Vials of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers are expected to produce 12 billion doses by the end of the year – almost half made by China – and there could be a vaccine surplus by mid-next year.

In addition, by the end of this month, around 500 million doses should be ready for “redistribution” from wealthy to low-and middle-income countries.

This emerged at a media briefing organised by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) on Tuesday.

“By January 2022, there will be sufficient vaccines produced for every adult on every continent,” according to IFPMA.

Modelling by Airfinity indicates that even if vaccine advisory committees and governments in G7 countries vaccinate teenagers and adults and decide to give boosters to at-risk populations, there would still be over 1.2 billion doses available for redistribution in 2021 alone. This means that each month for the foreseeable year, over 200 million doses would be, with effective planning, available for low- and lower-middle-income countries,” it added.

 

Describing the vaccine production increase as “absolutely extraordinary”, Rasmus Bech Hansen, CEO of research forecast group Airfinity, said that it had been “a surprise to pretty much everyone how fast China has scaled up vaccine production”.

Hansen added that, even when third booster shots for citizens in high-income countries were factored in, Infinity estimated that, “by the end of September, there will be around 500 million doses available in the US, UK, European Union and Canada that could be redistributed” through donations, swaps or reselling.

“In the last G7 summit, one billion doses were pledged [to LMIC] and it actually seems that these stocks will be available by the end of the year so G7 countries could meet those pledges,” he added.

IFPMA Director General Thomas Cueni told the briefing that ‘by June 2022, we expect that we will have more than 24 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines available”.

IFPMA Director General Thomas Cueni

“At this point, vaccine supplies may actually outstrip global demand,” added Cueni. “Vaccine manufacturers are now producing 1.5 billion doses per month, and are expected to continue manufacturing at that scale on the basis of the most conservative protection projections.”

Hansen noted that 73% of the production increases were the result of pharmaceutical companies enhancing their in-house capacity, supported by an array of collaboration agreements within the industry – Affinity had counted 231.

Pfizer doses mostly allocated for next year 

Pfizer CEO Dr Albert Bourla said that his company had doubled its production capacity in the past six months and was on track to produce three billion doses by the end of the year, thanks to “sleepless nights, and a lot of effort from thousands of people”.

While it was testing a version of its vaccine that had been tweaked to combat the Delta variant, Bourla said this didn’t seem necessary as the current vaccine is highly efficacious.

One of the key challenges Pfizer faced in scaling up was access to raw material to make it’s mRNA vaccine.

“We literally created new suppliers” by giving companies financial, scientific and technical support, said Bourla.

However, in response to a Health Policy Watch question, Bourla dismissed joining the mRNA technology transfer hub established recently in South Africa by the World Health Organization (WHO) to assist Africa to develop its own mRNA vaccines.

Pfizer CEO Dr Albert Bourla

“I’m not sure what is the point of transferring technology that it is going to take years to transfer. And, by the way, this is what we do. I’m not sure I understand what they want, to give it someone else to do?” asked Bourla.

Pfizer expects to make four billion doses in 2022, but Bourla but urged all countries to place their vaccine orders as soon as possible.

“We have allocated doses already for this year and frankly, we have allocated a very big part of the doses that we are going to be producing next year also to countries that they have placed orders for these doses,” said Bourla, adding that 41% of this year’s production had been allocated to LMICs.

Bourla said most orders for 2022 were from high-income countries, with boosters fueling demand. While Pfizer would like to allocate at least one billion doses to LMIC for 2022, it had  yet to receive orders for this amount.

“When it comes to the ability to pay, we implemented tiered pricing. High-income countries were receiving one tier of pricing, mainly the cost of a meal in their country. Middle-income countries received half of this price, and the low-income countries received doses at cost,” said Bourla, who is also IFPMA’s vice-president.

Johnson & Johnson has policy of technology transfer

Dr Paul Stoffels, Chief Scientific Officer for Johnson & Johnson

Dr Paul Stoffels, Chief Scientific Officer for Johnson & Johnson, said that his company had established a global vaccine manufacturing network across four continents with 11 manufacturing  sites

“We made a commitment to equitable access and committed by putting a billion doses forward for low and middle-income countries in the next 12 to 18 months,” said Stoffels, adding that over half the company’s vaccines would go to LMICs in the coming year.

“Our strategy of focusing on technology transfer brought us to partnering with Aspen Pharmacare in South Africa. Aspen is now fully in production and we anticipate that all supplies produced by Aspen from now on will go to COVAX countries and African Union. And we are also transferring our technology as we speak to BioE in India,” said Stoffels.

This follows a recent report by The New York Times that Aspen, which has a ‘fill and finish’ contract with J&J, had been exporting millions of vaccines to Europe while lagging behind in its African deliveries. The EU recently agreed to send these vaccines back to South Africa.

However, Stoffels warned that technology transfers are “highly technical by nature and highly complex”. 

“We need to work with many partners. Multiple steps are needed, including biological manufacturing, quality testing and release, regulatory inspections and controls. Most critical is the training of workforce and new technologies,” he added. 

Progress in therapeutics

Cueni reported that “a handful of authorised COVID-19 treatments are becoming standard of care for COVID-19 patients that have been hospitalised and are saving lives”. 

“Monoclonal antibody treatments are beginning to offer promise as are novel antivirals,” said Cueni.

Some of the key treatments that have been authorised for emergency use include the anti-viral, Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences), Monoclonal IL-6 blocker, Tocilizumab (Roche), Monoclonal Casirivimab and  Imdevimab (REGEN-COV Roche Regeneron) and Monoclonal Sotrovimab (GlaxoSmithKline).

“Getting the therapeutic rollout right will be important for all countries to be able to benefit from future innovation, such as the anticipated oral outpatient COVID-19 therapeutic candidates,” he added.

Roche has been involved in 10 experimental treatments for COVID-19 “focused on preventing progression to mechanical ventilation and preventing death”– but testing these was complex and difficult, said its CEO, Bill Anderson.

Roche CEO Bill Anderson

One of these, tocilizumab (Actemra), is a monoclonal antibody that reduces inflammation by blocking the interleukin-6 receptor.

“As it suppresses the immune system, we thought, ‘you don’t want to give it to patients that are newly diagnosed’. It’s really for patients who’ve progressed to a severe illness where their immune system may actually be more doing more damage than good. So we had to run multiple studies. I think we’ve run ultimately, we’ve run seven pivotal studies,” said Anderson, adding that the first pivotal study had failed to show any results.

“Many people thought, well, that’s the answer. But we had seen enough to think, hmm, you know, I don’t think that’s a complete story. And ultimately, we’ve shown that Actemra does decrease need for mechanical ventilation and death quite significantly in hospitalised patients,” he added. 

