensure that neglected diseases benefit from opportunities and innovations that have emerged from the pandemic.” Barnsley pointed out how it “may be tempting to ride on the coattails of the pandemic” in order to increase investment, and instead addressed the need to craft a message of genuine self-interest in eliminating neglected diseases. “We need to be able to defend neglected disease funding during periods of austerity.” Image Credits: Policy Cures Research, Policy Cures Research. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy Loading Comments... You must be logged in to post a comment.
Return to ‘Real’ vs ‘Edible’ Food is Needed After COVID-19 Pandemic 31/01/2022 Raisa Santos Food experts proposed a return to ‘real’ food over what is just ‘edible’ The explosion of unhealthy diets received considerable attention at last week’s WHO Executive Board meeting, as well as at last year’s UN Food Systems Summit – as key contributors to the global epidemic of chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases – which have also exacerbated the health risks of billions of people to COVID-19. Now, what is really needed, post-pandemic, is a return to healthy and sustainable ‘real’ foods that both dimish these disease risks – as well as the risks of another pathogen escape from the wild into human societies as a result of unsafe and unsustainable food practices – particularly around both wild and domestic meat production and consumption. This was a key message of a group of civil society experts at a recent panel – who also drew a distinction between what is merely “edible” food and what is “real”, healthy food. Making that seemingly simple distinction will be crucial post-COVID recovery to stem rising noncommunicable diseases while also ensuring that our planet remains within the boundaries of sustainable food production as well as making , nutrition experts emphasized during a recent Geneva Global Health Hub (G2H2) event. The event, “Sustainable healthy diets: Why are they so crucial after COVID-19?”, was hosted in collaboration with the Society for International Development (SID). Featured speakers from Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia discussed a broad range of proposed solutions that would alter the way food is produced, distributed, and consumed. Exiting the corporate food system Attaining healthier and more sustainable diets requires an ‘exit’ from the corporate food system, said Hernando Salcedo Fidalgo, of the Colombian NGO, FIAN. “The exit must make a distinction between real foods over what we call ‘edible products’”. Fidalgo described solutions as a “continued process” that would have to begin at the very foundations of government – with approaches that distinguish between “real food and just edible products.” SID Director Nicoletta Dentico added: “If we don’t want to see things as they are, for the reality they represent, after years of the pandemic – this is going to be a kind of criminal blindness.” Mexico as a case study example of the need to return to traditional ‘real’ foods A sustainable healthy diet requires increased vegetable and fruit intake, as well more whole grains. At the session, Mexico was cited as one example of a country in the crosshairs of pressures from corporate food manufactuers – who have undermined the once healthy diet of indigenous Mexican foods, leading to soaring problems with obesity and diabetes. Reverting back to a traditional Mexican diet – rich in beans, fibre and micronutrients – is one way to both promote both sustainability and health, said Juan Angel Rivera Dommarco, Director-General of the National Institute for Public Health in Mexico. “Our food system is really contributing to the degradation of the planet, and at the same time has created an epidemic of obesity and chronic illness without solving the undernutrition problems of the world.” Dr. Juan Ángel Rivera Dommarco of the National Institute for Public Health of Mexico (INSP) highlights the key is to shift #foodsystems, food environment, nutrition communication and education and health systems.#SustainableHealthyDiets #EB150 #HealthyDiets #People4FoodSystems pic.twitter.com/KSoTstTpOn — Society for International Development (@SID_INT) January 20, 2022 He bemoaned the gradual encroachment of meat, fat, and sugar-heavy ‘American diets’ into Mexico. “We lost so many years of building healthy diets in Mexico as a result of trying to imitate the consumption of food in the north, which is not a good example at all,” he noted. The traditional Mexican diet means reverting to a diet high in vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts or seeds, and whole grains – except in rural areas, where whole grains are already highly consumed. Milk and dairy intake also would need to be increased across rural populations, but decreased in urban ones. Substantial reductions in ultra-processed foods and reduced animal-source protein would also be needed to return back to the traditional Mexican diet. Average cost (MXN$) per capita per day of current Mexican diet vs Mexican healthy and sustainable diet Moving towards this healthy diet would also be beneficial to the Mexican economy, Dommarco added. The current average Mexican diet has been costed at $3.54 per day, whereas a traditionally healthy and sustainable Mexican diet would cost $3.06, while that proposed by the EAT-Lancet Commission would cost $2.52. Shift government subsidies from ‘wrong foods’ to healthy ones Schools are one place to implement healthy food use. Noting that the Mexican government currently offers too many subsidies for the “wrong foods”, he called on politcymakers to shift money and policy support to healthier foods – also providing a model for other countries to follow. Working with GISAMAC (Inter-Sectoral Group for Health Agriculture Environment and Competitiveness), Dommarco has helped to develop a Mexican toolkit with a full set of policy proposals to address the need for healthy diets in the country. Their proposals included increasing the availability of healthy foods in underserved areas, prioritizing these foods for government subsidies and procurement, and prioritizing healthy, fresh foods in school nutrition programs. Taxes from sugar-sweetened beverages and ultra-processed junk food should be doubled, with tax revenues used to ensure drinking water in underserved communities, he added. Policies from the toolkit emphasize a multisectoral and multisystemic intervention, including not only food systems and the food environment, but education, nutrition, community, and health systems. “The idea is that we really need a set of policies rather than one single policy that has a multi-systemic view,” said Dommarco. Image Credits: Noranna/Flickr, Juan Rivera Dommarco , Juan Rivera Dommarco, Flickr: Bart Verweij / World Bank. Long COVID: Researchers Find ‘Antibody Signature’ to Identify High-Risk Patients; Two Vaccine Shots Could Stop the Syndrome 31/01/2022 Maayan Hoffman Researchers find two antibodies in common in people with long-COVID, the lingering post-infection condition that was recognised by the World Health Organization (WHO) last October. But scientists say symptoms and how many people develop the virus are still unclear. Unconscious and intubated Covid-19 patients are treated in Vila Penteado Hospital’s ICU, in the Brasilandia neighbourhood of Sao Paulo. By Maayan Hoffman A sizable portion of the 370 million people infected with SARS-COV2 experience Post-Acute COVID Syndrome (PACS), otherwise known as “long COVID”. Doctors and scientists are starting to grapple with why people develop the syndrome and how to prevent and treat it. Their discoveries could have important implications on future healthcare. Researchers from the University Hospital Zurich announced last week that they had discovered an “antibody signature” that could help identify which patients are at the highest risk for developing long COVID. Specifically, they found that low levels of IgM and IGg3 antibodies were more common in those who developed the syndrome than those who did not. The team followed 134 individuals who tested positive for the virus for up to a year after the initial infection. They found that when combined with the patient’s age, how mild or severe a case of coronavirus the person experienced, and whether or not the individual suffered from asthma, the antibody signature was able to predict the risk of long COVID. These antibody levels, of course, cannot be measured before a person becomes infected with the virus and therefore this method cannot be used as a pre-virus prediction of the syndrome. However, early identification of patients at elevated risk for long COVID could facilitate the study of targeted treatments, the researchers wrote in their paper, which was published in Nature Communications. Full mRNA vaccination protects against long COVID A separate study by researchers in Israel found that individuals who received two shots of the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine were much less likely to develop long COVID symptoms than those who were unvaccinated – suggesting that vaccination protects against long COVID. These results were not observed in individuals who received just a single dose. Participating vaccinated and infected individuals reported no additional long COVID symptoms than individuals who were never infected with the virus. The study was published this month on the pre-print health server MedRxiv and has not been peer-reviewed. A child receives a vaccine through the Maccabi Health Fund in Israel in December 2021 (Credit: Maccabi) The scientists, led by Prof Michael Edelstein of Bar-Ilan University, examined 10 commonly reported post-COVID symptoms – fatigue, shortness of breath, joint pain, chest pain, headache, palpitations, physical limitations, depression and insomnia – among 3,000 participants. They said that there was between a 50% and 80% reduction in seven of the 10 most common symptoms four to 11 months among the vaccinated participants compared to the unvaccinated. “A double comparison of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated COVID-19 cases followed by comparing vaccinated COVID-19 cases to people reporting no infection enabled us to show not only that vaccinated people were experiencing much fewer long COVID symptoms than unvaccinated people, but that that they did not report any more symptoms than people never infected,” Edelstein said. He noted that the results seemed “logical.” “If we believe that these symptoms are related to the infection – caused by the virus itself – it makes sense that if you are vaccinated, even though you can still get infected, those who do get infected have less copies of the virus in the body and it hangs around in the body for less time, so it would have less opportunity to affect the body long term,” Edelstein said. He added that the study indicates that even those who are at less risk of developing severe COVID-19 should get jabbed, since these individuals seem to be at equal risk of developing long COVID. The study only included adults over the age of 18, but Edelstein said that the team hopes to examine the effect of the vaccine on long COVID in children, too. Up to 57% of COVID survivors could have long COVID symptoms He added that what is needed is a universal definition or understanding of long COVID in order to enable better studies. The World Health Organization (WHO) rolled out a definition of PACS last October but noted that “the definition may change as new evidence emerges and our understanding of the consequences of COVID-19 continues to evolve.” According to WHO, long COVID occurs around three months from the onset of the virus, lasts for at least two months and “cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis.” It lists fatigue, shortness of breath and cognitive dysfunction as common symptoms, but said others could apply and that symptoms could fluctuate or relapse over time. It is also unclear how many people actually develop long COVID. Edelstein cited Israeli studies that indicate around 30% of people infected with coronavirus will develop the syndrome, while some studies say closer to 60% of virus sufferers will have some form of PACS for up to six months. What proportion of symptoms are attributable to the virus and whether or not these symptoms can be detected in a clinical setting could impact the future of long COVID treatment, Edelstein said. “It is one thing reporting shortness of breath and another detecting reduced lung volume on standardized, objective testing in a clinical setting,” he said. Over the weekend, a small study in the United Kingdom revealed that some people who reported long-lasting breathlessness after COVID infection may have hidden lung damage. Scientists used a Hyperpolarized Xenon Magnetic Resonance (MRI) scan to pick up on lung abnormalities not identified by routine scans. They found that for the majority of people with long COVID, the xenon gas they inhaled during the MRI moved less effectively from the lungs into the bloodstream than it did among healthy, never infected individuals. The spectrum of medical imaging “Hyperpolarised xenon MRI requires the patient to lie in an MRI scanner and breathe in one litre of xenon gas that has had its atomic structure altered so it can be seen using MRI,” according to the study. “Xenon is an inert gas that behaves in a very similar way to oxygen, so radiologists then can observe how the gas moves from the lungs into the bloodstream.” The study included 11 non-hospitalized long COVID patients and 12 hospitalized patients, as well as 13 health controls. It was published by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford and has not yet been peer-reviewed. Researchers said that they plan to expand the study to include at least 200 patients. Long COVID therapeutics on the horizon? Doctors and scientists are also focusing on developing long COVID therapeutics. An article published on Clinical Trials Arena stated that 65% of planned COVID trials for 2022 will focus on therapeutics, according to a GlobalData report, but said that the majority of the long COVID trials (76.5%) are only in Phase I or Phase II. At least four long COVID drug trial readouts are expected in 2022, the report said, with each treatment targeting a different long COVID symptom or group of symptoms. These include PureTech, which is working on a drug for lung tissue damage stemming from a prior COVID-19 hospitalization; Axcella Health, which is working with Oxford university on a drug to reduce inflammation and restore mitochondrial function; Massachusetts General Hospital and 9 Meters Biopharma are studying a treatment for multisystem inflammatory syndrome; and MGC Pharma is assessing the potential of its ArtemiC Support for effectiveness in treating long COVID symptoms such as dyspnea, cough, asthenia, anosmia, ageusia, headache and mental confusion. Great article from @hannahkuchler @FinancialTimes discussing the impact of #LongCovid and highlighting our therapeutic candidate, LYT-100, which is in development for respiratory complications, as well as the work of our Founded Entity, @AkiliLabs, on brain fog. https://t.co/dF7tSORjcm — PureTech (@PureTechH) January 6, 2022 Edelstein said that researching long COVID is urgent and essential because the syndrome “is going to be one of the major concerns going down the line.” He explained that while the acute phase of the pandemic will eventually end, “that is not necessarily going to be the end of the impact of COVID-19, which could be felt for years due to the virus’s long-term effects.” Long COVID could have “massive implications on the burden that will be on healthcare services in the future.” Image Credits: Ninian Reid/Flickr, Maccabi Health Services, Martin Tornai, Wikimedia Commons . Executive Board Meeting Ends with Concerns about WHO’s Sustainability and Board´s Ability to Govern Efficiently 30/01/2022 Paul Adepoju & Elaine Ruth Fletcher Dr Patrick Amoth, Chair of the Executive Board, As the 150th Executive Board Meeting of the WHO closed Saturday, attention focused on the inability of the WHO governing board to reach consensus on critical issues that it had debated – including a more sustainable financing framework as well as a clear way forward on a proposed new pandemic legal accord, reforms of global pandemic response and related WHO emergency operations. Despite six days of hours-long discussions, EB agreement to increase WHO member states´ assessed contributions to 50% of the budget by 2028-29, remained elusive. Nor could EB members even agree on a way forward for changing the format for voluntary contributions – using newer, and more innovative fundraising models, such as the ¨replenishment drives¨ that have made other non-profit global health organizations like Gavi and The Global Fund even more financially robust than WHO. Decision to extend mandate of Sustainable Finance working group keeps hopes alive WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus on Saturday, the closing day of the EB´s 150th session In his closing remarks, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the WHO, noted that while a conclusion on funding for WHO, which is a crucial issue, could not be reached at the meeting, the decision to extend the mandate of the working group on sustainable financing until the World Health Assembly demonstrated optimism. “I sincerely hope that by working together, we can make substantive progress on this issue,” the DG said. In advance of this year’s World Health Assembly, Tedros said that the WHO Secretariat also will further develop proposals, in consultation with Member States, on strengthening the global health architecture for emergency preparedness, response and resilience. “In doing so, we will take into consideration the preliminary findings of the Working Group on strengthening WHO Preparedness and Response to Health Emergencies, and recommendations of recent review panels and committees,” he said. However, that Working Group, as well, failed to reach agreement on key reforms, such as bolstering WHO´s mandate to make visits early on to sites of suspected pathogen outbreaks. Long, unwieldy agenda proves frustrating Dr Clemens Martin Auer, Austria´s EB representative and vice-chair Before officially declaring the meeting closed, Dr Patrick Amoth, Chair of the Executive Board, also stressed the need for discussions on how to improve the efficiency of WHO’s Executive Board meetings, and other member state fora, in order to ensure that member states can help WHO to perform more effectively. In all, the board reviewed over 55 agenda items and sub items. That, Amoth admitted, was ambitious, given the number of days available. “This resulted in longer sessions than we anticipated,” the chair added. While he also described the sessions as ´rich and engaging´ other member states were more blunt about the fruits of hours, upon hours of rhetorical statements by member states – which obscured real debate and discussions about key decision points. EB Vice Chair, Dr Clemens Martin Auer, Austria´s Special Envoy for Health, said that the Executive Board´s inability to come to any real conclusions not only harms WHO´s ability to perform, but leaves it in a ¨critical¨ situation. “We have reached the situation where we still don’t act accordingly to what we are supposed to do. We are still not living up to what we have to do, colleagues. We have to be aware that we haven’t concluded on anything and that we are leaving this organization in a critical situation,” he said. Auer warned that failure of governance, not by the WHO Secretariat, but by member states failing to get their act together on how to implement better governance — could make the organization progressively less relevant – and create a vacuum into which other global actors such as the G-20 would step. “We are contributing to further fragmentation when it comes to global health issues and also emergency issues and we pay the price of non-inclusivity and that’s a high price. Don’t talk, act. Don’t say, show. Don’t promise proof,” Auer told member states. Hours and hours talking Last June, a G-20 High Level Panel proposed the creation of a ¨Global Health Threats Board¨ including health and finance representatives of the world´s major economies, working in conjuction with the WHO and another proposed body, a Global Health Threats Council, that would be overseen by the UN Secretary General´s office. During the EB, a US State Department spokesperson said that President Joe Biden wants to support the creation of such a new financing mechanism, housed at the World Bank, to ensure a reliable source of investments for helping countries increase their own global health emergency preparedness – rather than remaining so dependent on donor aid. The US and other supporters have stressed that such initiatives should not detract from the central role of WHO´s global health support to countries and emergency response. And indeed, as if to underline the central role the WHO will continue to play, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken also announced an additional $280 million more in fuding to the agency in late December. If that funding were to be added to the $ 365 million annually Washington provided last year, it might even put the US ahead of Germany once again as the WHO´s top donor for 2022. That, despite a statement by WHO Director General Tedros, on the opening day of last week´s EB session, to the effect that Germany is now WHO´s biggest donor. Greater efficiences a challenge both inside WHO and within its governing board But money aside, the struggle for greater efficiencies remains a challenge – both inside WHO and among the member states’ own governing board. Dr Ahmed Mohammed Al Saidi, Oman’s Minister of Health corroborated Auer´s call on the board members to actively seek more efficient ways of doing things in order to achieve desired results. “We need to find a more efficient way of doing things and implementing them. We spent hours and hours talking, but let’s find a way where we can do things more efficiently. It can be by limiting the interventions and making it easier for the Executive Board members via retreats during which we have free time to talk about issues that matter to health care, not in our countries, but worldwide,” he concluded. Other EB members also complained that even certain tactical procedures, such as the bundling together of numerous reports, action plans, and updates into the same EB document, made it more difficult to wade through the various background documents. In an age in which written presentations to busy executive boards typically rely heavily on indexing, infographics, bullet points, graphics and other visual aids, EB documents continue to be drafted like the text-heavy academic theses of the mid-20th century style – which makes it almost impossible to quickly read and seize key messages, issues of debate, decision and action points. Similarly, EB member state statements remain heavy on rhetorical flourish – but lacking slides, visuals or even, in many cases, a written text, to support better understanding. The old-fashioned, and very indirect, style of the deliberations certainly also serves certain diplomatic goals – allowing countries to voice criticism in nuanced, coded language that is inscrutable for most outsiders, preserves decorum and avoids out-and-out conflict. Still, the formulas of presentation are often as obscure as the countries´ commentaries on them. Notably, some items, such as the NCD agenda, covered over a dozen different issues, from healthy foods to mental health, wrapped up into one long run-on document followed by annexes – with nary even a table of contents. As the US EB representative Loyce Pace observed at one point such bundling together of so many action plans and statements into one document, made it all the more difficult for EB members to weed through, and consider all of the important issues being raised. Global Health Security Demands National as well as Global Responses 29/01/2022 Ilona Kickbusch, David Heymann, Chikwe Ihekweazu & Swee Kheng Khor National health systems are needed in tackling global health threats. As the world enters the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic, an increasing number of important efforts are underway to strengthen global health security. However, it is vital that, while strengthening our global health architecture, we do not lose sight of the fundamental role played by national level health systems in tackling global health threats. Throughout this and previous pandemics, the strength of countries’ national health systems has been a critical success factor against pathogens. For example, even many countries with well-organised, well-financed and well-staffed health systems suffered throughout COVID-19. Viewed through these lenses, global health security may exist only as the sum total of the performance of all national health systems of all countries, rather than as a standalone and separate entity. Since the onset of the pandemic, we have seen a plethora of new institutions and new ideas for improving global health governance. These include the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator and the COVAX Facility in April 2020, the Independent Panel on Pandemic Preparedness and Response proposal in May 2021 for a Global Health Threats Council and the World Health Assembly (WHA) agreement in December 2021 to proceed with the negotiation and drafting of a new international instrument to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. It is hoped that these new international institutions and platforms will support better pandemic governance and financing at the global level. However, although a strong global focus is essential for ensuring equitable distribution of those goods that are necessary for fighting COVID-19 and future pandemics, national efforts must be equally prioritised. In other words, global leaders must resist two great temptations: the desire to build new institutions instead of strengthening existing ones such as the WHO and the International Health Regulations, and the tendency to ‘securitize’ health at the global level instead of implementing strong public health measures at the national level. Three functions to achieve resilient health systems One interlocking function needed is resilient healthcare systems. Global health security demands strong and resilient health systems that can prevent, detect and respond to infectious disease threats, wherever they occur in the world. Therefore, we propose a new understanding that approaches this goal through the lens of three interlocking functions at the national level. The first key function is building resilient national healthcare systems. It is critical that they have built-in surge capacity (including for primary healthcare) to manage patients who have been infected and require care, while at the same time continuing and sustaining routine health services for those who have not been affected. In addition to deaths from infection during