But there are only so many facilities in the world capable of producing monoclonal antibodies, said Anderson, and the treatments needed large quantities.

“We ultimately did a partnership with Regeneron, which is a company that we compete with in many other fields, but we felt like they were farthest along,” added Anderson.

“We made an exceptional decision that we would not assert patent rights if companies could make a product of a biosimilar to Actemra and deliver it to LMICs, and that, in fact, it looks to be happening,” he added.

However, Anderson added that Roche was only prepared to support technology transfer to companies with the capacity to produce large amounts of monoclonal antibodies.

“Tech transfer is very laborious, and we can’t afford to take our people that are producing Actemra and that are also doing tech transfer with the existing external contracts, unless we have somebody who can produce large quantities.”

 

Image Credits: Twitter: @WHOAFRO, US Centers for Disease Control.

air quality

Over a third of the world’s countries – 37% – have either not created or are not enforcing legally mandated ambient air quality standards (AAQS), according to a new report released by the United Nation Environment Programme (UNEP).

The report, “First Global Assessment of Air Pollution Legislation” assesses national air quality legislation in 194 states and the European Union, and found  persistent policy, capacity, and implementation gaps to prevent more effective action against air pollution.

Approximately 60% of countries, accounting for 1.3 billion people, have no annual ground-based monitoring for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5), while at least 31% of countries with the ability to introduce sub-standards for ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have not done so. 

Unregulated air pollution continues to pose the greatest environmental threat to health. There are over seven million premature deaths every year due to the combined effects of outdoor and household air pollution – with millions more people falling ill from breathing polluted air, according to the WHO. More than half of these deaths are recorded in low- and middle-income countries.

UNEP calls for multi-sectoral action, in light of the report’s launch coinciding with International Day of Clean Air for Blue Skies, that can enable cleaner air for all. 

“Investments in air quality will [not only] enhance our health, but also job creation, energy efficiency, clean transport, sustainable agriculture, and green and resilient cities,” said UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen, during a Tuesday launch event of the report. 

“We can’t clean the air overnight, and we can’t clean the air without the full engagement of every sector of society. But if we put the work in today, we can one day soon breathe easier.”

‘Lack of ambition’ in heterogeneous approach to air quality control

Eloise Scotford, one of the co-authors of the UNEP report

While the majority of countries (64%) embed AAQS in legislation, the global picture of national air quality is one of heterogeneity, with some cases of implementation masking a “lack of ambition”, said Eloise Scotford, Professor of Environmental Law at the University College London and one of the co-authors of the study.

Poor enforcement of air quality laws has led to 43% of countries lacking a legal definition of air pollution and only 51% of national air quality laws globally with explicit public health, or public and ecosystem health as their main objective.

“We found that processes for setting AAQS are often not transparent, or accountable, or accessible,” said Scotford, noting that standards could often be made more ambitious.

Although the heterogeneous approach to embedding air quality standards reflects specific air quality challenges and diverse legal cultures, in addition to acknowledging that there is no one-size fits-all approach to air quality control, this also risks masking weak ambition and legalizing unclean air.

In addition, only 33% of countries impose requirements on governments to achieve AAQS, indicating that the institutional responsibility on air pollution is quite weak and are the bare legal standards, added Scotford. 

The lack of level playing field for AAQS may keep the world at odds with the demanding requisites on global policies on climate change expressed in the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Legal standards need to be established

Figure 1 is a conceptual map explaining how legislative incorporation of AQS may sit within, and provide the foundation for a domestic “system of air quality governance”.

Regulating and controlling the different sources of air pollution remains a “coordination challenge”, according to Scotford, with the first step establishing legal standards for air quality. 

“Once you have legal standards for air quality, that’s really important. Ambition is important. But that is not enough. More needs to be done to have a full system of quality governance that is robust, to ensure the achievement of clean air.” 

The UNEP report notes that a robust system of air quality governance is one which: 

  • requires governments to develop and regularly review applicable air quality standards in light of public health objectives;
  • determines institutional responsibility for those standards;
  • monitors compliance with air quality standards;
  • defines consequences for failure to meet them;
  • supports the implementation of air quality standards with appropriate and coordinated air quality plans, regulatory measures and administrative capacity;
  • is transparent and participatory.

WHO air quality guidelines launching end of the month

Maria Neira, WHO Director of Environment, Climate Change and Health

In light of the launch of the UNEP report, WHO has announced that they will be launching their 2021 Air Quality Guidelines on 22 September.

These guidelines will serve as a global target for national, regional, and city governments to work towards reducing air pollution. 

WHO Director of Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health Maria Neira echoed UNEP’s calls for urgent and collective action in reducing air pollution.   

“It is time to stop with those fossil fuels. It is time to accelerate towards a very ambitious and quick transition to clean sources of energy. We need to do it for the economy, we need to do it for our society, but we also need to do it for our health. The more we postpone this transition, the more we will have death and disease on our shoulders.”

Image Credits: Flickr, UNEP, UNEP.

 

Climate change: A firefighter fighting a battle against a fire in South Africa

“The greatest threat to global public health is the continued failure of world leaders to keep the global temperature rise below 1·5°C, and to restore nature. Urgent, society-wide changes must be made and will lead to a fairer and healthier world,” according to an editorial published simultaneously in 200 journals world-wide.

The aim of the editorial is to help develop momentum for “urgent action to keep average global temperature increases below 1·5°C, halt the destruction of nature, and protect health” in the run-up to the UN General Assembly which starts on 14 September,  the biodiversity summit in Kunming, China, and the UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow, UK. 

“The science is unequivocal; a global increase of 1·5°C above the pre-industrial average and the continued loss of biodiversity risk catastrophic harm to health that will be impossible to reverse. Despite the world’s necessary preoccupation with COVID-19, we cannot wait for the pandemic to pass to rapidly reduce emissions,” states the editorial, published in journals that are usually in competition with one another.

The editorial warns that temperature rises of above 1·5°C ”increase the chance of reaching tipping points in natural systems that could lock the world into an acutely unstable state” and “critically impair our ability to mitigate harms and to prevent catastrophic, runaway environmental change”.

It says that targets set by many governments, financial institutions, and businesses “are not enough”. 

“They are yet to be matched with credible short-term and longer-term plans to accelerate cleaner technologies and transform societies. Emissions reduction plans do not adequately incorporate health considerations.

“Concern is growing that temperature rises above 1·5°C are beginning to be seen as inevitable, or even acceptable, to powerful members of the global community,” states the editorial.

“Relatedly, current strategies for reducing emissions to net-zero by the middle of the 21st century implausibly assume that the world will acquire great capabilities to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

“This insufficient action means that temperature increases are likely to be well in excess of 2°C, a catastrophic outcome for health and environmental stability. Crucially, the destruction of nature does not have parity of esteem with the climate element of the crisis, and every single global target to restore biodiversity loss by 2020 was missed. This is an overall environmental crisis.