the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been an excess of deaths of non-infected persons over what would be expected, likely due to the fact that they were not able to access routine health care, especially that which required frequent attention. The same occurred in West Africa during outbreaks of Ebola in 2014 – health facilities could not accommodate most of the patients with Ebola infection resulting in a high level of death from Ebola virus diseases, and also, the number of deaths from children who could not get care for malaria and other childhood diseases because of the lack of resilience in the health system was documented as being higher than the number of deaths from Ebola virus disease. The second key function is developing strong core public health capacities that meet the WHO’s International Health Regulations. Countries with early detection surveillance systems that identified outbreaks rapidly at the start of the pandemic, and those that had strong response mechanisms including outbreak responses – especially Singapore, Japan, and South Korea – showed the importance of strong public health core capacities to manage pandemics. And rather than using blunt lockdowns of the entire economies, they were able to save lives by outbreak investigation, identification of sources of infection and then shutting them down with precision, rather than blunt lockdowns. Thirdly, countries need to invest in broader supportive environments that enable the health and wellbeing of their populations. Infection with SAR CoV2, as with many other viral and bacterial infections, resulted in more serious illness and death among the elderly and those with comorbidities such as diabetes, cardiac disease and obesity. By using smart regulations and other healthy-lifestyle-enabling measures, governments can ensure populations are healthier and more resistant to serious illness after infection, decreasing morbidity and mortality in an outbreak and/or pandemic. Healthy populations also require adequate health financing, strong health literacy and health-seeking behaviours, and improving the social determinants of health, like education, housing and working conditions. Synergistic approach as opposed to mutually exclusive strategies This synergistic approach to universal health coverage, health security, and health promotion is necessary to prepare for future pandemics. Currently, many countries seem to assume that public health, universal health coverage and creating the enabling environment for healthy populations are mutually exclusive strategies. This can be due to limited resources and/or donor funding pushing governments towards “false choices”. Such false distinctions are further enhanced by the “global nature” of global health security with accountability towards the international community, contrasted with the domestic nature of universal health coverage and health promotion, with accountability towards local voters, taxpayers and citizens. A strategy focused on the three interlocking functions provides countries with a middle way – an integrated approach that equally prioritises national and global health security. Each of the functions has a strong conceptual framework and large body of evidence to support its positive impact on global health security. Each is closely aligned with well-established and highly-visible health frameworks. It will take political and health leaders with courage, vision and ambition to rethink some of the many vertical (albeit well-meaning) global implementation and funding streams to ensure that they serve to strengthen these three functions and not bypass or weaken them. They will need understanding and support from the global health community. If implemented correctly, the three interlocking functions would be mutually synergistic, with progress in one function accelerating or enhancing progress in another. Taken together, they represent a more balanced approach to global health security and reduce the risk of over-globalizing, over-engineering or over-securitizing health. By better linking these three functions within WHO, and within its guidelines for epidemic and pandemic preparedness, WHO technical support to countries could provide better preparedness and response capacity for the next major outbreak or pandemic. Biographies Swee Kheng Khor Ilona Kickbusch David Heymann Dr Chikwe Ihekweazu Professor David Heymann is professor of infectious disease epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Professor Ilona Kickbusch is the Founder of the Global Health Centre at the Graduate Institute in Geneva. Chikwe Ihekweazu is the WHO assistant Director General of health emergency intelligence, the former Director General of the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) and was previously the Acting Director of the West Africa Regional Centre for Disease Control. Doctor Swee Kheng Khor is a physician specializing in health systems & policies and global health, focusing on south-east Asia. Image Credits: Nigeria Centre for Disease Control , Flickr: Maxim Malov/CDC. WHO Needs to Reform Accountability Systems to Prevent Sexual Exploitation and Abuse 28/01/2022 Elaine Ruth Fletcher & Raisa Santos 17 January 2019 – Beni, North Kivu region, Democratic Republic of Congo.Families go the Ebola Treatment Center to visit a family member who is held in quarantine in the centre. WHO needs to reform lines of authority and responsibility across all aspects of its emergencies response operations in order to effectively prevent, report, and take measures against sexual exploitation and harrassment. Those were the highlights of a final report by an Independent Oversight Advisory Committee (IOAC) of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme, examining the claims of sexual exploitation and harrassment that first emerged in connection with WHO’s 2018-2020 Ebola response in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The report, presented in a Friday afternoon session of the WHO Executive Board, marked another milestone in the follow-up to reports of sexual exploitation and abuse claims by some 75 Congolese women against 25 WHO workers deployed to the Democratic Republic of Congo’s 2018-2020 Ebola response – which was first reported by the New Humanitarian in 2020. Following the reports, WHO initiated an independent investigation, as well as initial internal reforms to improve staff training in the prevention of sexual exploitation and harrassment (PRSEH); deployment of more training staff; and new recruitment standards that also consider any exploitation and abuse issues in a candidate’s background, the IOAC report states. But there remains “ deep, lingering frustration expressed by Member States and staff about the lack of transparency, delays in responding to incidents and holding perpetrators accountable, and the defensiveness with which the Organization has dealt with SEAH in the past,” states the report, presented to the EB. Felicity Harvey, co-chair IOAC And more comprehensive cultural and structural changes need to occur across WHO to reduce the risks of abuse from ever occurring in the first place, said Felicity Harvey, co-chair of the IOAC committee, in her presentation of the report to the WHO Executive Board on Friday. “The second edition of The WHO Emergency Response framework should be further revised to provide greater clarity on the accountabilities and lines of authority across offices, regional offices and headquarters with explicit roles and responsibilities given to each player and updated procedures for all hazards emergency risk management,” she said. The IOAC report outlines five priority areas where more action is needed. Those include: Clarifying the lines of responsibility and delegation of authority across the three levels of the organization; Strengthening the accountability framework for emergency response and other field teams; Reform the organization’s PRSEH management structure, and accelerate organizational capacity to implement a “victim survivor-centered” approach to PRSEH; Financial investment in PRSEH programmes as an essential WHO function – and particularly in field operations, where WHO is currently responding to some 80 emergencies around the world; Periodic assessments of PRSEH in acute emergency response settings, including a mapping of community and local resources; identification of trusted local partners for PRSEH incident management; ensuring that field operations include a balance of experienced male and female personnel. Building a culture of equity, diversity and transparency “WHO needs to promote or advocate for institutionalized culture change to strengthen PRSEH, including greater gender and racial diversity, improved performance management, and a renewed commitment to WHO values – to build a culture of equity, diversity and transparency,” said Harvey, a former director-general of international health in the United Kingdom Department of Health. DG Proposal – separate line of investigation for sex abuse complaints WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Responding to the IOAC report, WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus noted that WHO has recently engaged an external investigator to follow up on further on the abuse allegations – and their perpetrators. “This is the first time a UN Organization has installed an independent investigation, opening up to an external investigator,” he noted. “One of the things that our member states emphasized is transparency; we are doing that, and we will continue to do more. We will continue to build on this, because more should be done,” Tedros said. Tedros also asked the EB to approve a draft decision that would create a separate line of authority to the investigator heading up the Organization’s investigations of sexual exploitation and abuse allegations – and reporting directly to the Director General. All sexual exploitation and abuse allegations would thus be treated separately from other WHO internal justice investigations, at least temporarily, according to the draft WHO proposal. The WHO DG also noted that in the last two weeks, the Organization had received three new complaints of alleged sexual harrassment and exploitation from the Central African Republic, DR Brazzavile, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) – the latter where Tedros also said that WHO was creating a model for rehabilitation and support to victims, helping them access livelihoods as well as other means of support. “We support zero tolerance and we will do everything to build a better culture,” he said. The DG’s proposal to create a separate chain of authority for sexual exploitation and harrassment cases churned up some initial resistance among some EB members – who said that it should have been discussed even before the EB convened, at a meeting of member states’ Planning and Budget Advisory Committee (PBAC). Harvey, however, said that the IOAC would “strongly endorse the decision to keep the PRSEH Investigation Unit separate from general investigations,” att least for the moment until progress has been made on the investigations still ongoing in the DR Congo and elsewhere. The EB members deferred debate on the draft WHO decision until Saturday morning. Country responses commend WHO and emphasize survivor-centered approach and ‘zero tolerance’ policy WHO Representative of France Representatives across Member States otherwise commended the WHO for its efforts towards prevention of sexual exploitation, abuse, and harrassment, with some emphasing the need to adopt a survivor-centered approach in responding to the allegations. “It is important that we create an environment conducive to effectively preventing sexual exploitation and abuse, and that means asking ourselves hard questions about responsibility,” said Tunisia, on behalf of the WHO Eastern Meditterean Region. Tunisia, and many other Member States noted that a zero tolerance policy is needed, and proposed that a common UN database be created. The database would be consulted before staff recruitment, ensuring that the necessary checks can be made. “We need to do this, making effective and efficient use of the resources we have available on gender equality.” France, on behalf of the European Union, echoed these sentiments, and also reiterated the need for “accountable culture within the organization.” “We think it is better to have people providing the information because peace is being swept under the carpet.” Concern and clarification needed on transparency and accountability Bathsheba Nell Crocker, US Ambassador to the United Nations However, some representatives continued to express their concern regarding the WHO’s work on sexual exploitation and abuse, including China and the United States. China noted the need for clarification from the WHO on the interim report and “transparency and accountability of the related work.” “We hope that WHO will further clarify on how it will communicate on concrete action taken both within and outside of the organization.” The US representative, Bathsheba Nell Crocker, acknowledged the recent progress of the WHO, but added that “broader organization reforms are needed, as well as the dedicated effort now required to translate division laid out for WHO’s work in this area into concrete results on the ground.” She also pointed out that WHO’s efforts to increase awareness, conduct training, and fill capacity are “essential but insufficient.” “[There is] absence of investment in evidence-driven survivor centered prevention, risk mitigation, and response protocols.” Crocker noted that WHO must encourage prompt reporting and delivery of survivor centered services. “Organizational change starts at the top with leadership. We call on WHO to ensure that roles and expectations are clear and to enforce whistleblower protections.” Image Credits: Flickr: World Bank / Vincent Tremeau, WHO EB 150. New Nigerian Lassa Fever Outbreak Underway – and Expanding its Range 28/01/2022 Paul Adepoju Nigeria has set up an emergency response centre to deal with outbreaks of the deadly Lassa fever in parts of the country. Following reports of an unusually large number of cases in January 2022 across some 12 states, Nigeria is stepping up its surveillance of Lassa fever, the deadly viral hemorrhagic illness transmitted by infected rodents, or through other infected people or tainted food. This year marks the fourth year in a row in which large outbreaks of the disease are being reported by Africa’s most populous state.. According to the Nigeria Center for Disease Control (NCDC), there have been a total of 759 suspected cases, 170 confirmed cases and 32 confirmed deaths in January – following the emergence of the first cluster of new LF cases in December. In a worrisome trend, January’s cases were reported from 37 local government areas (LGAs) spread across 12 states. That is about twice the number of LGAs and states where cases of Lassa fever were reported within the same period in 2021 (17 and 6 respectively). While the number of cases and states so far affected by the 2022 Lassa fever outbreak are higher, the case fatality rate of 18.8% remains lower than that of the 2021 outbreak where one out of four confirmed cases resulted in death (CFR — 25%). Notably, is also about 16 times higher than the CFR for COVID-19 in Nigeria (1.2%), Nigerian health authorities underline. Although cases have been reported from 12 states, three states (Edo, Ondo and Bauchi) are the epicenters for the outbreak, accounting for 74% of all confirmed cases. Expanding range nationally and global health threats This year mark’s the fourth in a row when large clusters of cases have been reported in Nigeria, “raising concerns about an ongoing, systematic emergence of LF nationally,” according to a recent Nature Communications review of the disease’s gradual expansion country-wide. In 2019, there were 833 confirmed cases of Lassa fever in Nigeria with 174 deaths (CFR — 20.9%). In 2020, Nigeria recorded a total of 1181 confirmed cases of Lassa fever and 244 deaths (a CFR of 20.7%) but the following year (2021), the number of confirmed cases reduced to 510 with 102 deaths among confirmed cases (CFR - 20%). In addition to the national and regional risks, Lassa Fever is a “WHO-listed priority pathogen and a major focus of international vaccine development funding3 and, although often framed as a global health threat.” Lassa fever is an acute viral illness and a viral haemorrhagic fever that is associated with high morbidity and mortality, and it thus has both economic and health security consequences. Some cases, however, can be mild and thus go undetected or be confused with other common febrile conditions, like malaria - underlining the need for surveillance and vigilance to stop its spread. First reported in Nigeria’s state of Borno in 1969 when two missionary nurses died from an unusual febrile illness, Lassa fever cases and outbreaks continue to be reported in Nigeria and the diseases is increasingly recognised to be endemic in many parts of West Africa, including Nigeria, Benin, Ghana, Mali and the Mano River region (Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea). The disease has typically been characterised as having two main endemic foci in West Africa, one centered around Sierra Leone and Liberia, and the other in Nigeria, but in recent years, Nigeria, in particular, has continued to record a trend of increasing numbers of cases - although most countries in the region have reported regular or sporadic cases, researchers report. Response measures In a statement this week, NCDC said it has activated the country’s national multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary Lassa fever Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) in response to the Lassa fever outbreak in some parts of the country. “This became necessary given the increase in the number of confirmed Lassa fever cases across the country and a joint risk assessment with partners and sister agencies,” the center said in the statement. It described the reports in weeks 1 and 2 as the highest number of confirmed cases recorded in Nigeria in the last four years for the same period. It however reassured Nigerians of its preparedness which hinged on the center’s experience in responding to Lassa fever outbreaks. “Since 2016, NCDC has worked hard to improve diagnostic capacity for the disease. Currently, seven laboratories can conduct confirmatory tests for Lassa fever in Nigeria and are coordinated by the NCDC National Reference Laboratory (NRL). This has improved active case detection for the disease,” NCDC stated. In the same vein, care for affected individuals has improved. NCDC said it is providing support to states including the provision of emergency medical and laboratory supplies as well as oral and intravenous Ribavirin for preventive and curative treatment to treatment centres across the country. “In addition, Nigeria through NCDC is participating in the largest-ever Lassa fever study that aims to provide an accurate assessment of the incidence of the disease in West Africa. This will also accelerate the development of vaccines and therapeutics for Lassa fever,” NCDC added. It has also commenced training for healthcare workers in Nigeria’s tertiary health institutions on Lassa fever case management and infection prevention control. Risk factors for exposure Contact with the rodent Mastomys natalensis is thought to be the reason for Lassa fever. According to a research report published in Nature Communications in October, 2021, the significant majority of observed LF cases—including those from recent years in Nigeria—are thought to arise directly from contact with the rodent rodent Mastomys natalensis, the main viral reservoir host and a common agricultural pest. Other cases have occured, however, via hospital-acquired infections and potentially, in other small clusters of human-to-human transmission. Risk factors for spillover of the virus, while not well understood, are thought to include factors that increase direct and indirect contact between rodents and people through poor food storage and housing quality, as well as certain crop processing practices. Correlations between human case surges and seasonal rainfall patterns “suggests that LF is a climate-sensitive disease whose incidence may be increasing with regional climatic change,” according to the Nature Communications study, led by David Redding of University College London and and Chikwe Ihekweazu, of the Nigerian Centre for Disease Control (NCDC). Image Credits: Channel Africa/Twitter, Sahara Reporters/Nigeria. Infectious Disease Funding Virtually Unchanged, Neglected Tropical Diseases Continue Trend of Stagnation 28/01/2022 Raisa Santos Neglected Tropical Diseases remain stagnant in their funding Despite the strains of COVID-19, global funding for poverty-related infectious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria, remains virtually unchanged at US $3.937 billion, with investment dropping only 4% in 2020, according to the fourteenth annual G-FINDER Report. The report, released by Australia-based Policy Cures Research group on Thursday, showed a drop of only US $172 million from 2019. This year’s funding remains the third highest ever seen by the group for neglected diseases. Funding for neglected diseases declined only 4% in 2020 But though the decline may be a marginal one, funding for neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) continued a decade of relative stagnation, with only snakebite envenoming seeing an increased investment in 2020. Resilient funding may be impacted by COVID-19 in the future Nick Chapman, CEO of Policy Cures Research The G-FINDER report is a comprehensive analysis of global investment of R&D for poverty-related neglected diseases. It is widely used by national governments, industry, civil society, and the World Health Organization to identify gaps in progress and areas where investments would be needed. Reactions to the report were cautiously optimistic regarding the sustained investment in global R&D, with concerns that COVID-19 still could shift the direction of funding. “These figures are reassuring for the neglected disease research and development community as they indicate continued commitment to advancing health innovations for some of the world’s most vulnerable populations,” said Nick Chapman, CEO of Policy Cures Research. “However, we can’t assume that resilient funding in the first year of the pandemic means that we are safe from impacts on funding in the future.” Paul Barnsley, senior analyst at Policy Cures Research, also expressed his concerns during the Thursday launch event of the report. “We’re still worried that a focus on COVID might capture some of the attention and resources of traditional funders, and that the cost of stimulus during the pandemic will lead to future reductions in overall government spending flowing through to neglected disease R&D,” he said. Funding for top three infectious diseases declines The top three infectious diseases – HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria – received the largest shares of funding, as they have every year, accounting for more than two-thirds of reported global investment. However, funding for all three of these diseases fell in 2020, taking their share of global funding to 68% to the usual annual average of 75%. In the case of HIV/AIDS, the vast majority of the decline was attributed to decreased investment from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Gates Foundation, and industry. Tuberculosis also experienced a decrease in funding from the NIH, but recond-high funding from the European Commission, a result of new funding for the European Regimen Accelerator for Tuberculosis, an initiative dedicated to new treatments for TB. Disruptions in clinical trials due to pandemic While investments in neglected disease R&D stayed near their historic highs, despite the turbulent first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the pandemic hindered product developers’ ability to conduct clinical trials in 2020. Barnsley anticipates these disruptions to have continued into 2021. In line with this trend, multinational pharmaceutical companies’ (MNC) investments in clinical development decreased for the second consecutive year in 2020. The previous G-FINDER report attributed this to normal fluctuations and the conclusion of late-stage trials in treatments. However, the report does warn that “another year of decreases in MNC funding could signal a trend.” “Although the 2020 decline is most likely due to pandemic-disrupted trials, it could indicate that half a decade of soaring MNC funding is coming to an end.” Philanthropic funding increases Philanthropies such as Wellcome Trust and Open Philanthropy have increased their infectious disease R&D Contributions from public and private sectors both dropped slightly in 2020 but funding from philanthropies saw record high levels of funding, an increase of US $28 million over the previous year. Both established and new philanthropies such as Wellcome Trust and Open Philanthropy, were the primary reason for this new increase, with Open Philanthropy nearly tripling its funding for neglected disease R&D between 2017 and 2020. Increased investment in platform technologies Funding for platform technologies continues to increase A key reason that overall funding to infectious diseases remained relatively stable, despite cuts to clinical development, was the US $33 million increase in total funding in platform technologies. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the largest funder of platform technologies, providing 40% of investment, followed by US government agencies, the US NIH and the US Department of defense. Though the increase predates the pandemic, a number of grants for platform technologies in fact cite COVID-19 as the reason for accelerated interest. “In light of that, we predict that the already hastened pace of investment in platform technologies we saw in 2019 and 2020 will continue in the neglected disease R&D space, at least in the immediate years to come,” said Chapman. Funding cannot rely on ‘coattails of the pandemic’ Though the response to COVID-19 has demonstrated the potential for new funding mechanisms, strategies, and technologies, the report does note that this is a “stark reminder that neglected diseases persist because of insufficient funding and momentum”. “The next challenge for global health stakeholders will be to ensure that neglected diseases benefit from opportunities and innovations that have emerged from the pandemic.” Barnsley pointed out how it “may be tempting to ride on the coattails of the pandemic” in order to increase investment, and instead addressed the need to craft a message of genuine self-interest in eliminating neglected diseases. “We need to be able to defend neglected disease funding during periods of austerity.” Image Credits: Policy Cures Research, Policy Cures Research. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy Loading Comments... You must be logged in to post a comment.
Long COVID: Researchers Find ‘Antibody Signature’ to Identify High-Risk Patients; Two Vaccine Shots Could Stop the Syndrome 31/01/2022 Maayan Hoffman Researchers find two antibodies in common in people with long-COVID, the lingering post-infection condition that was recognised by the World Health Organization (WHO) last October. But scientists say symptoms and how many people develop the virus are still unclear. Unconscious and intubated Covid-19 patients are treated in Vila Penteado Hospital’s ICU, in the Brasilandia neighbourhood of Sao Paulo. By Maayan Hoffman A sizable portion of the 370 million people infected with SARS-COV2 experience Post-Acute COVID Syndrome (PACS), otherwise known as “long COVID”. Doctors and scientists are starting to grapple with why people develop the syndrome and how to prevent and treat it. Their discoveries could have important implications on future healthcare. Researchers from the University Hospital Zurich announced last week that they had discovered an “antibody signature” that could help identify which patients are at the highest risk for developing long COVID. Specifically, they found that low levels of IgM and IGg3 antibodies were more common in those who developed the syndrome than those who did not. The team followed 134 individuals who tested positive for the virus for up to a year after the initial infection. They found that when combined with the patient’s age, how mild or severe a case of coronavirus the person experienced, and whether or not the individual suffered from asthma, the antibody signature was able to predict the risk of long COVID. These antibody levels, of course, cannot be measured before a person becomes infected with the virus and therefore this method cannot be used as a pre-virus prediction of the syndrome. However, early identification of patients at elevated risk for long COVID could facilitate the study of targeted treatments, the researchers wrote in their paper, which was published in Nature Communications. Full mRNA vaccination protects against long COVID A separate study by researchers in Israel found that individuals who received two shots of the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine were much less likely to develop long COVID symptoms than those who were unvaccinated – suggesting that vaccination protects against long COVID. These results were not observed in individuals who received just a single dose. Participating vaccinated and infected individuals reported no additional long COVID symptoms than individuals who were never infected with the virus. The study was published this month on the pre-print health server MedRxiv and has not been peer-reviewed. A child receives a vaccine through the Maccabi Health Fund in Israel in December 2021 (Credit: Maccabi) The scientists, led by Prof Michael Edelstein of Bar-Ilan University, examined 10 commonly reported post-COVID symptoms – fatigue, shortness of breath, joint pain, chest pain, headache, palpitations, physical limitations, depression and insomnia – among 3,000 participants. They said that there was between a 50% and 80% reduction in seven of the 10 most common symptoms four to 11 months among the vaccinated participants compared to the unvaccinated. “A double comparison of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated COVID-19 cases followed by comparing vaccinated COVID-19 cases to people reporting no infection enabled us to show not only that vaccinated people were experiencing much fewer long COVID symptoms than unvaccinated people, but that that they did not report any more symptoms than people never infected,” Edelstein said. He noted that the results seemed “logical.” “If we believe that these symptoms are related to the infection – caused by the virus itself – it makes sense that if you are vaccinated, even though you can still get infected, those who do get infected have less copies of the virus in the body and it hangs around in the body for less time, so it would have less opportunity to affect the body long term,” Edelstein said. He added that the study indicates that even those who are at less risk of developing severe COVID-19 should get jabbed, since these individuals seem to be at equal risk of developing long COVID. The study only included adults over the age of 18, but Edelstein said that the team hopes to examine the effect of the vaccine on long COVID in children, too. Up to 57% of COVID survivors could have long COVID symptoms He added that what is needed is a universal definition or understanding of long COVID in order to enable better studies. The World Health Organization (WHO) rolled out a definition of PACS last October but noted that “the definition may change as new evidence emerges and our understanding of the consequences of COVID-19 continues to evolve.” According to WHO, long COVID occurs around three months from the onset of the virus, lasts for at least two months and “cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis.” It lists fatigue, shortness of breath and cognitive dysfunction as common symptoms, but said others could apply and that symptoms could fluctuate or relapse over time. It is also unclear how many people actually develop long COVID. Edelstein cited Israeli studies that indicate around 30% of people infected with coronavirus will develop the syndrome, while some studies say closer to 60% of virus sufferers will have some form of PACS for up to six months. What proportion of symptoms are attributable to the virus and whether or not these symptoms can be detected in a clinical setting could impact the future of long COVID treatment, Edelstein said. “It is one thing reporting shortness of breath and another detecting reduced lung volume on standardized, objective testing in a clinical setting,” he said. Over the weekend, a small study in the United Kingdom revealed that some people who reported long-lasting breathlessness after COVID infection may have hidden lung damage. Scientists used a Hyperpolarized Xenon Magnetic Resonance (MRI) scan to pick up on lung abnormalities not identified by routine scans. They found that for the majority of people with long COVID, the xenon gas they inhaled during the MRI moved less effectively from the lungs into the bloodstream than it did among healthy, never infected individuals. The spectrum of medical imaging “Hyperpolarised xenon MRI requires the patient to lie in an MRI scanner and breathe in one litre of xenon gas that has had its atomic structure altered so it can be seen using MRI,” according to the study. “Xenon is an inert gas that behaves in a very similar way to oxygen, so radiologists then can observe how the gas moves from the lungs into the bloodstream.” The study included 11 non-hospitalized long COVID patients and 12 hospitalized patients, as well as 13 health controls. It was published by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford and has not yet been peer-reviewed. Researchers said that they plan to expand the study to include at least 200 patients. Long COVID therapeutics on the horizon? Doctors and scientists are also focusing on developing long COVID therapeutics. An article published on Clinical Trials Arena stated that 65% of planned COVID trials for 2022 will focus on therapeutics, according to a GlobalData report, but said that the majority of the long COVID trials (76.5%) are only in Phase I or Phase II. At least four long COVID drug trial readouts are expected in 2022, the report said, with each treatment targeting a different long COVID symptom or group of symptoms. These include PureTech, which is working on a drug for lung tissue damage stemming from a prior COVID-19 hospitalization; Axcella Health, which is working with Oxford university on a drug to reduce inflammation and restore mitochondrial function; Massachusetts General Hospital and 9 Meters Biopharma are studying a treatment for multisystem inflammatory syndrome; and MGC Pharma is assessing the potential of its ArtemiC Support for effectiveness in treating long COVID symptoms such as dyspnea, cough, asthenia, anosmia, ageusia, headache and mental confusion. Great article from @hannahkuchler @FinancialTimes discussing the impact of #LongCovid and highlighting our therapeutic candidate, LYT-100, which is in development for respiratory complications, as well as the work of our Founded Entity, @AkiliLabs, on brain fog. https://t.co/dF7tSORjcm — PureTech (@PureTechH) January 6, 2022 Edelstein said that researching long COVID is urgent and essential because the syndrome “is going to be one of the major concerns going down the line.” He explained that while the acute phase of the pandemic will eventually end, “that is not necessarily going to be the end of the impact of COVID-19, which could be felt for years due to the virus’s long-term effects.” Long COVID could have “massive implications on the burden that will be on healthcare services in the future.” Image Credits: Ninian Reid/Flickr, Maccabi Health Services, Martin Tornai, Wikimedia Commons . Executive Board Meeting Ends with Concerns about WHO’s Sustainability and Board´s Ability to Govern Efficiently 30/01/2022 Paul Adepoju & Elaine Ruth Fletcher Dr Patrick Amoth, Chair of the Executive Board, As the 150th Executive Board Meeting of the WHO closed Saturday, attention focused on the inability of the WHO governing board to reach consensus on critical issues that it had debated – including a more sustainable financing framework as well as a clear way forward on a proposed new pandemic legal accord, reforms of global pandemic response and related WHO emergency operations. Despite six days of hours-long discussions, EB agreement to increase WHO member states´ assessed contributions to 50% of the budget by 2028-29, remained elusive. Nor could EB members even agree on a way forward for changing the format for voluntary contributions – using newer, and more innovative fundraising models, such as the ¨replenishment drives¨ that have made other non-profit global health organizations like Gavi and The Global Fund even more financially robust than WHO. Decision to extend mandate of Sustainable Finance working group keeps hopes alive WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus on Saturday, the closing day of the EB´s 150th session In his closing remarks, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the WHO, noted that while a conclusion on funding for WHO, which is a crucial issue, could not be reached at the meeting, the decision to extend the mandate of the working group on sustainable financing until the World Health Assembly demonstrated optimism. “I sincerely hope that by working together, we can make substantive progress on this issue,” the DG said. In advance of this year’s World Health Assembly, Tedros said that the WHO Secretariat also will further develop proposals, in consultation with Member States, on strengthening the global health architecture for emergency preparedness, response and resilience. “In doing so, we will take into consideration the preliminary findings of the Working Group on strengthening WHO Preparedness and Response to Health Emergencies, and recommendations of recent review panels and committees,” he said. However, that Working Group, as well, failed to reach agreement on key reforms, such as bolstering WHO´s mandate to make visits early on to sites of suspected pathogen outbreaks. Long, unwieldy agenda proves frustrating Dr Clemens Martin Auer, Austria´s EB representative and vice-chair Before officially declaring the meeting closed, Dr Patrick Amoth, Chair of the Executive Board, also stressed the need for discussions on how to improve the efficiency of WHO’s Executive Board meetings, and other member state fora, in order to ensure that member states can help WHO to perform more effectively. In all, the board reviewed over 55 agenda items and sub items. That, Amoth admitted, was ambitious, given the number of days available. “This resulted in longer sessions than we anticipated,” the chair added. While he also described the sessions as ´rich and engaging´ other member states were more blunt about the fruits of hours, upon hours of rhetorical statements by member states – which obscured real debate and discussions about key decision points. EB Vice Chair, Dr Clemens Martin Auer, Austria´s Special Envoy for Health, said that the Executive Board´s inability to come to any real conclusions not only harms WHO´s ability to perform, but leaves it in a ¨critical¨ situation. “We have reached the situation where we still don’t act accordingly to what we are supposed to do. We are still not living up to what we have to do, colleagues. We have to be aware that we haven’t concluded on anything and that we are leaving this organization in a critical situation,” he said. Auer warned that failure of governance, not by the WHO Secretariat, but by member states failing to get their act together on how to implement better governance — could make the organization progressively less relevant – and create a vacuum into which other global actors such as the G-20 would step. “We are contributing to further fragmentation when it comes to global health issues and also emergency issues and we pay the price of non-inclusivity and that’s a high price. Don’t talk, act. Don’t say, show. Don’t promise proof,” Auer told member states. Hours and hours talking Last June, a G-20 High Level Panel proposed the creation of a ¨Global Health Threats Board¨ including health and finance representatives of the world´s major economies, working in conjuction with the WHO and another proposed body, a Global Health Threats Council, that would be overseen by the UN Secretary General´s office. During the EB, a US State Department spokesperson said that President Joe Biden wants to support the creation of such a new financing mechanism, housed at the World Bank, to ensure a reliable source of investments for helping countries increase their own global health emergency preparedness – rather than remaining so dependent on donor aid. The US and other supporters have stressed that such initiatives should not detract from the central role of WHO´s global health support to countries and emergency response. And indeed, as if to underline the central role the WHO will continue to play, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken also announced an additional $280 million more in fuding to the agency in late December. If that funding were to be added to the $ 365 million annually Washington provided last year, it might even put the US ahead of Germany once again as the WHO´s top donor for 2022. That, despite a statement by WHO Director General Tedros, on the opening day of last week´s EB session, to the effect that Germany is now WHO´s biggest donor. Greater efficiences a challenge both inside WHO and within its governing board But money aside, the struggle for greater efficiencies remains a challenge – both inside WHO and among the member states’ own governing board. Dr Ahmed Mohammed Al Saidi, Oman’s Minister of Health corroborated Auer´s call on the board members to actively seek more efficient ways of doing things in order to achieve desired results. “We need to find a more efficient way of doing things and implementing them. We spent hours and hours talking, but let’s find a way where we can do things more efficiently. It can be by limiting the interventions and making it easier for the Executive Board members via retreats during which we have free time to talk about issues that matter to health care, not in our countries, but worldwide,” he concluded. Other EB members also complained that even certain tactical procedures, such as the bundling together of numerous reports, action plans, and updates into the same EB document, made it more difficult to wade through the various background documents. In an age in which written presentations to busy executive boards typically rely heavily on indexing, infographics, bullet points, graphics and other visual aids, EB documents continue to be drafted like the text-heavy academic theses of the mid-20th century style – which makes it almost impossible to quickly read and seize key messages, issues of debate, decision and action points. Similarly, EB member state statements remain heavy on rhetorical flourish – but lacking slides, visuals or even, in many cases, a written text, to support better understanding. The old-fashioned, and very indirect, style of the deliberations certainly also serves certain diplomatic goals – allowing countries to voice criticism in nuanced, coded language that is inscrutable for most outsiders, preserves decorum and avoids out-and-out conflict. Still, the formulas of presentation are often as obscure as the countries´ commentaries on them. Notably, some items, such as the NCD agenda, covered over a dozen different issues, from healthy foods to mental health, wrapped up into one long run-on document followed by annexes – with nary even a table of contents. As the US EB representative Loyce Pace observed at one point such bundling together of so many action plans and statements into one document, made it all the more difficult for EB members to weed through, and consider all of the important issues being raised. Global Health Security Demands National as well as Global Responses 29/01/2022 Ilona Kickbusch, David Heymann, Chikwe Ihekweazu & Swee Kheng Khor National health systems are needed in tackling global health threats. As the world enters the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic, an increasing number of important efforts are underway to strengthen global health security. However, it is vital that, while strengthening our global health architecture, we do not lose sight of the fundamental role played by national level health systems in tackling global health threats. Throughout this and previous pandemics, the strength of countries’ national health systems has been a critical success factor against pathogens. For example, even many countries with well-organised, well-financed and well-staffed health systems suffered throughout COVID-19. Viewed through these lenses, global health security may exist only as the sum total of the performance of all national health systems of all countries, rather than as a standalone and separate entity. Since the onset of the pandemic, we have seen a plethora of new institutions and new ideas for improving global health governance. These include the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator and the COVAX Facility in April 2020, the Independent Panel on Pandemic Preparedness and Response proposal in May 2021 for a Global Health Threats Council and the World Health Assembly (WHA) agreement in December 2021 to proceed with the negotiation and drafting of a new international instrument to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. It is hoped that these new international institutions and platforms will support better pandemic governance and financing at the global level. However, although a strong global focus is essential for ensuring equitable distribution of those goods that are necessary for fighting COVID-19 and future pandemics, national efforts must be equally prioritised. In other words, global leaders must resist two great temptations: the desire to build new institutions instead of strengthening existing ones such as the WHO and the International Health Regulations, and the tendency to ‘securitize’ health at the global level instead of implementing strong public health measures at the national level. Three functions to achieve resilient health systems One interlocking function needed is resilient healthcare systems. Global health security demands strong and resilient health systems that can prevent, detect and respond to infectious disease threats, wherever they occur in the world. Therefore, we propose a new understanding that approaches this goal through the lens of three interlocking functions at the national level. The first key function is building resilient national healthcare systems. It is critical that they have built-in surge capacity (including for primary healthcare) to manage patients who have been infected and require care, while at the same time continuing and sustaining routine health services for those who have not been affected. In addition to deaths from infection during the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been an excess of deaths of non-infected persons over what would be expected, likely due to the fact that they were not able to access routine health care, especially that which required frequent attention. The same occurred in West Africa during outbreaks of Ebola in 2014 – health facilities could not accommodate most of the patients with Ebola infection resulting in a high level of death from Ebola virus diseases, and also, the number of deaths from children who could not get care for malaria and other childhood diseases because of the lack of resilience in the health system was documented as being higher than the number of deaths from Ebola virus disease. The second key function is developing strong core public health capacities that meet the WHO’s International Health Regulations. Countries with early detection surveillance systems that identified outbreaks rapidly at the start of the pandemic, and those that had strong response mechanisms including outbreak responses – especially Singapore, Japan, and South Korea – showed the importance of strong public health core capacities to manage pandemics. And rather than using blunt lockdowns of the entire economies, they were able to save lives by outbreak investigation, identification of sources of infection and then shutting them down with precision, rather than blunt lockdowns. Thirdly, countries need to invest in broader supportive environments that enable the health and wellbeing of their populations. Infection with SAR CoV2, as with many other viral and bacterial infections, resulted in more serious illness and death among the elderly and those with comorbidities such as diabetes, cardiac disease and obesity. By using smart regulations and other healthy-lifestyle-enabling measures, governments can ensure populations are healthier and more resistant to serious illness after infection, decreasing morbidity and mortality in an outbreak and/or pandemic. Healthy populations also require adequate health financing, strong health literacy and health-seeking behaviours, and improving the social determinants of health, like education, housing and working conditions. Synergistic approach as opposed to mutually exclusive strategies This synergistic approach to universal health coverage, health security, and health promotion is necessary to prepare for future pandemics. Currently, many countries seem to assume that public health, universal health coverage and creating the enabling environment for healthy populations are mutually exclusive strategies. This can be due to limited resources and/or donor funding pushing governments towards “false choices”. Such false distinctions are further enhanced by the “global nature” of global health security with accountability towards the international community, contrasted with the domestic nature of universal health coverage and health promotion, with accountability towards local voters, taxpayers and citizens. A strategy focused on the three interlocking functions provides countries with a middle way – an integrated approach that equally prioritises national and global health security. Each of the functions has a strong conceptual framework and large body of evidence to support its positive impact on global health security. Each is closely aligned with well-established and highly-visible health frameworks. It will take political and health leaders