“Health professionals are united with environmental scientists, businesses, and many others in rejecting that this outcome is inevitable.”

 

Image Credits: Commons Wikimedia.

Italian health minister Roberto Speranza addresses a media briefing after the meeting.

G20 health ministers have agreed to share COVID-19 vaccine doses with low and middle-income countries (LMIC) and to support their capacity to produce their own vaccines, but failed to commit to numbers or a time frame.

The two-day meeting of G20 health ministers ended on Monday with the adoption of a health declaration that reiterated the group’s support for strengthening “the resilience of [COVID-19 vaccine] supply chains, to increase and diversify global, local and regional vaccine manufacturing capacity, and building expertise for LMICs, including for the raw materials needed to produce vaccines”.

But host Italian health minister Roberto Speranza told the media at a post-meeting briefing on Monday that the G20 countries would need to “consider the text as a starting point”.

“Some countries have bilateral arrangements to send vaccine doses directly to LMICs and COVAX,” Speranza told a meeting briefing on Monday. “But it is not enough to transfer doses. We really need to make sure that all areas are capable of producing their own vaccines by sharing methodology and personnel.” 

While the declaration acknowledges that “we need to also share more doses to meet the immediate need for safe, effective and quality and affordable vaccines building upon the commitments made at the COVAX Advanced Market Commitment (AMC) Summit”, only Germany was prepared to make a numbers-based commitment. 

German Health Minister Jens Spahn announced on the sidelines of the meeting that his country would make 100 million COVID-19 vaccine doses available globally before the end of the year.

WHO appeals for more support

Addressing the meeting on Sunday, World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus appealed to the group for support on three key issues.

First, he appealed for wealthier countries to swap “near-term [COVID-19 vaccine does] delivery schedules with COVAX, fulfilling your dose-sharing pledges by the end of this month at the latest, and facilitate the sharing of technology, know-how and intellectual property to support regional vaccine manufacturing”.

He also called for support for “a legally binding international agreement on pandemic preparedness and response” – the so-called ‘pandemic treaty’ – due to be discussed at a special session of the World Health Assembly at the end of November

Finally, Dr Tedros appealed for their support to strengthen the WHO, including financially through “a historic reversal of the current imbalance between assessed and voluntary contributions”. 

The COVAX AMC Summit, co-hosted by Japan and global vaccines body Gavi, secured commitments from G20 members to ensure the global distribution of 1.8 billion vaccine doses – enough to cover nearly 30% of the population of AMC eligible economies. However, most of these undertakings have yet to materialise, with Dr Tedros stating recently that only 10% of promised doses had actually been shipped.

The meeting also welcomed the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine technology transfer hub launched by the WHO recently, and supported “voluntary technology transfers on mutually agreed terms, market shaping and increase local production capacities worldwide”.

While the meeting did not embrace a pandemic treaty – G20 members US, Brazil and Russia are believed to be opposed to such a measure – the declaration supported strengthening the WHO’s ability to address global health emergencies 

“We look forward to the findings and proposals of the Special Session of the World Health Assembly in November 2021. WHO should be adequately, sustainably and predictable funded by its Member States to fulfill its mandate and live up to their expectations towards the WHO,” notes the declaration.

It also supported more research to “better understand the links between human, animal (both domestic and wild) and environmental health” and “improving systems for the coordinated surveillance of zoonotic pathogens, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and environmental risks” inclding by establishing early warning systems for communicable diseases.

The G20 is made up of 19 countries and the European Union. The 19 countries are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the UK, and the US.

WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (speaking here in Berlin) has thrown his weight behind a new Pandemic Treaty – but the US thinks reform of existing rules, might be a better way forward.

While a “pandemic treaty” could take years to establish, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Health Regulations (IHR) could be revised more rapidly to significantly improve global disease outbreak response, top US officials are saying.  The statements coincided with a 3-day working group meeting of WHO member states to discuss ways to strengthen the global muscle behind pandemic preparedness and response. 

“Some major strides to advance global health security may take years to accomplish, for example, the creation of a new international instrument on preparedness and response, which the WHO and a number of other countries have endorsed,” US Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and US Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra wrote in JAMA.

“But it is not necessary to choose between a new instrument and a revised standing legal framework; immediate steps can make a meaningful difference. One is strengthening the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR), adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1969 and revised in 2005,” they argued.

The IHR, they add, “is the legal framework under which 196 States Parties are responsible for developing their capacities to prevent, detect, report, and respond to public health emergencies within their borders, to prevent them from spreading to other countries”. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the IHR weaknesses “that can be fixed, particularly around early warning systems, coordinating the response, and information sharing”, they added.

US Statements coincide with working group meeting on Treaty proposal

The US policy statement coincided with the second meeting of the working group on the proposed ‘pandemic treaty’ proposal, which is then due to be debated at a special session of the World Health Assembly (WHA) scheduled for 29 November to 1 December.

It prompted an immediate response from Professor Ilona Kickbusch, a member of the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, who pointed out that there is no guarantee that transforming the IHRs would be easier than adopting a pandemic treaty.

Kickbusch’s comments also reflects the divide between Europe and the United States over the pandemic proposal. Germany,  along with the European Union, has strongly supported the treaty initiative as a measure that would raise the level of awareness and debate over pandemic response – which prior to COVID had been consigned to technical units in ministries of health, lacking authority to guide major policy choices.

Since last November, the European Union has been advocating for a pandemic treaty similar to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, but has faced opposition from the US, Russia and Brazil. (The tobacco convention provides signatories with evidence-based tobacco control strategies that they are obliged to implement, albeit incrementally.)

WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has also spoken out repeatedly in support of a ‘pandemic treaty’ along the lines of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. 

“The vaccine crisis illustrates the fundamental weakness at the root of the pandemic: the lack of global solidarity and sharing – sharing of information and data, biological samples, resources, technology and tools,” Dr Tedros told a recent meeting of WHO’s African leaders.

“That’s why there is now an emerging global consensus for the idea of an international treaty or other legal instruments, to provide the basis for improved international cooperation to prepare for, detect and respond to epidemics and pandemics,” he said

WHO has lobbied heavily along with the European Union for support of the new pandemic treaty – but the United States says reform of existing IHR rules might be a better way forward.

Speaking at the WHA in June, Mike Ryan, WHO Health Emergencies Programme Executive Director, also spoke out in favour of the treaty despite the fact that WHO technical staff have historically avoided taking positions on controversial policy choices before member states. 