with courage, vision and ambition to rethink some of the many vertical (albeit well-meaning) global implementation and funding streams to ensure that they serve to strengthen these three functions and not bypass or weaken them. They will need understanding and support from the global health community. If implemented correctly, the three interlocking functions would be mutually synergistic, with progress in one function accelerating or enhancing progress in another. Taken together, they represent a more balanced approach to global health security and reduce the risk of over-globalizing, over-engineering or over-securitizing health. By better linking these three functions within WHO, and within its guidelines for epidemic and pandemic preparedness, WHO technical support to countries could provide better preparedness and response capacity for the next major outbreak or pandemic. Biographies Swee Kheng Khor Ilona Kickbusch David Heymann Dr Chikwe Ihekweazu Professor David Heymann is professor of infectious disease epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Professor Ilona Kickbusch is the Founder of the Global Health Centre at the Graduate Institute in Geneva. Chikwe Ihekweazu is the WHO assistant Director General of health emergency intelligence, the former Director General of the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) and was previously the Acting Director of the West Africa Regional Centre for Disease Control. Doctor Swee Kheng Khor is a physician specializing in health systems & policies and global health, focusing on south-east Asia. Image Credits: Nigeria Centre for Disease Control , Flickr: Maxim Malov/CDC. WHO Needs to Reform Accountability Systems to Prevent Sexual Exploitation and Abuse 28/01/2022 Elaine Ruth Fletcher & Raisa Santos 17 January 2019 – Beni, North Kivu region, Democratic Republic of Congo.Families go the Ebola Treatment Center to visit a family member who is held in quarantine in the centre. WHO needs to reform lines of authority and responsibility across all aspects of its emergencies response operations in order to effectively prevent, report, and take measures against sexual exploitation and harrassment. Those were the highlights of a final report by an Independent Oversight Advisory Committee (IOAC) of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme, examining the claims of sexual exploitation and harrassment that first emerged in connection with WHO’s 2018-2020 Ebola response in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The report, presented in a Friday afternoon session of the WHO Executive Board, marked another milestone in the follow-up to reports of sexual exploitation and abuse claims by some 75 Congolese women against 25 WHO workers deployed to the Democratic Republic of Congo’s 2018-2020 Ebola response – which was first reported by the New Humanitarian in 2020. Following the reports, WHO initiated an independent investigation, as well as initial internal reforms to improve staff training in the prevention of sexual exploitation and harrassment (PRSEH); deployment of more training staff; and new recruitment standards that also consider any exploitation and abuse issues in a candidate’s background, the IOAC report states. But there remains “ deep, lingering frustration expressed by Member States and staff about the lack of transparency, delays in responding to incidents and holding perpetrators accountable, and the defensiveness with which the Organization has dealt with SEAH in the past,” states the report, presented to the EB. Felicity Harvey, co-chair IOAC And more comprehensive cultural and structural changes need to occur across WHO to reduce the risks of abuse from ever occurring in the first place, said Felicity Harvey, co-chair of the IOAC committee, in her presentation of the report to the WHO Executive Board on Friday. “The second edition of The WHO Emergency Response framework should be further revised to provide greater clarity on the accountabilities and lines of authority across offices, regional offices and headquarters with explicit roles and responsibilities given to each player and updated procedures for all hazards emergency risk management,” she said. The IOAC report outlines five priority areas where more action is needed. Those include: Clarifying the lines of responsibility and delegation of authority across the three levels of the organization; Strengthening the accountability framework for emergency response and other field teams; Reform the organization’s PRSEH management structure, and accelerate organizational capacity to implement a “victim survivor-centered” approach to PRSEH; Financial investment in PRSEH programmes as an essential WHO function – and particularly in field operations, where WHO is currently responding to some 80 emergencies around the world; Periodic assessments of PRSEH in acute emergency response settings, including a mapping of community and local resources; identification of trusted local partners for PRSEH incident management; ensuring that field operations include a balance of experienced male and female personnel. Building a culture of equity, diversity and transparency “WHO needs to promote or advocate for institutionalized culture change to strengthen PRSEH, including greater gender and racial diversity, improved performance management, and a renewed commitment to WHO values – to build a culture of equity, diversity and transparency,” said Harvey, a former director-general of international health in the United Kingdom Department of Health. DG Proposal – separate line of investigation for sex abuse complaints WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Responding to the IOAC report, WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus noted that WHO has recently engaged an external investigator to follow up on further on the abuse allegations – and their perpetrators. “This is the first time a UN Organization has installed an independent investigation, opening up to an external investigator,” he noted. “One of the things that our member states emphasized is transparency; we are doing that, and we will continue to do more. We will continue to build on this, because more should be done,” Tedros said. Tedros also asked the EB to approve a draft decision that would create a separate line of authority to the investigator heading up the Organization’s investigations of sexual exploitation and abuse allegations – and reporting directly to the Director General. All sexual exploitation and abuse allegations would thus be treated separately from other WHO internal justice investigations, at least temporarily, according to the draft WHO proposal. The WHO DG also noted that in the last two weeks, the Organization had received three new complaints of alleged sexual harrassment and exploitation from the Central African Republic, DR Brazzavile, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) – the latter where Tedros also said that WHO was creating a model for rehabilitation and support to victims, helping them access livelihoods as well as other means of support. “We support zero tolerance and we will do everything to build a better culture,” he said. The DG’s proposal to create a separate chain of authority for sexual exploitation and harrassment cases churned up some initial resistance among some EB members – who said that it should have been discussed even before the EB convened, at a meeting of member states’ Planning and Budget Advisory Committee (PBAC). Harvey, however, said that the IOAC would “strongly endorse the decision to keep the PRSEH Investigation Unit separate from general investigations,” att least for the moment until progress has been made on the investigations still ongoing in the DR Congo and elsewhere. The EB members deferred debate on the draft WHO decision until Saturday morning. Country responses commend WHO and emphasize survivor-centered approach and ‘zero tolerance’ policy WHO Representative of France Representatives across Member States otherwise commended the WHO for its efforts towards prevention of sexual exploitation, abuse, and harrassment, with some emphasing the need to adopt a survivor-centered approach in responding to the allegations. “It is important that we create an environment conducive to effectively preventing sexual exploitation and abuse, and that means asking ourselves hard questions about responsibility,” said Tunisia, on behalf of the WHO Eastern Meditterean Region. Tunisia, and many other Member States noted that a zero tolerance policy is needed, and proposed that a common UN database be created. The database would be consulted before staff recruitment, ensuring that the necessary checks can be made. “We need to do this, making effective and efficient use of the resources we have available on gender equality.” France, on behalf of the European Union, echoed these sentiments, and also reiterated the need for “accountable culture within the organization.” “We think it is better to have people providing the information because peace is being swept under the carpet.” Concern and clarification needed on transparency and accountability Bathsheba Nell Crocker, US Ambassador to the United Nations However, some representatives continued to express their concern regarding the WHO’s work on sexual exploitation and abuse, including China and the United States. China noted the need for clarification from the WHO on the interim report and “transparency and accountability of the related work.” “We hope that WHO will further clarify on how it will communicate on concrete action taken both within and outside of the organization.” The US representative, Bathsheba Nell Crocker, acknowledged the recent progress of the WHO, but added that “broader organization reforms are needed, as well as the dedicated effort now required to translate division laid out for WHO’s work in this area into concrete results on the ground.” She also pointed out that WHO’s efforts to increase awareness, conduct training, and fill capacity are “essential but insufficient.” “[There is] absence of investment in evidence-driven survivor centered prevention, risk mitigation, and response protocols.” Crocker noted that WHO must encourage prompt reporting and delivery of survivor centered services. “Organizational change starts at the top with leadership. We call on WHO to ensure that roles and expectations are clear and to enforce whistleblower protections.” Image Credits: Flickr: World Bank / Vincent Tremeau, WHO EB 150. New Nigerian Lassa Fever Outbreak Underway – and Expanding its Range 28/01/2022 Paul Adepoju Nigeria has set up an emergency response centre to deal with outbreaks of the deadly Lassa fever in parts of the country. Following reports of an unusually large number of cases in January 2022 across some 12 states, Nigeria is stepping up its surveillance of Lassa fever, the deadly viral hemorrhagic illness transmitted by infected rodents, or through other infected people or tainted food. This year marks the fourth year in a row in which large outbreaks of the disease are being reported by Africa’s most populous state.. According to the Nigeria Center for Disease Control (NCDC), there have been a total of 759 suspected cases, 170 confirmed cases and 32 confirmed deaths in January – following the emergence of the first cluster of new LF cases in December. In a worrisome trend, January’s cases were reported from 37 local government areas (LGAs) spread across 12 states. That is about twice the number of LGAs and states where cases of Lassa fever were reported within the same period in 2021 (17 and 6 respectively). While the number of cases and states so far affected by the 2022 Lassa fever outbreak are higher, the case fatality rate of 18.8% remains lower than that of the 2021 outbreak where one out of four confirmed cases resulted in death (CFR — 25%). Notably, is also about 16 times higher than the CFR for COVID-19 in Nigeria (1.2%), Nigerian health authorities underline. Although cases have been reported from 12 states, three states (Edo, Ondo and Bauchi) are the epicenters for the outbreak, accounting for 74% of all confirmed cases. Expanding range nationally and global health threats This year mark’s the fourth in a row when large clusters of cases have been reported in Nigeria, “raising concerns about an ongoing, systematic emergence of LF nationally,” according to a recent Nature Communications review of the disease’s gradual expansion country-wide. In 2019, there were 833 confirmed cases of Lassa fever in Nigeria with 174 deaths (CFR — 20.9%). In 2020, Nigeria recorded a total of 1181 confirmed cases of Lassa fever and 244 deaths (a CFR of 20.7%) but the following year (2021), the number of confirmed cases reduced to 510 with 102 deaths among confirmed cases (CFR - 20%). In addition to the national and regional risks, Lassa Fever is a “WHO-listed priority pathogen and a major focus of international vaccine development funding3 and, although often framed as a global health threat.” Lassa fever is an acute viral illness and a viral haemorrhagic fever that is associated with high morbidity and mortality, and it thus has both economic and health security consequences. Some cases, however, can be mild and thus go undetected or be confused with other common febrile conditions, like malaria - underlining the need for surveillance and vigilance to stop its spread. First reported in Nigeria’s state of Borno in 1969 when two missionary nurses died from an unusual febrile illness, Lassa fever cases and outbreaks continue to be reported in Nigeria and the diseases is increasingly recognised to be endemic in many parts of West Africa, including Nigeria, Benin, Ghana, Mali and the Mano River region (Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea). The disease has typically been characterised as having two main endemic foci in West Africa, one centered around Sierra Leone and Liberia, and the other in Nigeria, but in recent years, Nigeria, in particular, has continued to record a trend of increasing numbers of cases - although most countries in the region have reported regular or sporadic cases, researchers report. Response measures In a statement this week, NCDC said it has activated the country’s national multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary Lassa fever Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) in response to the Lassa fever outbreak in some parts of the country. “This became necessary given the increase in the number of confirmed Lassa fever cases across the country and a joint risk assessment with partners and sister agencies,” the center said in the statement. It described the reports in weeks 1 and 2 as the highest number of confirmed cases recorded in Nigeria in the last four years for the same period. It however reassured Nigerians of its preparedness which hinged on the center’s experience in responding to Lassa fever outbreaks. “Since 2016, NCDC has worked hard to improve diagnostic capacity for the disease. Currently, seven laboratories can conduct confirmatory tests for Lassa fever in Nigeria and are coordinated by the NCDC National Reference Laboratory (NRL). This has improved active case detection for the disease,” NCDC stated. In the same vein, care for affected individuals has improved. NCDC said it is providing support to states including the provision of emergency medical and laboratory supplies as well as oral and intravenous Ribavirin for preventive and curative treatment to treatment centres across the country. “In addition, Nigeria through NCDC is participating in the largest-ever Lassa fever study that aims to provide an accurate assessment of the incidence of the disease in West Africa. This will also accelerate the development of vaccines and therapeutics for Lassa fever,” NCDC added. It has also commenced training for healthcare workers in Nigeria’s tertiary health institutions on Lassa fever case management and infection prevention control. Risk factors for exposure Contact with the rodent Mastomys natalensis is thought to be the reason for Lassa fever. According to a research report published in Nature Communications in October, 2021, the significant majority of observed LF cases—including those from recent years in Nigeria—are thought to arise directly from contact with the rodent rodent Mastomys natalensis, the main viral reservoir host and a common agricultural pest. Other cases have occured, however, via hospital-acquired infections and potentially, in other small clusters of human-to-human transmission. Risk factors for spillover of the virus, while not well understood, are thought to include factors that increase direct and indirect contact between rodents and people through poor food storage and housing quality, as well as certain crop processing practices. Correlations between human case surges and seasonal rainfall patterns “suggests that LF is a climate-sensitive disease whose incidence may be increasing with regional climatic change,” according to the Nature Communications study, led by David Redding of University College London and and Chikwe Ihekweazu, of the Nigerian Centre for Disease Control (NCDC). Image Credits: Channel Africa/Twitter, Sahara Reporters/Nigeria. Infectious Disease Funding Virtually Unchanged, Neglected Tropical Diseases Continue Trend of Stagnation 28/01/2022 Raisa Santos Neglected Tropical Diseases remain stagnant in their funding Despite the strains of COVID-19, global funding for poverty-related infectious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria, remains virtually unchanged at US $3.937 billion, with investment dropping only 4% in 2020, according to the fourteenth annual G-FINDER Report. The report, released by Australia-based Policy Cures Research group on Thursday, showed a drop of only US $172 million from 2019. This year’s funding remains the third highest ever seen by the group for neglected diseases. Funding for neglected diseases declined only 4% in 2020 But though the decline may be a marginal one, funding for neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) continued a decade of relative stagnation, with only snakebite envenoming seeing an increased investment in 2020. Resilient funding may be impacted by COVID-19 in the future Nick Chapman, CEO of Policy Cures Research The G-FINDER report is a comprehensive analysis of global investment of R&D for poverty-related neglected diseases. It is widely used by national governments, industry, civil society, and the World Health Organization to identify gaps in progress and areas where investments would be needed. Reactions to the report were cautiously optimistic regarding the sustained investment in global R&D, with concerns that COVID-19 still could shift the direction of funding. “These figures are reassuring for the neglected disease research and development community as they indicate continued commitment to advancing health innovations for some of the world’s most vulnerable populations,” said Nick Chapman, CEO of Policy Cures Research. “However, we can’t assume that resilient funding in the first year of the pandemic means that we are safe from impacts on funding in the future.” Paul Barnsley, senior analyst at Policy Cures Research, also expressed his concerns during the Thursday launch event of the report. “We’re still worried that a focus on COVID might capture some of the attention and resources of traditional funders, and that the cost of stimulus during the pandemic will lead to future reductions in overall government spending flowing through to neglected disease R&D,” he said. Funding for top three infectious diseases declines The top three infectious diseases – HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria – received the largest shares of funding, as they have every year, accounting for more than two-thirds of reported global investment. However, funding for all three of these diseases fell in 2020, taking their share of global funding to 68% to the usual annual average of 75%. In the case of HIV/AIDS, the vast majority of the decline was attributed to decreased investment from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Gates Foundation, and industry. Tuberculosis also experienced a decrease in funding from the NIH, but recond-high funding from the European Commission, a result of new funding for the European Regimen Accelerator for Tuberculosis, an initiative dedicated to new treatments for TB. Disruptions in clinical trials due to pandemic While investments in neglected disease R&D stayed near their historic highs, despite the turbulent first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the pandemic hindered product developers’ ability to conduct clinical trials in 2020. Barnsley anticipates these disruptions to have continued into 2021. In line with this trend, multinational pharmaceutical companies’ (MNC) investments in clinical development decreased for the second consecutive year in 2020. The previous G-FINDER report attributed this to normal fluctuations and the conclusion of late-stage trials in treatments. However, the report does warn that “another year of decreases in MNC funding could signal a trend.” “Although the 2020 decline is most likely due to pandemic-disrupted trials, it could indicate that half a decade of soaring MNC funding is coming to an end.” Philanthropic funding increases Philanthropies such as Wellcome Trust and Open Philanthropy have increased their infectious disease R&D Contributions from public and private sectors both dropped slightly in 2020 but funding from philanthropies saw record high levels of funding, an increase of US $28 million over the previous year. Both established and new philanthropies such as Wellcome Trust and Open Philanthropy, were the primary reason for this new increase, with Open Philanthropy nearly tripling its funding for neglected disease R&D between 2017 and 2020. Increased investment in platform technologies Funding for platform technologies continues to increase A key reason that overall funding to infectious diseases remained relatively stable, despite cuts to clinical development, was the US $33 million increase in total funding in platform technologies. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the largest funder of platform technologies, providing 40% of investment, followed by US government agencies, the US NIH and the US Department of defense. Though the increase predates the pandemic, a number of grants for platform technologies in fact cite COVID-19 as the reason for accelerated interest. “In light of that, we predict that the already hastened pace of investment in platform technologies we saw in 2019 and 2020 will continue in the neglected disease R&D space, at least in the immediate years to come,” said Chapman. Funding cannot rely on ‘coattails of the pandemic’ Though the response to COVID-19 has demonstrated the potential for new funding mechanisms, strategies, and technologies, the report does note that this is a “stark reminder that neglected diseases persist because of insufficient funding and momentum”. “The next challenge for global health stakeholders will be to ensure that neglected diseases benefit from opportunities and innovations that have emerged from the pandemic.” Barnsley pointed out how it “may be tempting to ride on the coattails of the pandemic” in order to increase investment, and instead addressed the need to craft a message of genuine self-interest in eliminating neglected diseases. “We need to be able to defend neglected disease funding during periods of austerity.” Image Credits: Policy Cures Research, Policy Cures Research. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy Loading Comments... You must be logged in to post a comment.
Executive Board Meeting Ends with Concerns about WHO’s Sustainability and Board´s Ability to Govern Efficiently 30/01/2022 Paul Adepoju & Elaine Ruth Fletcher Dr Patrick Amoth, Chair of the Executive Board, As the 150th Executive Board Meeting of the WHO closed Saturday, attention focused on the inability of the WHO governing board to reach consensus on critical issues that it had debated – including a more sustainable financing framework as well as a clear way forward on a proposed new pandemic legal accord, reforms of global pandemic response and related WHO emergency operations. Despite six days of hours-long discussions, EB agreement to increase WHO member states´ assessed contributions to 50% of the budget by 2028-29, remained elusive. Nor could EB members even agree on a way forward for changing the format for voluntary contributions – using newer, and more innovative fundraising models, such as the ¨replenishment drives¨ that have made other non-profit global health organizations like Gavi and The Global Fund even more financially robust than WHO. Decision to extend mandate of Sustainable Finance working group keeps hopes alive WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus on Saturday, the closing day of the EB´s 150th session In his closing remarks, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the WHO, noted that while a conclusion on funding for WHO, which is a crucial issue, could not be reached at the meeting, the decision to extend the mandate of the working group on sustainable financing until the World Health Assembly demonstrated optimism. “I sincerely hope that by working together, we can make substantive progress on this issue,” the DG said. In advance of this year’s World Health Assembly, Tedros said that the WHO Secretariat also will further develop proposals, in consultation with Member States, on strengthening the global health architecture for emergency preparedness, response and resilience. “In doing so, we will take into consideration the preliminary findings of the Working Group on strengthening WHO Preparedness and Response to Health Emergencies, and recommendations of recent review panels and committees,” he said. However, that Working Group, as well, failed to reach agreement on key reforms, such as bolstering WHO´s mandate to make visits early on to sites of suspected pathogen outbreaks. Long, unwieldy agenda proves frustrating Dr Clemens Martin Auer, Austria´s EB representative and vice-chair Before officially declaring the meeting closed, Dr Patrick Amoth, Chair of the Executive Board, also stressed the need for discussions on how to improve the efficiency of WHO’s Executive Board meetings, and other member state fora, in order to ensure that member states can help WHO to perform more effectively. In all, the board reviewed over 55 agenda items and sub items. That, Amoth admitted, was ambitious, given the number of days available. “This resulted in longer sessions than we anticipated,” the chair added. While he also described the sessions as ´rich and engaging´ other member states were more blunt about the fruits of hours, upon hours of rhetorical statements by member states – which obscured real debate and discussions about key decision points. EB Vice Chair, Dr Clemens Martin Auer, Austria´s Special Envoy for Health, said that the Executive Board´s inability to come to any real conclusions not only harms WHO´s ability to perform, but leaves it in a ¨critical¨ situation. “We have reached the situation where we still don’t act accordingly to what we are supposed to do. We are still not living up to what we have to do, colleagues. We have to be aware that we haven’t concluded on anything and that we are leaving this organization in a critical situation,” he said. Auer warned that failure of governance, not by the WHO Secretariat, but by member states failing to get their act together on how to implement better governance — could make the organization progressively less relevant – and create a vacuum into which other global actors such as the G-20 would step. “We are contributing to further fragmentation when it comes to global health issues and also emergency issues and we pay the price of non-inclusivity and that’s a high price. Don’t talk, act. Don’t say, show. Don’t promise proof,” Auer told member states. Hours and hours talking Last June, a G-20 High Level Panel proposed the creation of a ¨Global Health Threats Board¨ including health and finance representatives of the world´s major economies, working in conjuction with the WHO and another proposed body, a Global Health Threats Council, that would be overseen by the UN Secretary General´s office. During the EB, a US State Department spokesperson said that President Joe Biden wants to support the creation of such a new financing mechanism, housed at the World Bank, to ensure a reliable source of investments for helping countries increase their own global health emergency preparedness – rather than remaining so dependent on donor aid. The US and other supporters have stressed that such initiatives should not detract from the central role of WHO´s global health support to countries and emergency response. And indeed, as if to underline the central role the WHO will continue to play, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken also announced an additional $280 million more in fuding to the agency in late December. If that funding were to be added to the $ 365 million annually Washington provided last year, it might even put the US ahead of Germany once again as the WHO´s top donor for 2022. That, despite a statement by WHO Director General Tedros, on the opening day of last week´s EB session, to the effect that Germany is now WHO´s biggest donor. Greater efficiences a challenge both inside WHO and within its governing board But money aside, the struggle for greater efficiencies remains a challenge – both inside WHO and among the member states’ own governing board. Dr Ahmed Mohammed Al Saidi, Oman’s Minister of Health corroborated Auer´s call on the board members to actively seek more efficient ways of doing things in order to achieve desired results. “We need to find a more efficient way of doing things and implementing them. We spent hours and hours talking, but let’s find a way where we can do things more efficiently. It can be by limiting the interventions and making it easier for the Executive Board members via retreats during which we have free time to talk about issues that matter to health care, not in our countries, but worldwide,” he concluded. Other EB members also complained that even certain tactical procedures, such as the bundling together of numerous reports, action plans, and updates into the same EB document, made it more difficult to wade through the various background documents. In an age in which written presentations to busy executive boards typically rely heavily on indexing, infographics, bullet points, graphics and other visual aids, EB documents continue to be drafted like the text-heavy academic theses of the mid-20th century style – which makes it almost impossible to quickly read and seize key messages, issues of debate, decision and action points. Similarly, EB member state statements remain heavy on rhetorical flourish – but lacking slides, visuals or even, in many cases, a written text, to support better understanding. The old-fashioned, and very indirect, style of the deliberations certainly also serves certain diplomatic goals – allowing countries to voice criticism in nuanced, coded language that is inscrutable for most outsiders, preserves decorum and avoids out-and-out conflict. Still, the formulas of presentation are often as obscure as the countries´ commentaries on them. Notably, some items, such as the NCD agenda, covered over a dozen different issues, from healthy foods to mental health, wrapped up into one long run-on document followed by annexes – with nary even a table of contents. As the US EB representative Loyce Pace observed at one point such bundling together of so many action plans and statements into one document, made it all the more difficult for EB members to weed through, and consider all of the important issues being raised. Global Health Security Demands National as well as Global Responses 29/01/2022 Ilona Kickbusch, David Heymann, Chikwe Ihekweazu & Swee Kheng Khor National health systems are needed in tackling global health threats. As the world enters the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic, an increasing number of important efforts are underway to strengthen global health security. However, it is vital that, while strengthening our global health architecture, we do not lose sight of the fundamental role played by national level health systems in tackling global health threats. Throughout this and previous pandemics, the strength of countries’ national health systems has been a critical success factor against pathogens. For example, even many countries with well-organised, well-financed and well-staffed health systems suffered throughout COVID-19. Viewed through these lenses, global health security may exist only as the sum total of the performance of all national health systems of all countries, rather than as a standalone and separate entity. Since the onset of the pandemic, we have seen a plethora of new institutions and new ideas for improving global health governance. These include the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator and the COVAX Facility in April 2020, the Independent Panel on Pandemic Preparedness and Response proposal in May 2021 for a Global Health Threats Council and the World Health Assembly (WHA) agreement in December 2021 to proceed with the negotiation and drafting of a new international instrument to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. It is hoped that these new international institutions and platforms will support better pandemic governance and financing at the global level. However, although a strong global focus is essential for ensuring equitable distribution of those goods that are necessary for fighting COVID-19 and future pandemics, national efforts must be equally prioritised. In other words, global leaders must resist two great temptations: the desire to build new institutions instead of strengthening existing ones such as the WHO and the International Health Regulations, and the tendency to ‘securitize’ health at the global level instead of implementing strong public health measures at the national level. Three functions to achieve resilient health systems One interlocking function needed is resilient healthcare systems. Global health security demands strong and resilient health systems that can prevent, detect and respond to infectious disease threats, wherever they occur in the world. Therefore, we propose a new understanding that approaches this goal through the lens of three interlocking functions at the national level. The first key function is building resilient national healthcare systems. It is critical that they have built-in surge capacity (including for primary healthcare) to manage patients who have been infected and require care, while at the same time continuing and sustaining routine health services for those who have not been affected. In addition to deaths from infection during the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been an excess of deaths of non-infected persons over what would be expected, likely due to the fact that they were not able to access routine health care, especially that which required frequent attention. The same occurred in West Africa during outbreaks of Ebola in 2014 – health facilities could not accommodate most of the patients with Ebola infection resulting in a high level of death from Ebola virus diseases, and also, the number of deaths from children who could not get care for malaria and other childhood diseases because of the lack of resilience in the health system was documented as being higher than the number of deaths from Ebola virus disease. The second key function is developing strong core public health capacities that meet the WHO’s International Health Regulations. Countries with early detection surveillance systems that identified outbreaks rapidly at the start of the pandemic, and those that had strong response mechanisms including outbreak responses – especially Singapore, Japan, and South Korea – showed the importance of strong public health core capacities to manage pandemics. And rather than using blunt lockdowns of the entire economies, they were able to save lives by outbreak investigation, identification of sources of infection and then shutting them down with precision, rather than blunt lockdowns. Thirdly, countries need to invest in broader supportive environments that enable the health and wellbeing of their populations. Infection with SAR CoV2, as with many other viral and bacterial infections, resulted in more serious illness and death among the elderly and those with comorbidities such as diabetes, cardiac disease and obesity. By using smart regulations and other healthy-lifestyle-enabling measures, governments can ensure populations are healthier and more resistant to serious illness after infection, decreasing morbidity and mortality in an outbreak and/or pandemic. Healthy populations also require adequate health financing, strong health literacy and health-seeking behaviours, and improving the social determinants of health, like education, housing and working conditions. Synergistic approach as opposed to mutually exclusive strategies This synergistic approach to universal health coverage, health security, and health promotion is necessary to prepare for future pandemics. Currently, many countries seem to assume that public health, universal health coverage and creating the enabling environment for healthy populations are mutually exclusive strategies. This can be due to limited resources and/or donor funding pushing governments towards “false choices”. Such false distinctions are further enhanced by the “global nature” of global health security with accountability towards the international community, contrasted with the domestic nature of universal health coverage and health promotion, with accountability towards local voters, taxpayers and citizens. A strategy focused on the three interlocking functions provides countries with a middle way – an integrated approach that equally prioritises national and global health security. Each of the functions has a strong conceptual framework and large body of evidence to support its positive impact on global health security. Each is closely aligned with well-established and highly-visible health frameworks. It will take political and health leaders with courage, vision and ambition to rethink some of the many vertical (albeit well-meaning) global implementation and funding streams to ensure that they serve to strengthen these three functions and not bypass or weaken them. They will need understanding and support from the global health community. If implemented correctly, the three interlocking functions would be mutually synergistic, with progress in one function accelerating or enhancing progress in another. Taken together, they represent a more balanced approach to global health security and reduce the risk of over-globalizing, over-engineering or over-securitizing health. By better linking these three functions within WHO, and within its guidelines for epidemic and pandemic preparedness, WHO technical support to countries could provide better preparedness and response capacity for the next major outbreak or pandemic. Biographies Swee Kheng Khor Ilona Kickbusch David Heymann Dr Chikwe Ihekweazu Professor David Heymann is professor of infectious disease epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Professor Ilona Kickbusch is the Founder of the Global Health Centre at the Graduate Institute in Geneva. Chikwe Ihekweazu is the WHO assistant Director General of health emergency intelligence, the former Director General of the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) and was previously the Acting Director of the West Africa Regional Centre for Disease Control. Doctor Swee Kheng Khor is a physician specializing in health systems & policies and global health, focusing on south-east Asia. Image Credits: Nigeria Centre for Disease Control , Flickr: Maxim Malov/CDC. WHO Needs to Reform Accountability Systems to Prevent Sexual Exploitation and Abuse 28/01/2022 Elaine Ruth Fletcher & Raisa Santos 17 January 2019 – Beni, North Kivu region, Democratic Republic of Congo.Families go the Ebola Treatment Center to visit a family member who is held in quarantine in the centre. WHO needs to reform lines of authority and responsibility across all aspects of its emergencies response operations in order to effectively prevent, report, and take measures against sexual exploitation and harrassment. Those were the highlights of a final report by an Independent Oversight Advisory Committee (IOAC) of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme, examining the claims of sexual exploitation and harrassment that first emerged in connection with WHO’s 2018-2020 Ebola response in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The report, presented in a Friday afternoon session of the WHO Executive Board, marked another milestone in the follow-up to reports of sexual exploitation and abuse claims by some 75 Congolese women against 25 WHO workers deployed to the Democratic Republic of Congo’s 2018-2020 Ebola response – which was first reported by the New Humanitarian in 2020. Following the reports, WHO initiated an independent investigation, as well as initial internal reforms to improve staff training in the prevention of sexual exploitation and harrassment (PRSEH); deployment of more training staff; and new recruitment standards that also consider any exploitation and abuse issues in a candidate’s background, the IOAC report states. But there remains “ deep, lingering frustration expressed by Member States and staff about the lack of transparency, delays in responding to incidents and holding perpetrators accountable, and the defensiveness with which the Organization has dealt with SEAH in the past,” states the report, presented to the EB. Felicity Harvey, co-chair IOAC And more comprehensive cultural and structural changes need to occur across WHO to reduce the risks of abuse from ever occurring in the first place, said Felicity Harvey, co-chair of the IOAC committee, in her presentation of the report to the WHO Executive Board on Friday. “The second edition of The WHO Emergency Response framework should be further revised to provide greater clarity on the accountabilities and lines of authority across offices, regional offices and headquarters with explicit roles and responsibilities given to each player and updated procedures for all hazards emergency risk management,” she said. The IOAC report outlines five priority areas where more action is needed. Those include: Clarifying the lines of responsibility and delegation of authority across the three levels of the organization; Strengthening the accountability framework for emergency response and other field teams; Reform the organization’s PRSEH management structure, and accelerate organizational capacity to implement a “victim survivor-centered” approach to PRSEH; Financial investment in PRSEH programmes as an essential WHO function – and particularly in field operations, where WHO is currently responding to some 80 emergencies around the world; Periodic assessments of PRSEH in acute emergency response settings, including a mapping of community and local resources; identification of trusted local partners for PRSEH incident management; ensuring that field operations include a balance of experienced male and female personnel. Building a culture of equity, diversity and transparency “WHO needs to promote or advocate for institutionalized culture change to strengthen PRSEH, including greater gender and racial diversity, improved performance management, and a renewed commitment to WHO values – to build a culture of equity, diversity and transparency,” said Harvey, a former director-general of international health in the United Kingdom Department of Health. DG Proposal – separate line of investigation for sex abuse complaints WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Responding to the IOAC report, WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus noted that WHO has recently engaged an external investigator to follow up on further on the abuse allegations – and their perpetrators. “This is the first time a UN Organization has installed an independent investigation, opening up to an external investigator,” he noted. “One of the things that our member states emphasized is transparency; we are doing that, and we will continue to do more. We will continue to build on this, because more should be done,” Tedros said. Tedros also asked the EB to approve a draft decision that would create a separate line of authority to the investigator heading up the Organization’s investigations of sexual exploitation and abuse allegations – and reporting directly to the Director General. All sexual exploitation and abuse allegations would thus be treated separately from other WHO internal justice investigations, at least temporarily, according to the draft WHO proposal. The WHO DG also noted that in the last two weeks, the Organization had received three new complaints of alleged sexual harrassment and exploitation from the Central African Republic, DR Brazzavile, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) – the latter where Tedros also said that WHO was creating a model for rehabilitation and support to victims, helping them access livelihoods as well as other means of support. “We support zero tolerance and we will do everything to build a better culture,” he said. The DG’s proposal to create a separate chain of authority for sexual exploitation and harrassment cases churned up some initial resistance among some EB members – who said that it should have been discussed even before the EB convened, at a meeting of member states’ Planning and Budget Advisory Committee (PBAC). Harvey, however, said that the IOAC would “strongly endorse the decision to keep the PRSEH Investigation Unit separate from general investigations,” att least for the moment until progress has been made on the investigations still ongoing in the DR Congo and elsewhere. The EB members deferred debate on the draft WHO decision until Saturday morning. Country responses commend WHO and emphasize survivor-centered approach and ‘zero tolerance’ policy WHO Representative of France Representatives across Member States otherwise commended the WHO for its efforts towards prevention of sexual exploitation, abuse, and harrassment, with some emphasing the need to adopt a survivor-centered approach in responding to the allegations. “It is important that we create an environment conducive to effectively preventing sexual exploitation and abuse, and that means asking ourselves hard questions about responsibility,” said Tunisia, on behalf of the WHO Eastern Meditterean Region. Tunisia, and many other Member States noted that a zero tolerance policy is needed, and proposed that a common UN database be created. The database would be consulted before staff recruitment, ensuring that the necessary checks can be made. “We need to do this, making effective and efficient use of the resources we have available on gender equality.” France, on behalf of the European Union, echoed these sentiments, and also reiterated the need for “accountable culture within the organization.” “We think it is better to have people providing the information because peace is being swept under the carpet.” Concern and clarification needed on transparency and accountability Bathsheba Nell Crocker, US Ambassador to the United Nations However, some representatives continued to express their concern regarding the WHO’s work on sexual exploitation and abuse, including China and the United States. China noted the need for clarification from the WHO on the interim report and “transparency and accountability of the related work.” “We hope that WHO will further clarify on how it will communicate on concrete action taken both within and outside of the organization.” The US representative, Bathsheba Nell Crocker, acknowledged the recent progress of the WHO, but added that “broader organization reforms are needed, as well as the dedicated effort now required to translate division laid out for WHO’s work in this area into concrete results on the ground.” She also pointed out that WHO’s efforts to increase awareness, conduct training, and fill capacity are “essential but insufficient.” “[There is] absence of investment in evidence-driven survivor centered prevention, risk mitigation, and response protocols.” Crocker noted that WHO must encourage prompt reporting and delivery of survivor centered services. “Organizational change starts at the top with leadership. We call on WHO to ensure that roles and expectations are clear and to enforce whistleblower protections.” Image Credits: Flickr: World Bank / Vincent Tremeau, WHO EB 150. New Nigerian Lassa Fever Outbreak Underway – and Expanding its Range 28/01/2022 Paul Adepoju Nigeria has set up an emergency response centre to deal with outbreaks of the deadly Lassa fever in parts of the country. Following reports of an unusually large number of cases in January 2022 across some 12 states, Nigeria is stepping up its surveillance of Lassa fever, the deadly viral hemorrhagic illness transmitted by infected rodents, or through other infected people or tainted food. This year marks the fourth year in a row in which large outbreaks of the disease are being reported by Africa’s most populous state.. According to the Nigeria Center for Disease Control (NCDC), there have been a total of 759 suspected cases, 170 confirmed cases and 32 confirmed deaths in January – following the emergence of the first cluster of new LF cases in December. In a worrisome trend, January’s cases were reported from 37 local government areas (LGAs) spread across 12 states. That is about twice the number of LGAs and states where cases of Lassa fever were reported within the same period in 2021 (17 and 6 respectively). While the number of cases and states so far affected by the 2022 Lassa fever outbreak are higher, the case fatality rate of 18.8% remains lower than that of the 2021 outbreak where one out of four confirmed cases resulted in death (CFR — 25%). Notably, is also about 16 times higher than the CFR for COVID-19 in Nigeria (1.2%), Nigerian health authorities underline. Although cases have been reported from 12 states, three states (Edo, Ondo and Bauchi) are the epicenters for the outbreak, accounting for 74% of all confirmed cases. Expanding range nationally and global health threats This year mark’s the fourth in a row when large clusters of cases have been reported in Nigeria, “raising concerns about an ongoing, systematic emergence of LF nationally,” according to a recent Nature Communications review of the disease’s gradual expansion country-wide. In 2019, there were 833 confirmed cases of Lassa fever in Nigeria with 174 deaths (CFR — 20.9%). In 2020, Nigeria recorded a total of 1181 confirmed cases of Lassa fever and 244 deaths (a CFR of 20.7%) but the following year (2021), the number of confirmed cases reduced to 510 with 102 deaths among confirmed cases (CFR - 20%). In addition to the national and regional risks, Lassa Fever is a “WHO-listed priority pathogen and a major focus of international vaccine development funding3 and, although often framed as a global health threat.” Lassa fever is an acute viral illness and a viral haemorrhagic fever that is associated with high morbidity and mortality, and it thus has both economic and health security consequences. Some cases, however, can be mild and thus go undetected or be confused with other common febrile conditions, like malaria - underlining the need for surveillance and vigilance to stop its spread. First reported in Nigeria’s state of Borno in 1969 when two missionary nurses died from an unusual febrile illness, Lassa fever cases and outbreaks continue to be reported in Nigeria and the diseases is increasingly recognised to be endemic in many parts of West Africa, including Nigeria, Benin, Ghana, Mali and the Mano River region (Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea). The disease has typically been characterised as having two main endemic foci in West Africa, one centered around Sierra Leone and Liberia, and the other in Nigeria, but in recent years, Nigeria, in particular, has continued to record a trend of increasing numbers of cases - although most countries in the region have reported regular or sporadic cases, researchers report. Response measures In a statement this week, NCDC said it has activated the country’s national multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary Lassa fever Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) in response to the Lassa fever outbreak in some parts of the country. “This became necessary given the increase in the number of confirmed Lassa fever cases across the country and a joint risk assessment with partners and sister agencies,” the center said in the statement. It described the reports in weeks 1 and 2 as the highest number of confirmed cases recorded in Nigeria in the last four years for the same period. It however reassured Nigerians of its preparedness which hinged on the center’s experience in responding to Lassa fever outbreaks. “Since 2016, NCDC has worked hard to improve diagnostic capacity for the disease. Currently, seven laboratories can conduct confirmatory tests for Lassa fever in Nigeria and are coordinated by the NCDC National Reference Laboratory (NRL). This has improved active case detection for the disease,” NCDC stated. In the same vein, care for affected individuals has improved. NCDC said it is providing support to states including the provision of emergency medical and laboratory supplies as well as oral and intravenous Ribavirin for preventive and curative treatment to treatment centres across the country. “In addition, Nigeria through NCDC is participating in the largest-ever Lassa fever study that aims to provide an accurate assessment of the incidence of the disease in West Africa. This will also accelerate the development of vaccines and therapeutics for Lassa fever,” NCDC added. It has also commenced training for healthcare workers in Nigeria’s tertiary health institutions on Lassa fever case management and infection prevention control. Risk factors for exposure Contact with the rodent Mastomys natalensis is thought to be the reason for Lassa fever. According to a research report published in Nature Communications in October, 2021, the significant majority of observed LF cases—including those from recent years in Nigeria—are thought to arise directly from contact with the rodent rodent Mastomys natalensis, the main viral reservoir host and a common agricultural pest. Other cases have occured, however, via hospital-acquired infections and potentially, in other small clusters of human-to-human transmission. Risk factors for spillover of the virus, while not well understood, are thought to include factors that increase direct and indirect contact between rodents and people through poor food storage and housing quality, as well as certain crop processing practices. Correlations between human case surges and seasonal rainfall patterns “suggests that LF is a climate-sensitive disease whose incidence may be increasing with regional climatic change,” according to the Nature Communications study, led by David Redding of University College London and and Chikwe Ihekweazu, of the Nigerian Centre for Disease Control (NCDC). Image Credits: Channel Africa/Twitter, Sahara Reporters/Nigeria. Infectious Disease Funding Virtually Unchanged, Neglected Tropical Diseases Continue Trend of Stagnation 28/01/2022 Raisa Santos Neglected Tropical Diseases remain stagnant in their funding Despite the strains of COVID-19, global funding for poverty-related infectious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria, remains virtually unchanged at US $3.937 billion, with investment dropping only 4% in 2020, according to the fourteenth annual G-FINDER Report. The report, released by Australia-based Policy Cures Research group on Thursday, showed a drop of only US $172 million from 2019. This year’s funding remains the third highest ever seen by the group for neglected diseases. Funding for neglected diseases declined only 4% in 2020 But though the decline may be a marginal one, funding for neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) continued a decade of relative stagnation, with only snakebite envenoming seeing an increased investment in 2020. Resilient funding may be impacted by COVID-19 in the future Nick Chapman, CEO of Policy Cures Research The G-FINDER report is a comprehensive analysis of global investment of R&D for poverty-related neglected diseases. It is widely used by national governments, industry, civil society, and the World Health Organization to identify gaps in progress and areas where investments would be needed. Reactions to the report were cautiously optimistic regarding the sustained investment in global R&D, with concerns that COVID-19 still could shift the direction of funding. “These figures are reassuring for the neglected disease research and development community as they indicate continued commitment to advancing health innovations for some of the world’s most vulnerable populations,” said Nick Chapman, CEO of Policy Cures Research. “However, we can’t assume that resilient funding in the first year of the pandemic means that we are safe from impacts on funding in the future.” Paul Barnsley, senior analyst at Policy Cures Research, also expressed his concerns during the Thursday launch event of the report. “We’re still worried that a focus on COVID might capture some of the attention and resources of traditional funders, and that the cost of stimulus during the pandemic will lead to future reductions in overall government spending flowing through to neglected disease R&D,” he said. Funding for top three infectious diseases declines The top three infectious diseases – HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria – received the largest shares of funding, as they have every year, accounting for more than two-thirds of reported global investment. However, funding for all three of these diseases fell in 2020, taking their share of global funding to 68% to the usual annual average of 75%. In the case of HIV/AIDS, the vast majority of the decline was attributed to decreased investment from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Gates Foundation, and industry. Tuberculosis also experienced a decrease in funding from the NIH, but recond-high funding from the European Commission, a result of new funding for the European Regimen Accelerator for Tuberculosis, an initiative dedicated to new treatments for TB. Disruptions in clinical trials due to pandemic While investments in neglected disease R&D stayed near their historic highs, despite the turbulent first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the pandemic hindered product developers’ ability to conduct clinical trials in 2020. Barnsley anticipates these disruptions to have continued into 2021. In line with this trend, multinational pharmaceutical companies’ (MNC) investments in clinical development decreased for the second consecutive year in 2020. The previous G-FINDER report attributed this to normal fluctuations and the conclusion of late-stage trials in treatments. However, the report does warn that “another year of decreases in MNC funding could signal a trend.” “Although the 2020 decline is most likely due to pandemic-disrupted trials, it could indicate that half a decade of soaring MNC funding is coming to an end.” Philanthropic funding increases Philanthropies such as Wellcome Trust and Open Philanthropy have increased their infectious disease R&D Contributions from public and private sectors both dropped slightly in 2020 but funding from philanthropies saw record high levels of funding, an increase of US $28 million over the previous year. Both established and new philanthropies such as Wellcome Trust and Open Philanthropy, were the primary reason for this new increase, with Open Philanthropy nearly tripling its funding for neglected disease R&D between 2017 and 2020. Increased investment in platform technologies Funding for platform technologies continues to increase A key reason that overall funding to infectious diseases remained relatively stable, despite cuts to clinical development, was the US $33 million increase in total funding in platform technologies. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the largest funder of platform technologies, providing 40% of investment, followed by US government agencies, the US NIH and the US Department of defense. Though the increase predates the pandemic, a number of grants for platform technologies in fact cite COVID-19 as the reason for accelerated interest. “In light of that, we predict that the already hastened pace of investment in platform technologies we saw in 2019 and 2020 will continue in the neglected disease R&D space, at least in the immediate years to come,” said Chapman. Funding cannot rely on ‘coattails of the pandemic’ Though the response to COVID-19 has demonstrated the potential for new funding mechanisms, strategies, and technologies, the report does note that this is a “stark reminder that neglected diseases persist because of insufficient funding and momentum”. “The next challenge for global health stakeholders will be to ensure that neglected diseases benefit from opportunities and innovations that have emerged from the pandemic.” Barnsley pointed out how it “may be tempting to ride on the coattails of the pandemic” in order to increase investment, and instead addressed the need to craft a message of genuine self-interest in eliminating neglected diseases. “We need to be able to defend neglected disease funding during periods of austerity.” Image Credits: Policy Cures Research, Policy Cures Research. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy Loading Comments... You must be logged in to post a comment.