“My personal view is that we need a political treaty that makes the highest-level commitment to the principles of global health security — and then we can get on with building the blocks on this foundation,” Ryan told a briefing on pandemic preparedness.

Germany and allies want to make rules on pandemic response more binding

Whether a full-fledged treaty is adopted, or the IHR rules revised, another key debate has centered around how to make the rules more binding on member states. This has been sharpened over China’s reluctance to fully co-operate with the WHO-appointed group investigating the origins of the SARS-CoV2 virus – including unfettered access to data and destinations in China where the SARS-CoV2 virus, or its closest genomic relatives, may have first emerged and spread.

Germany’s Health Minister Jens Spahn has proposed on two occasions recently that sanctions should also be imposed against countries that hide information about future outbreaks.

Speaking at the launch of a WHO pandemics intelligence hub in Berlin, Spahn called on China “to finally become fully cooperative, and to make the explanation of the origin of the coronavirus transparent to the international community.”

He also added that “there must be something that follows” if countries failed to co-operate with the WHO on pandemics – noting that even transparent democracies like Germany might shirk from opening its doors to independent investigations unless they were bound to do so through a global mandate.

Meanwhile, Tedros said that a pandemic treaty should have all the incentives, or the carrots” but acknowledged that “maybe exploring the sanctions may be important”.

Civil society complains of exclusion from discussions

Meanwhile, some civil society groups are also questioning the wisdom of a new pandemic treaty – while objecting to the marginal role they have been allowed to play in the discussions of the WHO Member State Working Group. 

According to the modalities established by WHO, “Non-State actors” are unable to attend or speak at open sessions of the working group but can provide inputs via an electronic portal, an open ‘hearing’, and/or a segment of a session.

Some civil society advocates support IHR reform rather than Pandemic Treaty

Civil society debate the pandemic treaty proposal in May – hosted by the Geneva Global Health Hub (g2h2.org).

Some leading civil society advocates have also supported the US position that devoting energy to the establishment of a pandemic treaty may be a waste of time – when existing IHR rules, which are part of a binding convention can also be strengthened.

In a blog published by the Third World Network on Thursday, Nithin Ramakrishnan and KM Gopakumar charged that the WHO administration (bureau) was prejudging the outcome of the member state discussions – which are supposed to consider whether a pandemic treaty would be useful in  the first place.   The authors claimed that a WHO analytical paper and draft programme of work for the meeting  had prejudged the outcome of discussions through a series of “leading questions” to working group members:

“The Bureau’s questions focus on the merits of developing new instruments straight away. Secondly, it asks what steps Member States would need to take in order to ascribe relative priority to a new instrument. Thirdly, it goes on to ask what criteria and scope should be included or excluded from the new instrument. Finally, the Bureau nails down the need for a “new framework convention” by asking whether the Member States share the idea for another “framework”.

These four questions sequentially are prejudging the outcome of the Working Group meeting and to be suggestive of a pandemic treaty,” the authors said.

A WHO background analysis also fails to provide a logic for why a new agreement would be needed to solve the problems that have surfaced during the COVID pandemic, they added.

“WHO Secretariat’s analytical paper has attempted to set the background …..by arguing that some of the proposed recommendations of the various [pandemic review] committees require new agreement/agreements. Not a single reason is provided in the analytical paper as to why some of these recommendations require a new agreement,” the authors said.

They pointed out that nine out of the ten key recommendations made by the series of independent reviews of the COVID pandemic’s emergency response mechanisms “could be realized effectively through the International Health Regulations (IHR), either by amending or by adding annxes to IHR.

Concluded the authors:  “The only point amongst the recommendations which requires a framework convention is the recommendation which states that there must be an establishment of a new framework convention. This has precisely been the problematic approach right from the beginning.

“None of the expert bodies which called for a new framework convention reasoned out why it is needed or how it will be more effective than the present regime. The WHO secretariat and the Bureau of the Member States Working Group are the latest to join such a pursuit.”

 

Image Credits: EU Council.

European Commission head Ursula von der Leyen has agreed to return to Africa millions of Johnson & Johnson  (J&J) COVID-19 vaccines that were imported from a South African manufacturer following a meeting with South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa last week.

This was revealed by African Union envoy Strive Masiyiwa said at an Africa Centres for Disease Control (CDC) press conference on Thursday.

News that J&J had fallen behind in vaccine deliveries to African countries while the Aspen Pharmacare manufacturing facility in South Africa was busy exporting millions of the J&J/ Janssen vaccines to Europe was exposed by the New York Times in mid-August.

The report was met with outrage from civil society activists, African governments and the World Health Organization (WHO) – particularly as Aspen has been lagging behind in its J&J vaccines deliveries to African countries.

However, after Ramaphosa raised the issue with Von der Leyen at the G20 Compact with Africa event on 27 August, she agreed to reverse the imports, said Masiyiwa, who heads the African Vaccine Acquisition Trust (AVAT).

“All the vaccines produced at Aspen will stay in Africa and will be distributed to Africa,” said Masiyiwa on Thursday.

He added that J&J’s “finish and fill” contract with Aspen would be converted to a license agreement in which J&J would no longer control where the vaccines went. 

But Fatima Hassan, head of the South African Health Justice Initiative (HJI), said that the AU and South African government should not take credit for the EU’s U-turn.

“Civil Society shone a lone light with two New York Times investigative journalists. Mostly, governments were caught napping and unaware,” said Hassan, adding that she was reserving her celebrations until the J&J vaccines were actually returned to the continent.

Meanwhile, AVAT also facilitated the delivery of 12,000 J&J vaccines to the African Union Commission staff, AU embassy staff and their dependents in Addis Ababa this week.

Only a quarter of this group is vaccinated, according to AU Commission Deputy Chairperson Dr Monique Nsanzabaganwa.

“This figure is far below where we need to be, in order to be near normalcy and return to work.  It is therefore pertinent that all staff and supervisors should encourage colleagues to get vaccinated as this is the only way for us to return to our previous working environment”, she said.

The doses, which had been paid for by donors, were delivered by AVAT on Wednesday alongside the first batch of a large J&J order for Ethiopia.

Numerous countries are facing oxygen shortages, while readily available oxygen products are in short supply.

As some 32 countries worldwide, including seven African nations, face “code red” oxygen shortages, WHO and its partners are in the midst of a major effort to recruit sufficient supplies to meet countries’ urgent needs for life-saving oxygen.  

But while over US$500 million is now available in funds and finance for oxygen through the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator initiative, many African countries at risk of oxygen shortages have yet to apply for available funding to bolster their oxygen supplies – including Algeria, South Africa and the Democratic Republic of Congo.  

Delays in asking for funding, or asking for the wrong mix of supplies, can make response to oxygen demand surges an even bigger challenge, warned experts at an event Thursday co-organised by Unitaid, Waci Health, and the Every Breath Counts partnership, a coalition of UN agencies, businesses, donors and NGO.

They urged countries to fine-tune requests and accelerate their applications to meet the next deadline for financing requests – as well as to fine-tune demands to ensure a faster and more flexible response to shortages – including a “very dire” situation in some African nations.

‘Very dire’ situation in Africa

Globally 70 countries are at risk of oxygen shortages. Surges in COVID cases – due in large part to the Delta variant (B.1.617.2) – and hospitalizations are overwhelming health systems and driving up deaths.  

Among the African countries facing dangerous levels of oxygen shortages are: Ethiopia, Nigeria, Ghana, Benin, Togo, Cote d’Ivoire, and Somalia. Meanwhile, Somalia and nine other African at-risk countries have yet to even apply for funding for oxygen supplies. They include: Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Guinea, the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Africa, eSwatini, Mozambique, and Botswana. 

As a result of health systems lacking oxygen and other supplies needed to manage serious COVID cases, the African region is also witnessing “worrying mortality trends,” according to WHO. Last week eight African countries reported increases of over 50% in weekly deaths.

“[There are] large and critical surges in the need for oxygen and too many unacceptable deaths [have been] associated with the lack of access to it,” said Robert Matiru, Director of Programmes at Unitaid, at the event.

Robert Matiru, Director of Programmes at Unitaid, at an event on Thursday co-organized by Unitaid, Every Breath Counts, and Waci Health.

“Medical grade oxygen is one of the most critical medicines for people with severe and critical COVID-19…but unfortunately it is not something that is readily available,” said Dr Raji Tajudeen, Head of the Division of Public Health Institutes and Research at Africa Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). “When oxygen is available, the cost is prohibitive.”

Financing requests exceed available oxygen supplies 

The ACT-Accelerator’s COVID-19 Oxygen Emergency Taskforce, which was launched in February, has mobilised over US$340 million for oxygen-related products in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) through the Global Fund’s COVID-19 Response Mechanism (C19RM)

In addition, some US$182 million has been donated to the therapeutics pillar of UNICEF’s Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator Supplies Financing Facility (ACT-A SFF). The finance mechanism is dedicated to the procurement and delivery of therapeutics for LMICs, including oxygen. 

But while this represents significant progress toward ACT-A’s goal of raising US$1.2 billion for COVID oxygen needs – bottlenecks in the manufacture of oxygen cylinders and long lead times required for the construction of large-scale pressure swing absorption (PSA) oxygen generating plants are delaying the acute deployment of crisis support, officials said. 

Challenges faced by the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator’s COVID-19 Oxygen Emergency Taskforce to address the immediate demand surges in oxygen.

“Even though it’s really encouraging news that we have almost US$340 million awarded, we don’t have enough supply to meet that once procurement and delivery actually begin,” said Robert Matiru, Director of Programmes at Unitaid, at the event on Thursday.

“That is why it’s really critical to already be putting in place interventions to accelerate procurement and delivery and also medium-term measures to ensure that these lead times are cut dramatically for subsequent suppliers and awards,” he added.

Countries urged to fine-tune demands & prioritise oxygen sourcing options that could accelerate access

A breakdown of the approved funding requests from the Global Fund’s COVID-19 Response Mechanism (C19RM).

He urged countries to fine-tune their oxygen supply plans and finance requests accordingly – by considering a wider range of oxygen supply options.

Rather than prioritizing the construction of new PSA facilities, which take a long time to build, countries should consider alternatives like the repair of existing PSA systems, and procurement of bulk liquid oxygen supplies, Matiru said.

“Once you have massive surges, you really need a larger generation capacity and a larger supply capacity than PSA can provide,” said Matiru. 

Procurement of liquid oxygen, which can be stored in bulk at facilities or converted to oxygen cylinders for delivery, may be the fastest way to increase oxygen supply in countries that have existing supply lines for deliveries, he said.

Repairing existing PSA plants may also be more cost-effective and faster than constructing new facilities, as new plants can cost up to US$250,000 and take three to 12 months to complete. 

Algeria, DRC, South Africa and other countries yet to apply for oxygen support finance

In addition, more LMICs should be encouraged to apply for funding for oxygen supplies through the Global Fund’s COVID-19 Response Mechanism, said Matiru.

The deadline to submit the financing request is fast approaching on 17 September, he warned, urging countries to meet it.

Officials from organisations on the ACT-A taskforce also said that there was room for improvement among partners in their coordination of efficient procurement and delivery services. 

“We know as a taskforce we need to be more effective as partners to more effectively attract demand, financing, technical cooperation, and supply, so that we can ensure tight coordination, avoid duplication and be efficient with these resources that are being channelled at unprecedented rates in countries,” said Matiru.

Building local technical and manufacturing capacity – avoiding ‘white elephants’

Along with increasing the supply of oxygen products, building technical capacity and human capital is essential for the sustainable continuation of oxygen infrastructure, said the experts. 

Investing in the health workforce, and expanding biomedical human capital in member states, is important for the service and maintenance of oxygen services and facilities. 

“This unprecedented amount of equipment and supplies has to be maintained and sustained,” said Matiru. “We can’t afford to have white elephants and not sustain the benefit of these investments through this pandemic and even beyond this pandemic for the critical needs we know are out there and predated this pandemic: childhood pneumonia, trauma, complications in childbirth, sepsis and so on.”

One of the key steps moving forward is investing in local manufacturing capacity and developing a “new public health order” in Africa, said Tajudeen.

Dr Raji Tajudeen, Head of the Division of Public Health Institutes and Research at Africa Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

“To guarantee continental health security, we cannot continue to rely on importation of [oxygen products] from the outside,” Tajudeen said. 

“We know that with new COVID-19 waves there will definitely be new variants,” he added. “And with the low level of vaccine coverage on the continent, we need to continue to make the case for the investment in medical grade oxygen.” 

Some 2.8% of the African population are fully vaccinated, compared to 47.7% in Europe and 42.3% in North America. 

“Going forward [we] really need to begin to look at investing in an oxygen infrastructure so that people with severe COVID and those who…cannot afford oxygen will be able to have access to this oxygen,” said Tajudeen.

Image Credits: WHO/Blink Media – Nada Harib, UNICEF/Ralaivita, Unitaid.

Funeral pyres in Uttar Pradesh

Most people die at home in Gadchiroli, a remote, heavily forested district in central India that is among the country’s least developed areas and reaching the nearest clinic can take several hours on foot. 

After a death, relatives often bury or cremate their loved ones in the fields.

When the first COVID-19 wave arrived in India in 2020, it barely reached Gadchiroli. But in April 2021, as a devastating second wave tore through rural India, people began getting sick.

Yogesh Kalkonde, a public health doctor and researcher who worked with the non-governmental organization Search in Gadchiroli until July, said he soon began hearing about deaths in villages – sometimes four or five in a single small community. 

People seriously ill with COVID-19 began turning up at his rural hospital. But Kalkonde said he had little way of gauging the extent of the outbreak.

Similar situations were playing out in other parts of India. While official figures recorded averages of around 3,000 or 4,000 COVID-19 deaths per day, analysts saw signs that mortality across the country was far higher. But they struggled to produce even rough estimates of the true toll. 

Indeed, experts say that the pandemic has highlighted a longstanding issue: In the world’s second-most populous country, policymakers have historically paid too little attention to tracking people’s deaths, with serious implications for public health.

In fact, more than 100 countries do not have functioning civil registration and statistics systems that record births and deaths, according to the public health organisation Vital Strategies

Several African countries collect little or no data on deaths, and the World Health Organization estimates that, globally, two-thirds of deaths are never accounted for.

Rural areas account for three-quarters of deaths 

Rural India, where deaths are often unrecorded.

These issues are acute in India, which is home to about one in six of the world’s people, and where around three-quarters of deaths take place in rural areas like Gadchiroli. 

In 2018, government surveys suggest that India registered 86 percent of all its deaths in its civil registration system. Even then, the cause often remains a mystery: Only one in five of those registered deaths were medically certified by a physician.

Those gaps, experts say, hampered public health efforts in India and other countries long before the arrival of COVID-19. Governments can use death data for all sorts of public health decisions: to identify malnutrition hotspots, address infant mortality, and even prioritize the shipment of vaccines.

“Counting the dead helps the living,” said Prabhat Jha, an epidemiologist at the University of Toronto and director of the Center for Global Health Research, a not-for-profit organization co-sponsored by the university and St. Michael’s Hospital. 

“The main benefit of having data on who dies, and when, is to be able to understand what can be done about it today.”

While counting the dead is the first step, finding out how they died is also key. Cause of death data is like the “thermometer of a health system,” said Kalkonde. Without such data, he added, it is very challenging to track the progress of the health system.

Experts say the obstacles to improving data collection in India are steep. And even when such data exist, that doesn’t mean they will be accurate and available to the public — or to health researchers. Public health doctor and researcher Sylvia Karpagam said she doesn’t expect much government effort to discover and publicize the real toll of COVID-19.

“Right now, it is all about making the government look good, and it is more about PR,” she said. The country’s leaders, she added, “wouldn’t want to seriously look at how many people died.”

The government’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, refuting such criticism from activists and the media, said in an official statement in August that the suggestion that it was “missing out on deaths is completely unlikely.” 

The government’s Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner did not respond to requests for comment.

Little incentive to report deaths

Each year, 9.7 million people die in India, according to government statistics – more than the entire population of New York City. Those deaths are scattered across a country with 23 officially recognized languages, nearly 600,000 villages, and a severe shortage of medical personnel. Keeping track of those losses in areas without a functioning health care system is a difficult, but not insurmountable, task.

In large cities like Mumbai or Delhi, most deaths occur at, or en route to, a health facility. If a physician is present at the time of death, they fill out a cause of death certificate. Local authorities collect this information and pass it on to the state and then national government.

Far fewer deaths are certified in rural areas like Gadchiroli, where health facilities are bare or virtually non-existent. Complicating the data collection, rural people often have little incentive to report deaths. Birth documentation is an important part of one’s legal identity, enabling access to services like education. But for those with few resources, living in places where informal transfer of property is the norm, there’s little reason to report deaths to authorities, especially of babies.

Gender and social status also affect which deaths are counted: Women, for example, are more likely to die at home, and less likely to have their deaths counted and certified, according to Kalkonde. And people who belong to India’s tribal communities, or who fall low in the Hindu caste hierarchy, typically have less access to health care, and so show up less frequently in official statistics.

There is little incentive to record deaths in rural India, where people own little and property ownership is usually transferred informally.

Dubious data

Then there is the dubious quality of data. Not all doctors are well trained to certify deaths, said Kalkonde. “What you write on death certificate in itself is a science,” he said. 

“So, even amongst the death certificates that are available, many times the cause of death is just listed as ‘cardiorespiratory arrest’” — meaning the person’s heartbeat and breathing stopped. “I mean, most of us die by cardiorespiratory arrest,” Kalkonde added.

To account for some of these gaps, in the 1960s the Indian government began sending surveyors door to door in thousands of areas across the country, in order to get a representative sample of the full population. 

When a selected household reports a recent death, the surveyor gathers the history of illnesses in the family, asks about the deceased person’s symptoms, and writes a report. Trained physicians look over the record and assign it a probable cause of death. Research suggests that this time-consuming process, called a verbal autopsy, provides a fairly accurate picture of the deaths. (China, the world’s most populous country, uses a similar system.)

In 2002, Jha and several collaborators began tracking mortality in 2.4 million households in India, using verbal autopsies to assign causes for deaths going back to 1998. The Million Death Study, as it is called, was far larger than other surveys, and its findings helped provide crucial insight into deaths by suicide, infant and child mortality, cancer in India, and more.

Still, researchers say, big gaps remain in the data. “It’s strange that, you know, 70 years down the road,” said Kalkonde, referring to the time since India’s independence, “we still have difficulty knowing what are the causes of death in India.”

High suicides in women

Government officials aren’t always especially eager to publicize mortality data. Registering and certifying all deaths allows for accountability that leaders might not want, said Karpagam.

The findings of such studies don’t always align with state narratives about an accepting, egalitarian culture. Verbal autopsies have suggested, for instance, that one in every three women who die by suicide globally is an Indian woman.

In response, health officials and politicians sometimes hide or fudge statistics: Independent analysts and news media have found that officials in the state of Maharashtra have downplayed the number of malnutrition-linked deaths, and policymakers have delayed — and even allegedly hidden — statistics on deaths by suicide among India’s farmers.

Those problems have worsened since 2014, Jha said. Since then, when the current prime minister Narendra Modi came to power, there have been more delays in releasing India’s sample survey. Recent years have also seen delays in farmer death statistics.

“Many times the cause of death is just listed as ‘cardiorespiratory arrest’” – meaning the person’s heartbeat and breathing stopped. “I mean, most of us die by cardiorespiratory arrest,” Kalkonde said.

COVID-19 exposed gaps

When a massive second wave of the pandemic hit India in the spring of 2021, the shortcomings of these gaps in mortality data were suddenly on display, as there was hardly any accounting of how many people in India’s rural areas were dying from COVID-19. The data disaster made global headlines.

In response, some Indian states have begun conducting door-to-door surveys, trying to pin down more accurate figures. Others released revised death statistics after courts stepped in to flag irregularities.

The solution to the improving reporting of death data is different in urban and rural areas, Jha said. “In urban areas many deaths occur in hospitals, so you can improve that registration and reporting system,” he said. In rural areas, he added, some of the villages already track deaths. “I think that’s important, but that needs to be catalogued and shared.”

Women are far likelier to die at home in rural India

Death records helped to counter vaccine hesitancy

A treacherous 10-hour drive along winding mountain roads northwest of Gadchiroli is the tribal region of Melghat. Deep in the forests, the phone network sometimes drops to zero. Melghat is known for its tiger reserve. It’s also poor: The region occasionally makes news for the high rate of child malnutrition deaths among its largely tribal population, spread across about 370 villages.

Mittali Sethi came here on her first government posting, part of a national cadre of civil servants called the Indian Administrative Service. Until transferring to a new position in July, Sethi, a trained dental surgeon, was in charge of the development of the tribal population, including overseeing health programs.

According to Sethi, there is one private physician in Melghat and a handful of government ones. For specialized medical care, she says, locals have to leave the district and travel around three hours in a vehicle to a facility in the nearest city, Amravati.

Here Sethi put into practice what Jha recommends in theory. Through a national programme  launched in 2005, India’s villages have an army of women community health care workers called Accredited Social Health Activists, or simply ASHAs, which in Hindi translates to “hope.” Often working in their home villages, these women are trained in basic health care delivery, like providing pregnant women with iron and folic acid tablets, and helping with awareness campaigns on sanitation.

As the second COVID-19 wave arrived in April, Sethi reached out to the ASHAs in Melghat and asked the women to report every death to their nearest health center on a daily basis, along with the likely cause.

“We were monitoring which village was having more deaths, because people were a little reluctant to test,” Sethi said. “So the proxy for knowing where COVID-19 might actually be increasing was to see the number of deaths.”

This basic data was enough to give Sethi and her team information about where to step up COVID-19 awareness and vaccination campaigns. “Not having data has never been a problem here,” she said. The resultant campaigns were successful in countering vaccine hesitancy and made national news in India.

What Sethi did in Melghat is what Jha said could be done in every district in India. The approach essentially decentralizes the health system, gathering and responding to data in real-time instead of waiting for a national level analysis.

“The proxy for knowing where Covid might actually be increasing was to see the number of deaths,” Sethi said.

As other countries grapple with similar problems, experts are hoping the pandemic will draw attention to death registration. Having better data, the WHO writes in a new report on global birth and death registration, would help communities around the world combat COVID-19 — and forms “a cornerstone of a strong health system for the future.”

Romain Santon, deputy director of civil registration and vital statistics for Asia at Vital Strategies, which has helped 29 countries bolster their civil registration systems, said simple policy changes can yield better data. In some countries, he said, burial permits or other legal requirements could act as incentives to push up death registrations. Making registration simpler by reducing the number of forms, or digitizing the process, could also help.

Santon calls for compulsory, confidential, and permanent death registration worldwide. “Every single individual living in a territory,” he said, “should have access to birth and death registration.”

Disha Shetty is an independent science journalist based in Pune, India. She writes on health, environment, and gender, among other subjects. This article was first published in UnDark

 

Image Credits: Parker Hilton/ Unsplash, Tarun Anand/ Unsplash, Aditya Siva/ Unsplash, Yogendra Singh/ Unsplash.

Only a quarter of countries worldwide have a national plan to support people with dementia and their families, according to the World Health Organization’s (WHO)  ‘Global status report on the public health response to dementia’ released on Thursday. 

More than 55 million people globally are living with dementia and the number is estimated to increase by almost 40% to 139 million by 2050,  according to WHO.

While most countries have made progress in implementing public awareness campaigns to improve public understanding of dementia, only a quarter of countries have a national policy, strategy or plan for supporting people with dementia and their families, prompting WHO to call for renewed commitment from governments. 

Half the countries with national policies, strategies or plans are in WHO’s European Region, yet even in Europe, many plans are expiring or have already expired.

The COVID-19 pandemic has also resulted in “profound” disruption for people living with dementia, including hampering dementia risk reduction programmes.

“The world is failing people with dementia, and that hurts all of us,” said WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. “ Four years ago, governments agreed on a clear set of targets to improve dementia care. But targets alone are not enough. We need concerted action to ensure that all people with dementia are able to live with the support and dignity they deserve.”

WHO’s Western Pacific Region has the highest number of people with dementia (20.1m), followed by the European Region (14.1m), the Region of the Americas (10.3m), the South-East Asia Region (6.5m), the Eastern Mediterranean Region (2.3 m) and the African Region (1.9m). 

If left unaddressed, the increase would significantly undermine social and economic development globally, warned Tedros.

Dementia is caused by a variety of diseases and injuries that affect the brain, including Alzheimer’s disease or stroke. It affects memory and other cognitive functions, as well as the ability to perform everyday tasks.

In 2019, 1.6 million dementia-related deaths were recorded, making it the seventh leading cause of death. Nearly half of these deaths occurred in high-income countries with women representing roughly 65% of the total number of dementia-related deaths.

The global cost of dementia was estimated to be $1.3 trillion in 2019,  projected to increase to $1.7 trillion by 2030, or $2.8 trillion if corrected for increases in care costs. 

“A challenge of this size cannot be tackled by working in silos. We must combine forces, improve the capacity of health systems to prevent and treat dementia, share quality data, reach beyond our traditional ways of conducting research, and address dementia as a global community,” said Dévora Kestel, WHO Director Department Mental Health and Substance Use.

“Dementia robs millions of people of their memories, independence and dignity, but it also robs the rest of us of the people we know and love,” said Dr Tedros.

COVID-19 and dementia

In addition to the high number of COVID-19 deaths in long-term care facilities, some countries reported unexplained increased numbers of deaths among people with dementia. England and Wales recorded 83% more deaths in people with dementia in April 2020.

“These increased deaths reported in 2020 may be due to factors such as interruptions in routine care, breaks in medication supply chains and resultant medication stock-outs, decreased access to emergency services, and the psychosocial impacts of public health measures designed to control the pandemic,” states the report.

It highlights numerous barriers that impede the progress of dementia reduction including stigma and the lack of public awareness of its importance, lack of financial resources available for dementia risk reduction programmes, inequitable distribution of services, human resource limitations, and lack of coordination between sectors both nationally and locally. 

In terms of COVID-19’s impact on dementia carers, the report found that lockdowns limited the services offered to people living with dementia resulting in delayed access to diagnostic and post-diagnostic care and a significant impact on cognitive health.

Urgent need for more support 

A stand-out finding of the report is the urgent need to strengthen support, of care for people with dementia, and in support for the people who provide that care, in both formal and informal settings.

Some 75% of primarily high-income countries reported that they offer some level of support for carers – carers spent on average five hours a day caring for those suffering from dementia, with 70% of care being provided by women.

Dementia sufferers require various degrees of care including primary health care, specialist care, community-based services, rehabilitation, long-term care, and palliative care.

Most countries (89%) reporting to WHO’s Global Dementia Observatory say they provide some community-based services for dementia, but provision is higher in high-income countries than in low- and middle-income countries. In low- and middle-income countries, two-thirds of dementia care costs are attributable to informal care as opposed to 40% in richer countries. 

Dementia research 

High costs of research and development coupled with several unsuccessful clinical trials have led to a decline in new efforts, the report found.

However, countries like Canada and the US have recently allocated funds towards more dementia research. The US increased its annual investment in Alzheimer’s disease research from US$ 631 million in 2015 to an estimated $ 2.8 billion in 2020. 

“To have a better chance of success, dementia research efforts need to have a clear direction and be better coordinated,” said Dr Tarun Dua, Head of the Brain Health Unit at WHO. “This is why WHO is developing the Dementia Research Blueprint, a global coordination mechanism to provide structure to research efforts and stimulate new initiatives.” 

Future research efforts, states the report, should focus on the people living with dementia and their carers and family.

 

Image Credits: WHO/I. Montilla, WHO/Cathy Greenblat.

Dr Chikwe Ihekweazu, head of the new WHO Hub for Pandemic and Epidemic Intelligence, speaking at the hub’s launch in Berlin.

Monkey Pox, Lassa Fever, Yellow Fever, Cerebrospinal Meningitis, and COVID-19 are some of the epidemics that Dr Chikwe Ihekweazu has addressed as head of the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control (NCDC).

Now, however, Ihekweazu’s repertoire of disease experience is about to expand exponentially, following his appointment as the head of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) new Hub for Pandemic and Epidemic Intelligence.

The hub was formally launched in Berlin on Wednesday in event co-hosted by WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and outgoing German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The aim of the hub is to create the tools and data needed to enable countries to better “prepare, detect and respond to pandemic and epidemic risks,” according to WHO.

Ihekweazu, an infectious disease epidemiologist, is widely credited with modernising and transforming the Nigerian CDC to address the multitude of epidemics that Africa’s most populous country faces every year.

Believing in themselves

Speaking at the hub’s launch, Ihekweazu said that his biggest lesson from working at the NCDC was empowering its staff to believe in themselves.

“I met a group of people that really didn’t believe that they could do what was expected of them,” he said.  “By believing that they could stretch a little bit beyond what they would normally do, they started trying. And once they started trying and succeeding in small steps, they started believing that they could do more.”

He frankly admitted that the new WHO hub faces “a lot of uncertainty, and sometimes a lack of definition in terms of where exactly we want to go.”

Said Ihekweazu: “We have to be comfortable with that uncertainty, but really look for people that would believe the vision and once they believe the vision and … the threats that we face, that we can work together, despite some of the political challenges, despite some of the economic differences between countries.” 

Ihekweazu, who will now be based in Berlin, has a German mother and Nigerian father. He has a Master’s in Public Health degree from the Heinrich-Heine University in Dusseldorf and worked for the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, Germany’s national global health research and surveillance hub.

Ihekweazu was appointed as CEO of the NCDC in August 2016, just as the devastating, two-year West African Ebola epidemic was finally coming to an end.  Although the epidemic struck hardest in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, bruising Nigeria with only about 20 cases, it underscored the immense risks faced by the country of more than 210 million people, where many of the 32 200 health facilities were ill-equipped to address basic health needs.

Ihekweazu spent his first months in office assessing the country’s readiness for other future epidemics – including a range of threats that could potentially be as deadly as Ebola, or even less so, but more infectious, as COVID has proven to be.

“I met Disease Surveillance and Notification Officers without laptops and laboratory technicians with no laboratories,” Ihekweazu wrote in a blog a few months after his appointment.

“Motivated and properly equipped health workers at the frontline of our surveillance work are critical to our disease control efforts. An effective public health laboratory is critical. Proper supply chain management for our medical supplies will ensure that we are always ready for any outbreak.”

Sleepless nights about Ebola

He admitted to having sleepless nights, asking himself: “If we were to have another case of Ebola in Nigeria, would we have the laboratory infrastructure to make a timely diagnosis to recognise it and prevent a large outbreak?”

In June 2017, a WHO team conducted a Joint External Evaluation (JEE) to test Nigeria’s capacity to implement the International Health Regulations (IHR), a set of mandatory laws aimed at ensuring that member states are able to prevent the spread of diseases.

Nigeria’s JEE scorecard was littered with red warnings, and the country’s overall score was 39 percent. But the JEE highlighted the positive role of the NCDC, describing it as “among the most noteworthy best practices observed in Nigeria”.

It described the NCDC’s outbreak investigations as “robust and timely”, and praised the Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) activated to respond to outbreaks, and its call centre, which the public uses extensively during public health emergencies.

By 2018, Ihekweazu had doubled the staff of the NCDC and set up laboratories across the country.

In November 2020, the NCDC and external evaluators conducted a midterm JEE and the country’s score had increased to 46%, bringing them from the “not ready” category into the “work to do” category, according to Prevent Epidemics.

New fire

“The NCDC has given the nation a sense of pride,” said Dr Ifeanyi Nsofor, Director of Policy and Advocacy for Nigeria Health Watch, a civil society organisation that advocates for improved health for Nigerians.

In an interview with me a few years ago, Nsofor described Ihekweazu as being “really instrumental in the changes” made to Nigeria’s approach to fighting epidemics.

“He is the new fire in the agency. It is no longer business as usual. He has brought in the right way of doing things. He has the knowledge, the personality and the networks.”

After Ebola, one of Ihekweazu’s next challenges was to deal with Lassa Fever, a viral hemorrhagic fever from the same family as Ebola spread by rats that is endemic in West Africa.

During an outbreak in 2018, the NCDC proved that it was able to act fast to save lives, which Nsofor attributes to the center’s ability to “conduct research while an outbreak was happening”.

“There was real-time gene sequencing of the virus and the NCDC was able to establish that there was not just one strain of the virus but different strains. This meant a different diagnostic process,” said Nsofor.

His new appointment has been praised across Twitter by health experts and ordinary Nigerians.

Speaking at the launch of the new pandemics hub, WHO’s Tedros said of Ihekweazu: “he brings a wealth of experience, and will serve a dual role as head of the hub here in Berlin and as Assistant Director-General for health emergency intelligence in Geneva.”