Global Health Security Demands National as well as Global Responses 29/01/2022 Ilona Kickbusch, David Heymann, Chikwe Ihekweazu & Swee Kheng Khor National health systems are needed in tackling global health threats. As the world enters the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic, an increasing number of important efforts are underway to strengthen global health security. However, it is vital that, while strengthening our global health architecture, we do not lose sight of the fundamental role played by national level health systems in tackling global health threats. Throughout this and previous pandemics, the strength of countries’ national health systems has been a critical success factor against pathogens. For example, even many countries with well-organised, well-financed and well-staffed health systems suffered throughout COVID-19. Viewed through these lenses, global health security may exist only as the sum total of the performance of all national health systems of all countries, rather than as a standalone and separate entity. Since the onset of the pandemic, we have seen a plethora of new institutions and new ideas for improving global health governance. These include the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator and the COVAX Facility in April 2020, the Independent Panel on Pandemic Preparedness and Response proposal in May 2021 for a Global Health Threats Council and the World Health Assembly (WHA) agreement in December 2021 to proceed with the negotiation and drafting of a new international instrument to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. It is hoped that these new international institutions and platforms will support better pandemic governance and financing at the global level. However, although a strong global focus is essential for ensuring equitable distribution of those goods that are necessary for fighting COVID-19 and future pandemics, national efforts must be equally prioritised. In other words, global leaders must resist two great temptations: the desire to build new institutions instead of strengthening existing ones such as the WHO and the International Health Regulations, and the tendency to ‘securitize’ health at the global level instead of implementing strong public health measures at the national level. Three functions to achieve resilient health systems One interlocking function needed is resilient healthcare systems. Global health security demands strong and resilient health systems that can prevent, detect and respond to infectious disease threats, wherever they occur in the world. Therefore, we propose a new understanding that approaches this goal through the lens of three interlocking functions at the national level. The first key function is building resilient national healthcare systems. It is critical that they have built-in surge capacity (including for primary healthcare) to manage patients who have been infected and require care, while at the same time continuing and sustaining routine health services for those who have not been affected. In addition to deaths from infection during the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been an excess of deaths of non-infected persons over what would be expected, likely due to the fact that they were not able to access routine health care, especially that which required frequent attention. The same occurred in West Africa during outbreaks of Ebola in 2014 – health facilities could not accommodate most of the patients with Ebola infection resulting in a high level of death from Ebola virus diseases, and also, the number of deaths from children who could not get care for malaria and other childhood diseases because of the lack of resilience in the health system was documented as being higher than the number of deaths from Ebola virus disease. The second key function is developing strong core public health capacities that meet the WHO’s International Health Regulations. Countries with early detection surveillance systems that identified outbreaks rapidly at the start of the pandemic, and those that had strong response mechanisms including outbreak responses – especially Singapore, Japan, and South Korea – showed the importance of strong public health core capacities to manage pandemics. And rather than using blunt lockdowns of the entire economies, they were able to save lives by outbreak investigation, identification of sources of infection and then shutting them down with precision, rather than blunt lockdowns. Thirdly, countries need to invest in broader supportive environments that enable the health and wellbeing of their populations. Infection with SAR CoV2, as with many other viral and bacterial infections, resulted in more serious illness and death among the elderly and those with comorbidities such as diabetes, cardiac disease and obesity. By using smart regulations and other healthy-lifestyle-enabling measures, governments can ensure populations are healthier and more resistant to serious illness after infection, decreasing morbidity and mortality in an outbreak and/or pandemic. Healthy populations also require adequate health financing, strong health literacy and health-seeking behaviours, and improving the social determinants of health, like education, housing and working conditions. Synergistic approach as opposed to mutually exclusive strategies This synergistic approach to universal health coverage, health security, and health promotion is necessary to prepare for future pandemics. Currently, many countries seem to assume that public health, universal health coverage and creating the enabling environment for healthy populations are mutually exclusive strategies. This can be due to limited resources and/or donor funding pushing governments towards “false choices”. Such false distinctions are further enhanced by the “global nature” of global health security with accountability towards the international community, contrasted with the domestic nature of universal health coverage and health promotion, with accountability towards local voters, taxpayers and citizens. A strategy focused on the three interlocking functions provides countries with a middle way – an integrated approach that equally prioritises national and global health security. Each of the functions has a strong conceptual framework and large body of evidence to support its positive impact on global health security. Each is closely aligned with well-established and highly-visible health frameworks. It will take political and health leaders with courage, vision and ambition to rethink some of the many vertical (albeit well-meaning) global implementation and funding streams to ensure that they serve to strengthen these three functions and not bypass or weaken them. They will need understanding and support from the global health community. If implemented correctly, the three interlocking functions would be mutually synergistic, with progress in one function accelerating or enhancing progress in another. Taken together, they represent a more balanced approach to global health security and reduce the risk of over-globalizing, over-engineering or over-securitizing health. By better linking these three functions within WHO, and within its guidelines for epidemic and pandemic preparedness, WHO technical support to countries could provide better preparedness and response capacity for the next major outbreak or pandemic. Biographies Swee Kheng Khor Ilona Kickbusch David Heymann Dr Chikwe Ihekweazu Professor David Heymann is professor of infectious disease epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Professor Ilona Kickbusch is the Founder of the Global Health Centre at the Graduate Institute in Geneva. Chikwe Ihekweazu is the WHO assistant Director General of health emergency intelligence, the former Director General of the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) and was previously the Acting Director of the West Africa Regional Centre for Disease Control. Doctor Swee Kheng Khor is a physician specializing in health systems & policies and global health, focusing on south-east Asia. Image Credits: Nigeria Centre for Disease Control , Flickr: Maxim Malov/CDC. WHO Needs to Reform Accountability Systems to Prevent Sexual Exploitation and Abuse 28/01/2022 Elaine Ruth Fletcher & Raisa Santos 17 January 2019 – Beni, North Kivu region, Democratic Republic of Congo.Families go the Ebola Treatment Center to visit a family member who is held in quarantine in the centre. WHO needs to reform lines of authority and responsibility across all aspects of its emergencies response operations in order to effectively prevent, report, and take measures against sexual exploitation and harrassment. Those were the highlights of a final report by an Independent Oversight Advisory Committee (IOAC) of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme, examining the claims of sexual exploitation and harrassment that first emerged in connection with WHO’s 2018-2020 Ebola response in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The report, presented in a Friday afternoon session of the WHO Executive Board, marked another milestone in the follow-up to reports of sexual exploitation and abuse claims by some 75 Congolese women against 25 WHO workers deployed to the Democratic Republic of Congo’s 2018-2020 Ebola response – which was first reported by the New Humanitarian in 2020. Following the reports, WHO initiated an independent investigation, as well as initial internal reforms to improve staff training in the prevention of sexual exploitation and harrassment (PRSEH); deployment of more training staff; and new recruitment standards that also consider any exploitation and abuse issues in a candidate’s background, the IOAC report states. But there remains “ deep, lingering frustration expressed by Member States and staff about the lack of transparency, delays in responding to incidents and holding perpetrators accountable, and the defensiveness with which the Organization has dealt with SEAH in the past,” states the report, presented to the EB. Felicity Harvey, co-chair IOAC And more comprehensive cultural and structural changes need to occur across WHO to reduce the risks of abuse from ever occurring in the first place, said Felicity Harvey, co-chair of the IOAC committee, in her presentation of the report to the WHO Executive Board on Friday. “The second edition of The WHO Emergency Response framework should be further revised to provide greater clarity on the accountabilities and lines of authority across offices, regional offices and headquarters with explicit roles and responsibilities given to each player and updated procedures for all hazards emergency risk management,” she said. The IOAC report outlines five priority areas where more action is needed. Those include: Clarifying the lines of responsibility and delegation of authority across the three levels of the organization; Strengthening the accountability framework for emergency response and other field teams; Reform the organization’s PRSEH management structure, and accelerate organizational capacity to implement a “victim survivor-centered” approach to PRSEH; Financial investment in PRSEH programmes as an essential WHO function – and particularly in field operations, where WHO is currently responding to some 80 emergencies around the world; Periodic assessments of PRSEH in acute emergency response settings, including a mapping of community and local resources; identification of trusted local partners for PRSEH incident management; ensuring that field operations include a balance of experienced male and female personnel. Building a culture of equity, diversity and transparency “WHO needs to promote or advocate for institutionalized culture change to strengthen PRSEH, including greater gender and racial diversity, improved performance management, and a renewed commitment to WHO values – to build a culture of equity, diversity and transparency,” said Harvey, a former director-general of international health in the United Kingdom Department of Health. DG Proposal – separate line of investigation for sex abuse complaints WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Responding to the IOAC report, WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus noted that WHO has recently engaged an external investigator to follow up on further on the abuse allegations – and their perpetrators. “This is the first time a UN Organization has installed an independent investigation, opening up to an external investigator,” he noted. “One of the things that our member states emphasized is transparency; we are doing that, and we will continue to do more. We will continue to build on this, because more should be done,” Tedros said. Tedros also asked the EB to approve a draft decision that would create a separate line of authority to the investigator heading up the Organization’s investigations of sexual exploitation and abuse allegations – and reporting directly to the Director General. All sexual exploitation and abuse allegations would thus be treated separately from other WHO internal justice investigations, at least temporarily, according to the draft WHO proposal. The WHO DG also noted that in the last two weeks, the Organization had received three new complaints of alleged sexual harrassment and exploitation from the Central African Republic, DR Brazzavile, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) – the latter where Tedros also said that WHO was creating a model for rehabilitation and support to victims, helping them access livelihoods as well as other means of support. “We support zero tolerance and we will do everything to build a better culture,” he said. The DG’s proposal to create a separate chain of authority for sexual exploitation and harrassment cases churned up some initial resistance among some EB members – who said that it should have been discussed even before the EB convened, at a meeting of member states’ Planning and Budget Advisory Committee (PBAC). Harvey, however, said that the IOAC would “strongly endorse the decision to keep the PRSEH Investigation Unit separate from general investigations,” att least for the moment until progress has been made on the investigations still ongoing in the DR Congo and elsewhere. The EB members deferred debate on the draft WHO decision until Saturday morning. Country responses commend WHO and emphasize survivor-centered approach and ‘zero tolerance’ policy WHO Representative of France Representatives across Member States otherwise commended the WHO for its efforts towards prevention of sexual exploitation, abuse, and harrassment, with some emphasing the need to adopt a survivor-centered approach in responding to the allegations. “It is important that we create an environment conducive to effectively preventing sexual exploitation and abuse, and that means asking ourselves hard questions about responsibility,” said Tunisia, on behalf of the WHO Eastern Meditterean Region. Tunisia, and many other Member States noted that a zero tolerance policy is needed, and proposed that a common UN database be created. The database would be consulted before staff recruitment, ensuring that the necessary checks can be made. “We need to do this, making effective and efficient use of the resources we have available on gender equality.” France, on behalf of the European Union, echoed these sentiments, and also reiterated the need for “accountable culture within the organization.” “We think it is better to have people providing the information because peace is being swept under the carpet.” Concern and clarification needed on transparency and accountability Bathsheba Nell Crocker, US Ambassador to the United Nations However, some representatives continued to express their concern regarding the WHO’s work on sexual exploitation and abuse, including China and the United States. China noted the need for clarification from the WHO on the interim report and “transparency and accountability of the related work.” “We hope that WHO will further clarify on how it will communicate on concrete action taken both within and outside of the organization.” The US representative, Bathsheba Nell Crocker, acknowledged the recent progress of the WHO, but added that “broader organization reforms are needed, as well as the dedicated effort now required to translate division laid out for WHO’s work in this area into concrete results on the ground.” She also pointed out that WHO’s efforts to increase awareness, conduct training, and fill capacity are “essential but insufficient.” “[There is] absence of investment in evidence-driven survivor centered prevention, risk mitigation, and response protocols.” Crocker noted that WHO must encourage prompt reporting and delivery of survivor centered services. “Organizational change starts at the top with leadership. We call on WHO to ensure that roles and expectations are clear and to enforce whistleblower protections.” Image Credits: Flickr: World Bank / Vincent Tremeau, WHO EB 150. New Nigerian Lassa Fever Outbreak Underway – and Expanding its Range 28/01/2022 Paul Adepoju Nigeria has set up an emergency response centre to deal with outbreaks of the deadly Lassa fever in parts of the country. Following reports of an unusually large number of cases in January 2022 across some 12 states, Nigeria is stepping up its surveillance of Lassa fever, the deadly viral hemorrhagic illness transmitted by infected rodents, or through other infected people or tainted food. This year marks the fourth year in a row in which large outbreaks of the disease are being reported by Africa’s most populous state.. According to the Nigeria Center for Disease Control (NCDC), there have been a total of 759 suspected cases, 170 confirmed cases and 32 confirmed deaths in January – following the emergence of the first cluster of new LF cases in December. In a worrisome trend, January’s cases were reported from 37 local government areas (LGAs) spread across 12 states. That is about twice the number of LGAs and states where cases of Lassa fever were reported within the same period in 2021 (17 and 6 respectively). While the number of cases and states so far affected by the 2022 Lassa fever outbreak are higher, the case fatality rate of 18.8% remains lower than that of the 2021 outbreak where one out of four confirmed cases resulted in death (CFR — 25%). Notably, is also about 16 times higher than the CFR for COVID-19 in Nigeria (1.2%), Nigerian health authorities underline. Although cases have been reported from 12 states, three states (Edo, Ondo and Bauchi) are the epicenters for the outbreak, accounting for 74% of all confirmed cases. Expanding range nationally and global health threats This year mark’s the fourth in a row when large clusters of cases have been reported in Nigeria, “raising concerns about an ongoing, systematic emergence of LF nationally,” according to a recent Nature Communications review of the disease’s gradual expansion country-wide. In 2019, there were 833 confirmed cases of Lassa fever in Nigeria with 174 deaths (CFR — 20.9%). In 2020, Nigeria recorded a total of 1181 confirmed cases of Lassa fever and 244 deaths (a CFR of 20.7%) but the following year (2021), the number of confirmed cases reduced to 510 with 102 deaths among confirmed cases (CFR - 20%). In addition to the national and regional risks, Lassa Fever is a “WHO-listed priority pathogen and a major focus of international vaccine development funding3 and, although often framed as a global health threat.” Lassa fever is an acute viral illness and a viral haemorrhagic fever that is associated with high morbidity and mortality, and it thus has both economic and health security consequences. Some cases, however, can be mild and thus go undetected or be confused with other common febrile conditions, like malaria - underlining the need for surveillance and vigilance to stop its spread. First reported in Nigeria’s state of Borno in 1969 when two missionary nurses died from an unusual febrile illness, Lassa fever cases and outbreaks continue to be reported in Nigeria and the diseases is increasingly recognised to be endemic in many parts of West Africa, including Nigeria, Benin, Ghana, Mali and the Mano River region (Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea). The disease has typically been characterised as having two main endemic foci in West Africa, one centered around Sierra Leone and Liberia, and the other in Nigeria, but in recent years, Nigeria, in particular, has continued to record a trend of increasing numbers of cases - although most countries in the region have reported regular or sporadic cases, researchers report. Response measures In a statement this week, NCDC said it has activated the country’s national multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary Lassa fever Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) in response to the Lassa fever outbreak in some parts of the country. “This became necessary given the increase in the number of confirmed Lassa fever cases across the country and a joint risk assessment with partners and sister agencies,” the center said in the statement. It described the reports in weeks 1 and 2 as the highest number of confirmed cases recorded in Nigeria in the last four years for the same period. It however reassured Nigerians of its preparedness which hinged on the center’s experience in responding to Lassa fever outbreaks. “Since 2016, NCDC has worked hard to improve diagnostic capacity for the disease. Currently, seven laboratories can conduct confirmatory tests for Lassa fever in Nigeria and are coordinated by the NCDC National Reference Laboratory (NRL). This has improved active case detection for the disease,” NCDC stated. In the same vein, care for affected individuals has improved. NCDC said it is providing support to states including the provision of emergency medical and laboratory supplies as well as oral and intravenous Ribavirin for preventive and curative treatment to treatment centres across the country. “In addition, Nigeria through NCDC is participating in the largest-ever Lassa fever study that aims to provide an accurate assessment of the incidence of the disease in West Africa. This will also accelerate the development of vaccines and therapeutics for Lassa fever,” NCDC added. It has also commenced training for healthcare workers in Nigeria’s tertiary health institutions on Lassa fever case management and infection prevention control. Risk factors for exposure Contact with the rodent Mastomys natalensis is thought to be the reason for Lassa fever. According to a research report published in Nature Communications in October, 2021, the significant majority of observed LF cases—including those from recent years in Nigeria—are thought to arise directly from contact with the rodent rodent Mastomys natalensis, the main viral reservoir host and a common agricultural pest. Other cases have occured, however, via hospital-acquired infections and potentially, in other small clusters of human-to-human transmission. Risk factors for spillover of the virus, while not well understood, are thought to include factors that increase direct and indirect contact between rodents and people through poor food storage and housing quality, as well as certain crop processing practices. Correlations between human case surges and seasonal rainfall patterns “suggests that LF is a climate-sensitive disease whose incidence may be increasing with regional climatic change,” according to the Nature Communications study, led by David Redding of University College London and and Chikwe Ihekweazu, of the Nigerian Centre for Disease Control (NCDC). Image Credits: Channel Africa/Twitter, Sahara Reporters/Nigeria. Infectious Disease Funding Virtually Unchanged, Neglected Tropical Diseases Continue Trend of Stagnation 28/01/2022 Raisa Santos Neglected Tropical Diseases remain stagnant in their funding Despite the strains of COVID-19, global funding for poverty-related infectious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria, remains virtually unchanged at US $3.937 billion, with investment dropping only 4% in 2020, according to the fourteenth annual G-FINDER Report. The report, released by Australia-based Policy Cures Research group on Thursday, showed a drop of only US $172 million from 2019. This year’s funding remains the third highest ever seen by the group for neglected diseases. Funding for neglected diseases declined only 4% in 2020 But though the decline may be a marginal one, funding for neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) continued a decade of relative stagnation, with only snakebite envenoming seeing an increased investment in 2020. Resilient funding may be impacted by COVID-19 in the future Nick Chapman, CEO of Policy Cures Research The G-FINDER report is a comprehensive analysis of global investment of R&D for poverty-related neglected diseases. It is widely used by national governments, industry, civil society, and the World Health Organization to identify gaps in progress and areas where investments would be needed. Reactions to the report were cautiously optimistic regarding the sustained investment in global R&D, with concerns that COVID-19 still could shift the direction of funding. “These figures are reassuring for the neglected disease research and development community as they indicate continued commitment to advancing health innovations for some of the world’s most vulnerable populations,” said Nick Chapman, CEO of Policy Cures Research. “However, we can’t assume that resilient funding in the first year of the pandemic means that we are safe from impacts on funding in the future.” Paul Barnsley, senior analyst at Policy Cures Research, also expressed his concerns during the Thursday launch event of the report. “We’re still worried that a focus on COVID might capture some of the attention and resources of traditional funders, and that the cost of stimulus during the pandemic will lead to future reductions in overall government spending flowing through to neglected disease R&D,” he said. Funding for top three infectious diseases declines The top three infectious diseases – HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria – received the largest shares of funding, as they have every year, accounting for more than two-thirds of reported global investment. However, funding for all three of these diseases fell in 2020, taking their share of global funding to 68% to the usual annual average of 75%. In the case of HIV/AIDS, the vast majority of the decline was attributed to decreased investment from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Gates Foundation, and industry. Tuberculosis also experienced a decrease in funding from the NIH, but recond-high funding from the European Commission, a result of new funding for the European Regimen Accelerator for Tuberculosis, an initiative dedicated to new treatments for TB. Disruptions in clinical trials due to pandemic While investments in neglected disease R&D stayed near their historic highs, despite the turbulent first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the pandemic hindered product developers’ ability to conduct clinical trials in 2020. Barnsley anticipates these disruptions to have continued into 2021. In line with this trend, multinational pharmaceutical companies’ (MNC) investments in clinical development decreased for the second consecutive year in 2020. The previous G-FINDER report attributed this to normal fluctuations and the conclusion of late-stage trials in treatments. However, the report does warn that “another year of decreases in MNC funding could signal a trend.” “Although the 2020 decline is most likely due to pandemic-disrupted trials, it could indicate that half a decade of soaring MNC funding is coming to an end.” Philanthropic funding increases Philanthropies such as Wellcome Trust and Open Philanthropy have increased their infectious disease R&D Contributions from public and private sectors both dropped slightly in 2020 but funding from philanthropies saw record high levels of funding, an increase of US $28 million over the previous year. Both established and new philanthropies such as Wellcome Trust and Open Philanthropy, were the primary reason for this new increase, with Open Philanthropy nearly tripling its funding for neglected disease R&D between 2017 and 2020. Increased investment in platform technologies Funding for platform technologies continues to increase A key reason that overall funding to infectious diseases remained relatively stable, despite cuts to clinical development, was the US $33 million increase in total funding in platform technologies. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the largest funder of platform technologies, providing 40% of investment, followed by US government agencies, the US NIH and the US Department of defense. Though the increase predates the pandemic, a number of grants for platform technologies in fact cite COVID-19 as the reason for accelerated interest. “In light of that, we predict that the already hastened pace of investment in platform technologies we saw in 2019 and 2020 will continue in the neglected disease R&D space, at least in the immediate years to come,” said Chapman. Funding cannot rely on ‘coattails of the pandemic’ Though the response to COVID-19 has demonstrated the potential for new funding mechanisms, strategies, and technologies, the report does note that this is a “stark reminder that neglected diseases persist because of insufficient funding and momentum”. “The next challenge for global health stakeholders will be to ensure that neglected diseases benefit from opportunities and innovations that have emerged from the pandemic.” Barnsley pointed out how it “may be tempting to ride on the coattails of the pandemic” in order to increase investment, and instead addressed the need to craft a message of genuine self-interest in eliminating neglected diseases. “We need to be able to defend neglected disease funding during periods of austerity.” Image Credits: Policy Cures Research, Policy Cures Research. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy Loading Comments... You must be logged in to post a comment.
WHO Needs to Reform Accountability Systems to Prevent Sexual Exploitation and Abuse 28/01/2022 Elaine Ruth Fletcher & Raisa Santos 17 January 2019 – Beni, North Kivu region, Democratic Republic of Congo.Families go the Ebola Treatment Center to visit a family member who is held in quarantine in the centre. WHO needs to reform lines of authority and responsibility across all aspects of its emergencies response operations in order to effectively prevent, report, and take measures against sexual exploitation and harrassment. Those were the highlights of a final report by an Independent Oversight Advisory Committee (IOAC) of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme, examining the claims of sexual exploitation and harrassment that first emerged in connection with WHO’s 2018-2020 Ebola response in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The report, presented in a Friday afternoon session of the WHO Executive Board, marked another milestone in the follow-up to reports of sexual exploitation and abuse claims by some 75 Congolese women against 25 WHO workers deployed to the Democratic Republic of Congo’s 2018-2020 Ebola response – which was first reported by the New Humanitarian in 2020. Following the reports, WHO initiated an independent investigation, as well as initial internal reforms to improve staff training in the prevention of sexual exploitation and harrassment (PRSEH); deployment of more training staff; and new recruitment standards that also consider any exploitation and abuse issues in a candidate’s background, the IOAC report states. But there remains “ deep, lingering frustration expressed by Member States and staff about the lack of transparency, delays in responding to incidents and holding perpetrators accountable, and the defensiveness with which the Organization has dealt with SEAH in the past,” states the report, presented to the EB. Felicity Harvey, co-chair IOAC And more comprehensive cultural and structural changes need to occur across WHO to reduce the risks of abuse from ever occurring in the first place, said Felicity Harvey, co-chair of the IOAC committee, in her presentation of the report to the WHO Executive Board on Friday. “The second edition of The WHO Emergency Response framework should be further revised to provide greater clarity on the accountabilities and lines of authority across offices, regional offices and headquarters with explicit roles and responsibilities given to each player and updated procedures for all hazards emergency risk management,” she said. The IOAC report outlines five priority areas where more action is needed. Those include: Clarifying the lines of responsibility and delegation of authority across the three levels of the organization; Strengthening the accountability framework for emergency response and other field teams; Reform the organization’s PRSEH management structure, and accelerate organizational capacity to implement a “victim survivor-centered” approach to PRSEH; Financial investment in PRSEH programmes as an essential WHO function – and particularly in field operations, where WHO is currently responding to some 80 emergencies around the world; Periodic assessments of PRSEH in acute emergency response settings, including a mapping of community and local resources; identification of trusted local partners for PRSEH incident management; ensuring that field operations include a balance of experienced male and female personnel. Building a culture of equity, diversity and transparency “WHO needs to promote or advocate for institutionalized culture change to strengthen PRSEH, including greater gender and racial diversity, improved performance management, and a renewed commitment to WHO values – to build a culture of equity, diversity and transparency,” said Harvey, a former director-general of international health in the United Kingdom Department of Health. DG Proposal – separate line of investigation for sex abuse complaints WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Responding to the IOAC report, WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus noted that WHO has recently engaged an external investigator to follow up on further on the abuse allegations – and their perpetrators. “This is the first time a UN Organization has installed an independent investigation, opening up to an external investigator,” he noted. “One of the things that our member states emphasized is transparency; we are doing that, and we will continue to do more. We will continue to build on this, because more should be done,” Tedros said. Tedros also asked the EB to approve a draft decision that would create a separate line of authority to the investigator heading up the Organization’s investigations of sexual exploitation and abuse allegations – and reporting directly to the Director General. All sexual exploitation and abuse allegations would thus be treated separately from other WHO internal justice investigations, at least temporarily, according to the draft WHO proposal. The WHO DG also noted that in the last two weeks, the Organization had received three new complaints of alleged sexual harrassment and exploitation from the Central African Republic, DR Brazzavile, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) – the latter where Tedros also said that WHO was creating a model for rehabilitation and support to victims, helping them access livelihoods as well as other means of support. “We support zero tolerance and we will do everything to build a better culture,” he said. The DG’s proposal to create a separate chain of authority for sexual exploitation and harrassment cases churned up some initial resistance among some EB members – who said that it should have been discussed even before the EB convened, at a meeting of member states’ Planning and Budget Advisory Committee (PBAC). Harvey, however, said that the IOAC would “strongly endorse the decision to keep the PRSEH Investigation Unit separate from general investigations,” att least for the moment until progress has been made on the investigations still ongoing in the DR Congo and elsewhere. The EB members deferred debate on the draft WHO decision until Saturday morning. Country responses commend WHO and emphasize survivor-centered approach and ‘zero tolerance’ policy WHO Representative of France Representatives across Member States otherwise commended the WHO for its efforts towards prevention of sexual exploitation, abuse, and harrassment, with some emphasing the need to adopt a survivor-centered approach in responding to the allegations. “It is important that we create an environment conducive to effectively preventing sexual exploitation and abuse, and that means asking ourselves hard questions about responsibility,” said Tunisia, on behalf of the WHO Eastern Meditterean Region. Tunisia, and many other Member States noted that a zero tolerance policy is needed, and proposed that a common UN database be created. The database would be consulted before staff recruitment, ensuring that the necessary checks can be made. “We need to do this, making effective and efficient use of the resources we have available on gender equality.” France, on behalf of the European Union, echoed these sentiments, and also reiterated the need for “accountable culture within the organization.” “We think it is better to have people providing the information because peace is being swept under the carpet.” Concern and clarification needed on transparency and accountability Bathsheba Nell Crocker, US Ambassador to the United Nations However, some representatives continued to express their concern regarding the WHO’s work on sexual exploitation and abuse, including China and the United States. China noted the need for clarification from the WHO on the interim report and “transparency and accountability of the related work.” “We hope that WHO will further clarify on how it will communicate on concrete action taken both within and outside of the organization.” The US representative, Bathsheba Nell Crocker, acknowledged the recent progress of the WHO, but added that “broader organization reforms are needed, as well as the dedicated effort now required to translate division laid out for WHO’s work in this area into concrete results on the ground.” She also pointed out that WHO’s efforts to increase awareness, conduct training, and fill capacity are “essential but insufficient.” “[There is] absence of investment in evidence-driven survivor centered prevention, risk mitigation, and response protocols.” Crocker noted that WHO must encourage prompt reporting and delivery of survivor centered services. “Organizational change starts at the top with leadership. We call on WHO to ensure that roles and expectations are clear and to enforce whistleblower protections.” Image Credits: Flickr: World Bank / Vincent Tremeau, WHO EB 150. New Nigerian Lassa Fever Outbreak Underway – and Expanding its Range 28/01/2022 Paul Adepoju Nigeria has set up an emergency response centre to deal with outbreaks of the deadly Lassa fever in parts of the country. Following reports of an unusually large number of cases in January 2022 across some 12 states, Nigeria is stepping up its surveillance of Lassa fever, the deadly viral hemorrhagic illness transmitted by infected rodents, or through other infected people or tainted food. This year marks the fourth year in a row in which large outbreaks of the disease are being reported by Africa’s most populous state.. According to the Nigeria Center for Disease Control (NCDC), there have been a total of 759 suspected cases, 170 confirmed cases and 32 confirmed deaths in January – following the emergence of the first cluster of new LF cases in December. In a worrisome trend, January’s cases were reported from 37 local government areas (LGAs) spread across 12 states. That is about twice the number of LGAs and states where cases of Lassa fever were reported within the same period in 2021 (17 and 6 respectively). While the number of cases and states so far affected by the 2022 Lassa fever outbreak are higher, the case fatality rate of 18.8% remains lower than that of the 2021 outbreak where one out of four confirmed cases resulted in death (CFR — 25%). Notably, is also about 16 times higher than the CFR for COVID-19 in Nigeria (1.2%), Nigerian health authorities underline. Although cases have been reported from 12 states, three states (Edo, Ondo and Bauchi) are the epicenters for the outbreak, accounting for 74% of all confirmed cases. Expanding range nationally and global health threats This year mark’s the fourth in a row when large clusters of cases have been reported in Nigeria, “raising concerns about an ongoing, systematic emergence of LF nationally,” according to a recent Nature Communications review of the disease’s gradual expansion country-wide. In 2019, there were 833 confirmed cases of Lassa fever in Nigeria with 174 deaths (CFR — 20.9%). In 2020, Nigeria recorded a total of 1181 confirmed cases of Lassa fever and 244 deaths (a CFR of 20.7%) but the following year (2021), the number of confirmed cases reduced to 510 with 102 deaths among confirmed cases (CFR - 20%). In addition to the national and regional risks, Lassa Fever is a “WHO-listed priority pathogen and a major focus of international vaccine development funding3 and, although often framed as a global health threat.” Lassa fever is an acute viral illness and a viral haemorrhagic fever that is associated with high morbidity and mortality, and it thus has both economic and health security consequences. Some cases, however, can be mild and thus go undetected or be confused with other common febrile conditions, like malaria - underlining the need for surveillance and vigilance to stop its spread. First reported in Nigeria’s state of Borno in 1969 when two missionary nurses died from an unusual febrile illness, Lassa fever cases and outbreaks continue to be reported in Nigeria and the diseases is increasingly recognised to be endemic in many parts of West Africa, including Nigeria, Benin, Ghana, Mali and the Mano River region (Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea). The disease has typically been characterised as having two main endemic foci in West Africa, one centered around Sierra Leone and Liberia, and the other in Nigeria, but in recent years, Nigeria, in particular, has continued to record a trend of increasing numbers of cases - although most countries in the region have reported regular or sporadic cases, researchers report. Response measures In a statement this week, NCDC said it has activated the country’s national multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary Lassa fever Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) in response to the Lassa fever outbreak in some parts of the country. “This became necessary given the increase in the number of confirmed Lassa fever cases across the country and a joint risk assessment with partners and sister agencies,” the center said in the statement. It described the reports in weeks 1 and 2 as the highest number of confirmed cases recorded in Nigeria in the last four years for the same period. It however reassured Nigerians of its preparedness which hinged on the center’s experience in responding to Lassa fever outbreaks. “Since 2016, NCDC has worked hard to improve diagnostic capacity for the disease. Currently, seven laboratories can conduct confirmatory tests for Lassa fever in Nigeria and are coordinated by the NCDC National Reference Laboratory (NRL). This has improved active case detection for the disease,” NCDC stated. In the same vein, care for affected individuals has improved. NCDC said it is providing support to states including the provision of emergency medical and laboratory supplies as well as oral and intravenous Ribavirin for preventive and curative treatment to treatment centres across the country. “In addition, Nigeria through NCDC is participating in the largest-ever Lassa fever study that aims to provide an accurate assessment of the incidence of the disease in West Africa. This will also accelerate the development of vaccines and therapeutics for Lassa fever,” NCDC added. It has also commenced training for healthcare workers in Nigeria’s tertiary health institutions on Lassa fever case management and infection prevention control. Risk factors for exposure Contact with the rodent Mastomys natalensis is thought to be the reason for Lassa fever. According to a research report published in Nature Communications in October, 2021, the significant majority of observed LF cases—including those from recent years in Nigeria—are thought to arise directly from contact with the rodent rodent Mastomys natalensis, the main viral reservoir host and a common agricultural pest. Other cases have occured, however, via hospital-acquired infections and potentially, in other small clusters of human-to-human transmission. Risk factors for spillover of the virus, while not well understood, are thought to include factors that increase direct and indirect contact between rodents and people through poor food storage and housing quality, as well as certain crop processing practices. Correlations between human case surges and seasonal rainfall patterns “suggests that LF is a climate-sensitive disease whose incidence may be increasing with regional climatic change,” according to the Nature Communications study, led by David Redding of University College London and and Chikwe Ihekweazu, of the Nigerian Centre for Disease Control (NCDC). Image Credits: Channel Africa/Twitter, Sahara Reporters/Nigeria. Infectious Disease Funding Virtually Unchanged, Neglected Tropical Diseases Continue Trend of Stagnation 28/01/2022 Raisa Santos Neglected Tropical Diseases remain stagnant in their funding Despite the strains of COVID-19, global funding for poverty-related infectious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria, remains virtually unchanged at US $3.937 billion, with investment dropping only 4% in 2020, according to the fourteenth annual G-FINDER Report. The report, released by Australia-based Policy Cures Research group on Thursday, showed a drop of only US $172 million from 2019. This year’s funding remains the third highest ever seen by the group for neglected diseases. Funding for neglected diseases declined only 4% in 2020 But though the decline may be a marginal one, funding for neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) continued a decade of relative stagnation, with only snakebite envenoming seeing an increased investment in 2020. Resilient funding may be impacted by COVID-19 in the future Nick Chapman, CEO of Policy Cures Research The G-FINDER report is a comprehensive analysis of global investment of R&D for poverty-related neglected diseases. It is widely used by national governments, industry, civil society, and the World Health Organization to identify gaps in progress and areas where investments would be needed. Reactions to the report were cautiously optimistic regarding the sustained investment in global R&D, with concerns that COVID-19 still could shift the direction of funding. “These figures are reassuring for the neglected disease research and development community as they indicate continued commitment to advancing health innovations for some of the world’s most vulnerable populations,” said Nick Chapman, CEO of Policy Cures Research. “However, we can’t assume that resilient funding in the first year of the pandemic means that we are safe from impacts on funding in the future.” Paul Barnsley, senior analyst at Policy Cures Research, also expressed his concerns during the Thursday launch event of the report. “We’re still worried that a focus on COVID might capture some of the attention and resources of traditional funders, and that the cost of stimulus during the pandemic will lead to future reductions in overall government spending flowing through to neglected disease R&D,” he said. Funding for top three infectious diseases declines The top three infectious diseases – HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria – received the largest shares of funding, as they have every year, accounting for more than two-thirds of reported global investment. However, funding for all three of these diseases fell in 2020, taking their share of global funding to 68% to the usual annual average of 75%. In the case of HIV/AIDS, the vast majority of the decline was attributed to decreased investment from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Gates Foundation, and industry. Tuberculosis also experienced a decrease in funding from the NIH, but recond-high funding from the European Commission, a result of new funding for the European Regimen Accelerator for Tuberculosis, an initiative dedicated to new treatments for TB. Disruptions in clinical trials due to pandemic While investments in neglected disease R&D stayed near their historic highs, despite the turbulent first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the pandemic hindered product developers’ ability to conduct clinical trials in 2020. Barnsley anticipates these disruptions to have continued into 2021. In line with this trend, multinational pharmaceutical companies’ (MNC) investments in clinical development decreased for the second consecutive year in 2020. The previous G-FINDER report attributed this to normal fluctuations and the conclusion of late-stage trials in treatments. However, the report does warn that “another year of decreases in MNC funding could signal a trend.” “Although the 2020 decline is most likely due to pandemic-disrupted trials, it could indicate that half a decade of soaring MNC funding is coming to an end.” Philanthropic funding increases Philanthropies such as Wellcome Trust and Open Philanthropy have increased their infectious disease R&D Contributions from public and private sectors both dropped slightly in 2020 but funding from philanthropies saw record high levels of funding, an increase of US $28 million over the previous year. Both established and new philanthropies such as Wellcome Trust and Open Philanthropy, were the primary reason for this new increase, with Open Philanthropy nearly tripling its funding for neglected disease R&D between 2017 and 2020. Increased investment in platform technologies Funding for platform technologies continues to increase A key reason that overall funding to infectious diseases remained relatively stable, despite cuts to clinical development, was the US $33 million increase in total funding in platform technologies. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the largest funder of platform technologies, providing 40% of investment, followed by US government agencies, the US NIH and the US Department of defense. Though the increase predates the pandemic, a number of grants for platform technologies in fact cite COVID-19 as the reason for accelerated interest. “In light of that, we predict that the already hastened pace of investment in platform technologies we saw in 2019 and 2020 will continue in the neglected disease R&D space, at least in the immediate years to come,” said Chapman. Funding cannot rely on ‘coattails of the pandemic’ Though the response to COVID-19 has demonstrated the potential for new funding mechanisms, strategies, and technologies, the report does note that this is a “stark reminder that neglected diseases persist because of insufficient funding and momentum”. “The next challenge for global health stakeholders will be to ensure that neglected diseases benefit from opportunities and innovations that have emerged from the pandemic.” Barnsley pointed out how it “may be tempting to ride on the coattails of the pandemic” in order to increase investment, and instead addressed the need to craft a message of genuine self-interest in eliminating neglected diseases. “We need to be able to defend neglected disease funding during periods of austerity.” Image Credits: Policy Cures Research, Policy Cures Research. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy Loading Comments... You must be logged in to post a comment.
New Nigerian Lassa Fever Outbreak Underway – and Expanding its Range 28/01/2022 Paul Adepoju Nigeria has set up an emergency response centre to deal with outbreaks of the deadly Lassa fever in parts of the country. Following reports of an unusually large number of cases in January 2022 across some 12 states, Nigeria is stepping up its surveillance of Lassa fever, the deadly viral hemorrhagic illness transmitted by infected rodents, or through other infected people or tainted food. This year marks the fourth year in a row in which large outbreaks of the disease are being reported by Africa’s most populous state.. According to the Nigeria Center for Disease Control (NCDC), there have been a total of 759 suspected cases, 170 confirmed cases and 32 confirmed deaths in January – following the emergence of the first cluster of new LF cases in December. In a worrisome trend, January’s cases were reported from 37 local government areas (LGAs) spread across 12 states. That is about twice the number of LGAs and states where cases of Lassa fever were reported within the same period in 2021 (17 and 6 respectively). While the number of cases and states so far affected by the 2022 Lassa fever outbreak are higher, the case fatality rate of 18.8% remains lower than that of the 2021 outbreak where one out of four confirmed cases resulted in death (CFR — 25%). Notably, is also about 16 times higher than the CFR for COVID-19 in Nigeria (1.2%), Nigerian health authorities underline. Although cases have been reported from 12 states, three states (Edo, Ondo and Bauchi) are the epicenters for the outbreak, accounting for 74% of all confirmed cases. Expanding range nationally and global health threats This year mark’s the fourth in a row when large clusters of cases have been reported in Nigeria, “raising concerns about an ongoing, systematic emergence of LF nationally,” according to a recent Nature Communications review of the disease’s gradual expansion country-wide. In 2019, there were 833 confirmed cases of Lassa fever in Nigeria with 174 deaths (CFR — 20.9%). In 2020, Nigeria recorded a total of 1181 confirmed cases of Lassa fever and 244 deaths (a CFR of 20.7%) but the following year (2021), the number of confirmed cases reduced to 510 with 102 deaths among confirmed cases (CFR - 20%). In addition to the national and regional risks, Lassa Fever is a “WHO-listed priority pathogen and a major focus of international vaccine development funding3 and, although often framed as a global health threat.” Lassa fever is an acute viral illness and a viral haemorrhagic fever that is associated with high morbidity and mortality, and it thus has both economic and health security consequences. Some cases, however, can be mild and thus go undetected or be confused with other common febrile conditions, like malaria - underlining the need for surveillance and vigilance to stop its spread. First reported in Nigeria’s state of Borno in 1969 when two missionary nurses died from an unusual febrile illness, Lassa fever cases and outbreaks continue to be reported in Nigeria and the diseases is increasingly recognised to be endemic in many parts of West Africa, including Nigeria, Benin, Ghana, Mali and the Mano River region (Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea). The disease has typically been characterised as having two main endemic foci in West Africa, one centered around Sierra Leone and Liberia, and the other in Nigeria, but in recent years, Nigeria, in particular, has continued to record a trend of increasing numbers of cases - although most countries in the region have reported regular or sporadic cases, researchers report. Response measures In a statement this week, NCDC said it has activated the country’s national multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary Lassa fever Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) in response to the Lassa fever outbreak in some parts of the country. “This became necessary given the increase in the number of confirmed Lassa fever cases across the country and a joint risk assessment with partners and sister agencies,” the center said in the statement. It described the reports in weeks 1 and 2 as the highest number of confirmed cases recorded in Nigeria in the last four years for the same period. It however reassured Nigerians of its preparedness which hinged on the center’s experience in responding to Lassa fever outbreaks. “Since 2016, NCDC has worked hard to improve diagnostic capacity for the disease. Currently, seven laboratories can conduct confirmatory tests for Lassa fever in Nigeria and are coordinated by the NCDC National Reference Laboratory (NRL). This has improved active case detection for the disease,” NCDC stated. In the same vein, care for affected individuals has improved. NCDC said it is providing support to states including the provision of emergency medical and laboratory supplies as well as oral and intravenous Ribavirin for preventive and curative treatment to treatment centres across the country. “In addition, Nigeria through NCDC is participating in the largest-ever Lassa fever study that aims to provide an accurate assessment of the incidence of the disease in West Africa. This will also accelerate the development of vaccines and therapeutics for Lassa fever,” NCDC added. It has also commenced training for healthcare workers in Nigeria’s tertiary health institutions on Lassa fever case management and infection prevention control. Risk factors for exposure Contact with the rodent Mastomys natalensis is thought to be the reason for Lassa fever. According to a research report published in Nature Communications in October, 2021, the significant majority of observed LF cases—including those from recent years in Nigeria—are thought to arise directly from contact with the rodent rodent Mastomys natalensis, the main viral reservoir host and a common agricultural pest. Other cases have occured, however, via hospital-acquired infections and potentially, in other small clusters of human-to-human transmission. Risk factors for spillover of the virus, while not well understood, are thought to include factors that increase direct and indirect contact between rodents and people through poor food storage and housing quality, as well as certain crop processing practices. Correlations between human case surges and seasonal rainfall patterns “suggests that LF is a climate-sensitive disease whose incidence may be increasing with regional climatic change,” according to the Nature Communications study, led by David Redding of University College London and and Chikwe Ihekweazu, of the Nigerian Centre for Disease Control (NCDC). Image Credits: Channel Africa/Twitter, Sahara Reporters/Nigeria. Infectious Disease Funding Virtually Unchanged, Neglected Tropical Diseases Continue Trend of Stagnation 28/01/2022 Raisa Santos Neglected Tropical Diseases remain stagnant in their funding Despite the strains of COVID-19, global funding for poverty-related infectious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria, remains virtually unchanged at US $3.937 billion, with investment dropping only 4% in 2020, according to the fourteenth annual G-FINDER Report. The report, released by Australia-based Policy Cures Research group on Thursday, showed a drop of only US $172 million from 2019. This year’s funding remains the third highest ever seen by the group for neglected diseases. Funding for neglected diseases declined only 4% in 2020 But though the decline may be a marginal one, funding for neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) continued a decade of relative stagnation, with only snakebite envenoming seeing an increased investment in 2020. Resilient funding may be impacted by COVID-19 in the future Nick Chapman, CEO of Policy Cures Research The G-FINDER report is a comprehensive analysis of global investment of R&D for poverty-related neglected diseases. It is widely used by national governments, industry, civil society, and the World Health Organization to identify gaps in progress and areas where investments would be needed. Reactions to the report were cautiously optimistic regarding the sustained investment in global R&D, with concerns that COVID-19 still could shift the direction of funding. “These figures are reassuring for the neglected disease research and development community as they indicate continued commitment to advancing health innovations for some of the world’s most vulnerable populations,” said Nick Chapman, CEO of Policy Cures Research. “However, we can’t assume that resilient funding in the first year of the pandemic means that we are safe from impacts on funding in the future.” Paul Barnsley, senior analyst at Policy Cures Research, also expressed his concerns during the Thursday launch event of the report. “We’re still worried that a focus on COVID might capture some of the attention and resources of traditional funders, and that the cost of stimulus during the pandemic will lead to future reductions in overall government spending flowing through to neglected disease R&D,” he said. Funding for top three infectious diseases declines The top three infectious diseases – HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria – received the largest shares of funding, as they have every year, accounting for more than two-thirds of reported global investment. However, funding for all three of these diseases fell in 2020, taking their share of global funding to 68% to the usual annual average of 75%. In the case of HIV/AIDS, the vast majority of the decline was attributed to decreased investment from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Gates Foundation, and industry. Tuberculosis also experienced a decrease in funding from the NIH, but recond-high funding from the European Commission, a result of new funding for the European Regimen Accelerator for Tuberculosis, an initiative dedicated to new treatments for TB. Disruptions in clinical trials due to pandemic While investments in neglected disease R&D stayed near their historic highs, despite the turbulent first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the pandemic hindered product developers’ ability to conduct clinical trials in 2020. Barnsley anticipates these disruptions to have continued into 2021. In line with this trend, multinational pharmaceutical companies’ (MNC) investments in clinical development decreased for the second consecutive year in 2020. The previous G-FINDER report attributed this to normal fluctuations and the conclusion of late-stage trials in treatments. However, the report does warn that “another year of decreases in MNC funding could signal a trend.” “Although the 2020 decline is most likely due to pandemic-disrupted trials, it could indicate that half a decade of soaring MNC funding is coming to an end.” Philanthropic funding increases Philanthropies such as Wellcome Trust and Open Philanthropy have increased their infectious disease R&D Contributions from public and private sectors both dropped slightly in 2020 but funding from philanthropies saw record high levels of funding, an increase of US $28 million over the previous year. Both established and new philanthropies such as Wellcome Trust and Open Philanthropy, were the primary reason for this new increase, with Open Philanthropy nearly tripling its funding for neglected disease R&D between 2017 and 2020. Increased investment in platform technologies Funding for platform technologies continues to increase A key reason that overall funding to infectious diseases remained relatively stable, despite cuts to clinical development, was the US $33 million increase in total funding in platform technologies. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the largest funder of platform technologies, providing 40% of investment, followed by US government agencies, the US NIH and the US Department of defense. Though the increase predates the pandemic, a number of grants for platform technologies in fact cite COVID-19 as the reason for accelerated interest. “In light of that, we predict that the already hastened pace of investment in platform technologies we saw in 2019 and 2020 will continue in the neglected disease R&D space, at least in the immediate years to come,” said Chapman. Funding cannot rely on ‘coattails of the pandemic’ Though the response to COVID-19 has demonstrated the potential for new funding mechanisms, strategies, and technologies, the report does note that this is a “stark reminder that neglected diseases persist because of insufficient funding and momentum”. “The next challenge for global health stakeholders will be to ensure that neglected diseases benefit from opportunities and innovations that have emerged from the pandemic.” Barnsley pointed out how it “may be tempting to ride on the coattails of the pandemic” in order to increase investment, and instead addressed the need to craft a message of genuine self-interest in eliminating neglected diseases. “We need to be able to defend neglected disease funding during periods of austerity.” Image Credits: Policy Cures Research, Policy Cures Research. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy
Infectious Disease Funding Virtually Unchanged, Neglected Tropical Diseases Continue Trend of Stagnation 28/01/2022 Raisa Santos Neglected Tropical Diseases remain stagnant in their funding Despite the strains of COVID-19, global funding for poverty-related infectious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria, remains virtually unchanged at US $3.937 billion, with investment dropping only 4% in 2020, according to the fourteenth annual G-FINDER Report. The report, released by Australia-based Policy Cures Research group on Thursday, showed a drop of only US $172 million from 2019. This year’s funding remains the third highest ever seen by the group for neglected diseases. Funding for neglected diseases declined only 4% in 2020 But though the decline may be a marginal one, funding for neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) continued a decade of relative stagnation, with only snakebite envenoming seeing an increased investment in 2020. Resilient funding may be impacted by COVID-19 in the future Nick Chapman, CEO of Policy Cures Research The G-FINDER report is a comprehensive analysis of global investment of R&D for poverty-related neglected diseases. It is widely used by national governments, industry, civil society, and the World Health Organization to identify gaps in progress and areas where investments would be needed. Reactions to the report were cautiously optimistic regarding the sustained investment in global R&D, with concerns that COVID-19 still could shift the direction of funding. “These figures are reassuring for the neglected disease research and development community as they indicate continued commitment to advancing health innovations for some of the world’s most vulnerable populations,” said Nick Chapman, CEO of Policy Cures Research. “However, we can’t assume that resilient funding in the first year of the pandemic means that we are safe from impacts on funding in the future.” Paul Barnsley, senior analyst at Policy Cures Research, also expressed his concerns during the Thursday launch event of the report. “We’re still worried that a focus on COVID might capture some of the attention and resources of traditional funders, and that the cost of stimulus during the pandemic will lead to future reductions in overall government spending flowing through to neglected disease R&D,” he said. Funding for top three infectious diseases declines The top three infectious diseases – HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria – received the largest shares of funding, as they have every year, accounting for more than two-thirds of reported global investment. However, funding for all three of these diseases fell in 2020, taking their share of global funding to 68% to the usual annual average of 75%. In the case of HIV/AIDS, the vast majority of the decline was attributed to decreased investment from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Gates Foundation, and industry. Tuberculosis also experienced a decrease in funding from the NIH, but recond-high funding from the European Commission, a result of new funding for the European Regimen Accelerator for Tuberculosis, an initiative dedicated to new treatments for TB. Disruptions in clinical trials due to pandemic While investments in neglected disease R&D stayed near their historic highs, despite the turbulent first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the pandemic hindered product developers’ ability to conduct clinical trials in 2020. Barnsley anticipates these disruptions to have continued into 2021. In line with this trend, multinational pharmaceutical companies’ (MNC) investments in clinical development decreased for the second consecutive year in 2020. The previous G-FINDER report attributed this to normal fluctuations and the conclusion of late-stage trials in treatments. However, the report does warn that “another year of decreases in MNC funding could signal a trend.” “Although the 2020 decline is most likely due to pandemic-disrupted trials, it could indicate that half a decade of soaring MNC funding is coming to an end.” Philanthropic funding increases Philanthropies such as Wellcome Trust and Open Philanthropy have increased their infectious disease R&D Contributions from public and private sectors both dropped slightly in 2020 but funding from philanthropies saw record high levels of funding, an increase of US $28 million over the previous year. Both established and new philanthropies such as Wellcome Trust and Open Philanthropy, were the primary reason for this new increase, with Open Philanthropy nearly tripling its funding for neglected disease R&D between 2017 and 2020. Increased investment in platform technologies Funding for platform technologies continues to increase A key reason that overall funding to infectious diseases remained relatively stable, despite cuts to clinical development, was the US $33 million increase in total funding in platform technologies. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the largest funder of platform technologies, providing 40% of investment, followed by US government agencies, the US NIH and the US Department of defense. Though the increase predates the pandemic, a number of grants for platform technologies in fact cite COVID-19 as the reason for accelerated interest. “In light of that, we predict that the already hastened pace of investment in platform technologies we saw in 2019 and 2020 will continue in the neglected disease R&D space, at least in the immediate years to come,” said Chapman. Funding cannot rely on ‘coattails of the pandemic’ Though the response to COVID-19 has demonstrated the potential for new funding mechanisms, strategies, and technologies, the report does note that this is a “stark reminder that neglected diseases persist because of insufficient funding and momentum”. “The next challenge for global health stakeholders will be to ensure that neglected diseases benefit from opportunities and innovations that have emerged from the pandemic.” Barnsley pointed out how it “may be tempting to ride on the coattails of the pandemic” in order to increase investment, and instead addressed the need to craft a message of genuine self-interest in eliminating neglected diseases. “We need to be able to defend neglected disease funding during periods of austerity.” Image Credits: Policy Cures Research, Policy Cures Research. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts