PAHO Director Dr Carissa Etienne

Though the Americas is the only World Health Organization (WHO) region that is reporting a slight decline in new COVID-19 cases this week, countries in Central and South America, Canada and Mexico are still experiencing rising rates of infection. 

Over 1.1 million new COVID-19 cases were reported in the Americas over the last week, officials from the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) announced at a press briefing on Wednesday. 

The Central American countries of Belize, El Salvador, Honduras and Panama, and South America’s Brazil, Colombia, and Ecuador, are also reporting high numbers of new cases.  

In North America, while overall trends are declining, cases are rising in the Mexican state of Baja California Sur, and Canada’s Yukon province in Canada. 

Brazil in particular has reported almost 19 million cases and more than half a million deaths due to COVID-19 over the course of its 15-month state of emergency, with an average of more than 49,000 cases and 1500 deaths over the last seven days. 

Cuba is reporting the highest number of new cases per week since the beginning of the pandemic, and Trinidad and Tobago are facing increased mortality due to COVID-19. 

“This is a clear sign that the toll of the pandemic in the Americas continues to devastate families and communities, even as parts of our region are experiencing some relief,” said PAHO Director Carissa Etienne. 

Deaths in Latin America remain the highest per capita, even with global declines. 

Majority of Vaccinations Administered in the United States

While one in four people are fully immunized against COVID-19 in the Americas and over 600 million doses have been administered in the region, over half of these shots have been given to the United States. 

“We must celebrate a nation that has been so heavily impacted by the pandemic, was able to turn the tide,” said Etienne. 

Chile and Canada have also been leaders in their vaccination programs, fully vaccinating over 50% and 30% of their populations, respectively. 

Nursing technician Vanda Ortega, indigenous to the Witoto people, was the first person to receive a dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil, on January 18, 2021.
There is still a sharp divide in access to COVID-19 vaccines across the Americas.

Though PAHO officials praised some countries for their “remarkable job” in administering doses, there remain other countries in the region where vaccination has yet to even begin.

Haiti has not administered a single vaccine dose, while Jamaica is also struggling to access enough vaccines to cover high priority groups. Some countries in South and Central America, where the pandemic has hit particularly hard, have not been able to access enough vaccines to fully vaccinate even 3% of their populations.   

“We can’t close our eyes to the stark inequalities of vaccine access in several countries,” noted Etienne. “It is not a time to roll out boosters when millions have yet to receive one dose.” 

Etienne urged countries and governments globally to continue their donations. 

“The vaccines that we have at hand do work remarkably well and will help us overcome the pandemic, but only if we take this opportunity to address the challenges that have held us back, especially the pervasive inequality in access to health care. Broad vaccine access must be the first step in the process.” 

This week, El Salvador welcomed 1.5 million new vaccine doses from the US government, as part of its pledge to share at least 20 million doses with the WHO-cosponsored COVAX global vaccine facility. 

Japan will also be donating over 11 million doses through COVAX. Gavi, also co-sponsoring COVAX, has received tremendous support from Japan, with the country pledging a total of US $1 billion to COVAX. 

PAHO Reaffirms COVID-19 Support of Haiti Following Assassination its President

Assassinated: Haitian President Jovenel Moïse.

Etienne offered her condolences and expressed solidarity with the Haitian people following the Wednesday morning assassination of Haiti’s President Jovenel Moise during an attack on his private residence.

She reaffirmed PAHO’s support of Haiti during these “uncertain times” and said the organisation would continue to help control the spread of COVID-19 and work towards vaccinating its people.  

Haiti has been prioritized to receive vaccines from COVAX because of the deadly wave that has been hitting the country, with sharply escalating cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in recent weeks. 

However, it is the only country in the Americas participating in COVAX that hasn’t received any vaccines.

A shipment of 132,000 AstraZeneca vaccine doses from COVAX is scheduled to arrive in Haiti later this month and the US plans to deliver doses in the near future.

‘False Sense of Security’ From COVID Travel Certificates

Dr. Ciro Ugarte, Director of Health Emergencies, PAHO

Though countries are easing their travel restrictions and reopening borders, and with complications arising from the European Union’s new COVID ‘Green Pass’,  PAHO officials still advised travellers to continue to take necessary precautions to prevent the spread of the virus.  

“Even people who are completely vaccinated still have a risk of becoming infected and transmitting the disease, so a passport that verifies the vaccination or some proof can create a false sense of security,” said PAHO Director of Health Emergencies Ciro Ugarte. 

Ugarte also added that requiring proof of vaccination may exacerbate inequality between countries, as many countries still do not have sufficient access to vaccines.

This is seen with the EU Digital Green Pass, launched 1 July. Those vaccinated with an AstraZeneca vaccine “Covishield” produced by the Serum Institute of India – which includes most citizens of low- and middle-income countries who were immunized with vaccines distributed by the COVAX initiative – would not be qualified to get the pass. 

Image Credits: Flickr: IMF/Raphael Alves, PAHO, Tariq Nasheed/Twitter.

Fans watching a Premier League football match in London Stadium in lat May. Spectators were socially distanced and hygiene safety warning signs were displayed.

WHO urged high income countries in Europe and elsewhere to reconsider the reopening of mass events, and keep strict social distancing rules in place – in the wake of a surge in COVID cases almost everywhere but Latin America. 

They spoke at a press briefing on the day that the world passed the tragic milestone of four million COVID-19 deaths since the beginning of the pandemic in January 2020. 

“The world is at a perilous point in this pandemic,” said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General, at the WHO press conference on Wednesday.

Globally, only a slight increase in new weekly cases has been recorded over the past two weeks – but that is still worrisome after six weeks or more of declines in Europe, Asia and Africa. 

“More than two dozen countries have epidemic curves that are almost vertical right now,” said Dr Maria Van Kerkhove, WHO COVID-19 Technical Lead. 

Among those are the United Kingdom, where new cases have increased 18 fold since 20 May, and by 67% over just the past week, according to WHO. Deaths in the UK also are increasing, although much more gradually – testifying to the continued efficacy of vaccines.   

Cases on Rise in Most Parts of World 

Indeed, after sharp declines in most regions and key countries of the world over the past eight weeks, new cases are now on the increase almost everywhere – except for Latin America which had been riding an enormous fourth COVID wave, now in decline (see related HP-Watch story). 

Outside of the UK, infections were also rising fast in other European countries that have been slowly reopening this summer, with a 30% overall increase in incidence, as well as in the United States, with deaths also tilting upwards. 

This was followed by a 15% increase in cases in the African region, 11% increase in the Eastern Mediterranean region, 10% increase in the Western Pacific region, and 7% increase in the Southeast Asia region. 

In Africa, which has very low vaccine rates as well as hospital capacity, deaths per capita are approaching the all time peaks seen in January 2021, during Africa’s second wave. 

African Region Seeing Fastest Rise in Mortality  

Even more worrisome, the African region, which also lacks hospital and oxygen capacity,  has witnessed a sharp increase in mortality by 23% over just the past week, the highest out of all six WHO regions, WHO said. 

“Compounded by fast moving variants and shocking inequity in vaccinations, far too many countries in every region of the world are seeing sharp spikes in cases and hospitalizations,” said Tedros. “This is leading to an acute shortage of oxygen treatments and driving a wave of deaths in parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America.”

Devastating Milestone – Four Million 

“Today, the world passed another devastating milestone: four million reported deaths,” said Jeremy Farrar, Director of Wellcome, in a statement. “Sadly, the true figure is undoubtedly much higher.”

“In countries with widespread vaccination coverage there thankfully appears to be a weakened link between infection rates, hospitalizations and deaths. But for large parts of the world facing a vaccine shortfall and the highly infectious Delta variant, it’s a tragically different picture,” Farrar said. 

The four major factors that are driving transmission are: the more transmissible virus variants, particularly the Delta variant; increased social mixing in reopening economies; reduced or inappropriate use of public health and social measures; and inequitable and uneven distribution of vaccines, said Van Kerkhove. 

Dr Maria Van Kerkhove, WHO COVID-19 Technical Lead, at the press conference on Wednesday.

The Delta variant, first identified in India and classified as a WHO variant of concern in mid-May, is considered 40-60% more transmissible than the Alpha variant, identified in the United Kingdom. It has been reported in 104 countries and is expected to become the dominant variant worldwide in the coming months.

WHO Urges Continued Restrictions – Despite Tourism & European Cup Pressures 

European countries have been in the process of gradually lifting public health measures for the summer months, in an attempt to revive economies, including sports summer tourism, after vaccinating a significant proportion of their populations.  

Despite the surge in new cases, the UK, which is also one of the most heavily vaccinated European countries nearly 50% of the total population fully covered, has taken the most dramatic steps towards the easing of COVID restrictions since the lockdowns were first applied last year. 

Meanwhile, European Cup matches have been played out over the past several weeks across the region in stadiums of live fans, for the first time in over a year, with the finals set for the UK’s Wembley Stadium on Sunday. However Dr Mike Ryan, WHO Head of the Health Emergencies Programme, declined to comment on whether it was wise for UK officials to permit live spectators at specific events.  

“I’m not going to comment on specific events for mass gatherings, but I would want to make sure that all of those individuals, countries, and institutions planning events in the coming months take due care and attention to managing risks,” Ryan said. 

Dr Mike Ryan, WHO Head of the Health Emergencies Programme.

On 19 July, limits on the number of people that can gather in the UK, as well as the legal obligation to wear face masks will be lifted, and all businesses still closed due to such restrictions will be allowed to reopen.

The government has made this controversial decision despite the doubling of new cases every nine days and predictions that the country could see two million individuals contract COVID over the summer.

A drop off in hospitalizations and deaths has been seen in countries with high vaccination coverage, however, the vaccination rate is not high enough to prevent transmission. In addition, the science is not yet clear on the ability of vaccinated people to transmit the virus or become reinfected, said WHO officials.

Some 49.9% of the UK’s population is fully vaccinated and 66.9% have received at least one dose. 

“The lifting of all public health and social measures [is] prudent at this time,” said Ryan.

“We would ask governments to be really careful at this moment not to lose the gains they’ve made,” said Ryan. “I would hope that in the European environment we won’t see a return to the overwhelmed hospitals and the exhausted health workers, but that’s not a given.”

He stressed the continued need for robust surveillance, active testing, and contact tracing to prevent cases from spiralling out of control again. 

“Risk management hasn’t been perfect in this pandemic, but it has saved lives, slowed down the pandemic, and kept the pressure off the health system,” said Ryan. 

“Our goal is to suppress transmission and save lives, so we need those policies in place in all countries” to meet the goal, said Van Kerkhove.

Calls for Action on Vaccine Inequity 

“Variants are currently winning the race against vaccines because of inequitable vaccine production and distribution, which also threatens the global economic recovery,” said Tedros, sounding yet another, in a series of calls to mobilise the global conscience – with mixed results.  

Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General.

“At this stage in the pandemic, the fact that millions of health and care workers have still not been vaccinated is abhorrent,” said Tedros. 

The WHO Director General has set out a goal of vaccinating 10% of people in all countries by September, 40% by the end of the year, and 70% by mid 2022 – although at present vaccination rates, it remains entirely unclear if those targets can really be reached. 

“In this pandemic right now…protect[ing] vulnerable healthcare workers and the elderly in low-income countries before expanding into populations in high-income countries that may not suffer the same consequences of the infection,” should be prioritised, said Ann Lindstrand, WHO Head of the Essential Programme on Immunisation. 

WHO officials called upon the Group of 20 (G20) finance ministers, who will meet later this week, to take the steps necessary to end the acute phase of the pandemic, provide the funding to scale up vaccine manufacturing, and get behind Tedros’ vaccination targets.

“We have the tools we need to end this pandemic – vaccines, treatments and tests – but this will only work when they’re available to everyone, everywhere,” said Farrar. “Recent pledges from the G7 and G20 do not go far or fast enough. They are the only ones that can make vaccines available now.”

Image Credits: Wikimedia, WHO.

Tocilizumab, manufactured by Roche.

After months with virtually no therapeutic options for people with severe COVID-19, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended the use of a class of medicines called interleukin-6 antagonists on Tuesday.

The medicines, tocilizumab and sarilumab, reduced the risk of death and ventilation when combined with corticosteroids, according to a study published the same day in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Interleukin-6 is a protein or cytokine that can cause excessive inflammation, and it is a factor in rheumatoid arthritis and many cancers.

“In severely ill COVID-19 patients, the immune system overreacts, generating cytokines such as interleukin-6. Interleukin-6 blocking drugs – tocilizumab and sarilumab – act to suppress this overreaction,” according to the WHO>

The use of these drugs reduced the odds of death by 13% in severely ill and critical patients, and the odds of them needing mechanical ventilation by 28%, compared with standard care.

These are the first drugs found to be effective against COVID-19 since corticosteroids were recommended by WHO in September 2020 – but they are costly

“These drugs offer hope for patients and families who are suffering from the devastating impact of severe and critical COVID-19. But IL-6 receptor blockers remain inaccessible and unaffordable for the majority of the world,” said WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director General.

“The inequitable distribution of vaccines means that people in low- and middle-income countries are most susceptible to severe forms of COVID-19. So, the greatest need for these drugs is in countries that currently have the least access. We must urgently change this,” said Tedros.

MSF Calls on Roche to Reduce Prices

Meanwhile, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) called on the Swiss pharmaceutical company, Roche, the world’s only producer of tocilizumab, to lower its price “to make it affordable and accessible for everyone who needs it”.

“Even though tocilizumab has been on the market since 2009 for treatment of rheumatologic diseases, access has remained a challenge,” according to MSF. 

“Roche kept the price of this drug very high in most countries, with price tags ranging from US$410 in Australia, $646 in India to $3,625 in the USA per dose of 600mg for COVID-19.”

Julien Potet, Policy Advisor at MSF’s Access Campaign, called on Roche to “take urgent steps to make this drug accessible and affordable for everyone who needs it by reducing the price and transferring the technology, know-how and cell lines to other manufacturers”.

“Medical practitioners in many countries in Africa and Latin America, who are grappling with newer and more transmissible variants of coronavirus, are right now struggling to keep their patients alive,” said Potet.

“This drug could become essential for treating people with critical and severe cases of COVID-19 and reduce the need for ventilators and medical oxygen which are scarce resources in many places.”

Regeneron holds the patent for the second drug, sarilumab, in “at least 50 low- and middle-income countries, raising immediate challenges of ensuring uninterrupted production and supply by diverse producers in these countries”, according to MSF.

Study involved almost 11,000 patients

The study, a meta-analysis of 27 randomised trials involving nearly 11,000 patients, was coordinated by the WHO in partnership with King’s College London, the University of Bristol, University College London and Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust.

Researchers examined the clinical benefit of treating hospitalised COVID-19 patients with interleukin-6 antagonists, compared with either a placebo or usual care. 

They combined data from 27 randomised trials in 28 countries, involving 10,930 patients, 6,449 of whom were randomly assigned to receive interleukin-6 antagonists and 4,481 to receive usual care or placebo.

“While science has delivered, we must now turn our attention to access. Given the extent of global vaccine inequity, people in the lowest income countries will be the ones most at risk of severe and critical COVID-19. Those are the people these drugs need to reach,” said Dr Janet Diaz, Lead for Clinical management, WHO Health Emergencies.

The WHO has called on companies making the medicines to issue “transparent, non-exclusive voluntary licensing agreements using the C-TAP platform and the Medicines Patent Pool, or to waive exclusivity rights”.

It has also launched an expression of interest for prequalification of manufacturers of interleukin-6 receptor blockers.

“The main patent on tocilizumab expired in 2017, yet several secondary patents remain on the medicine in a number of low- and middle-income countries that may cause uncertainties,” according to MSF.

“Several ‘biosimilar’ versions are under development, but none have been approved by a regulatory authority, meaning that despite being off-patent, Roche continue to have de facto market exclusivity.”

India has already started using tocilizumab to treat those with severe COVID-19, but supplies ran out during May, according to MSF.

“Over the last few months, we have helplessly witnessed people in South Asia scrambling to get hold of tocilizumab for patients with severe forms of COVID-19,” said Leena Menghaney, Global IP advisor for MSF Access Campaign. 

“Manufacturers based in low- and middle-income countries urgently need to register and scale up production to increase the global supply. With more than 3.9 million lives already lost to COVID-19, the world cannot wait any longer for access to treatments that can help in increasing the chances of survival.” 

 

Image Credits: Roche, WHO.

Dr Nono Simelela, WHO Assistant Director-General for Strategic Programmatic Priorities: Cervical Cancer Elimination.

At least 70% of women should be screened for cervical cancer via high-performing DNA-based tests to identify the human papillomavirus (HPV), not a visual inspection with acetic acid or a Pap smear, which are more common. 

The HPV DNA test is not only more accurate, but it is also more cost-effective, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), which launched new guidelines on screening and treatment to prevent cervical cancer on Tuesday.

“Effective and accessible cervical screening and treatment programmes in every country are non-negotiable if we are going to end the unimaginable suffering caused by cervical cancer,” said Dr Nono Simelela, WHO Assistant Director-General for Strategic Programmatic Priorities: Cervical Cancer Elimination. 

“This new WHO guideline will guide public health investment in better diagnostic tools, stronger implementation processes and more acceptable options for screening to reach more women –  and save more lives,” she told a webinar to launch the guidelines.

Last year more than half a million women contracted cervical cancer, and about 342 000 women died as a result – most in the poorest countries.

The guidelines recommend important shifts in care, including more access to self-sampling to achieve the goal of having 70% of women aged between 35 and 40 tested by 2030 and at least 90% of people who need treatment to receive it.

“Studies show that women often feel more comfortable taking their own samples, for instance in the comfort of their own home, rather than going to see a provider for screening. However, women need to receive appropriate support to feel confident in managing the process,” WHO said in a statement.

This, said WHO, paired with screening women for HPV and vaccinating girls against HPV, may help prevent more than 62 million deaths from cervical cancer in the next century.

More Research Needed to Combat Cervical Cancer

Several experts also highlighted the need for more research, training of health professionals and destigmatising the disease to combat one of the biggest killers of women, particularly those in poor countries.

They said research into HPV should not only be focused on medical objectives, but should include social and political activism if deaths are to be prevented.

Professor Lynette Denny, a South African gynaecologist and champion of cervical cancer, described cervical cancer as “a disease of poverty, but also a disease of prejudice”.

“It’s a disease of saving some lives over others,” said Denny who called on research to be extended to patients’ history and the social impacts of women post HPV-diagnosis.

“When we talk about research, we have to talk about where are our patients coming from. What are they experiencing on a day-to-day basis and what are we as researchers, and healthcare professionals hearing,” said Denny.

“There have been some studies [that show] that if a woman dies and her child is under the age of 10, the chances that that child will live to 10-years-old are about 25%. And this is what’s happening in many, many countries as well where women are dying, and have young children in communities that often are unable to take care of these children without the support of the mother.”

Responding to the Link Between HPV and HIV

And while experts called for more research into HPV, WHO said more emphasis needs to be made on the link between HPV and HIV, as women with HIV are six times more likely to get HPV than those without HIV.

With HPV being the main driver behind most cervical cancer diagnoses, this cannot be overlooked.  The guidelines state that women with HIV should start cervical cancer screening at an earlier age (25) as opposed to the general population recommendation of 30 years.

“With these new guidelines, we must leverage the platforms already developed for HIV care and treatment to better integrate cervical cancer screening and treatment to meet the health needs and rights of the diverse group of women living with HIV to increase access, improve coverage, and save lives,” said Dr Meg Doherty, Director of WHO’s Department of Global HIV, Hepatitis and Sexually Transmitted Infections Programmes.

WHO recommends that all women who test positive for cervical cancer should receive treatment soon after diagnosis.

“Cost-effectiveness of screening tests is important for scaling up programmes, but other aspects of the public health approach to eliminating cervical cancer are also vital,” said Dr. Nathalie Broutet, WHO Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research and HRP. “What matters most is the coherence of every country’s programme in ensuring the continuum of care: that all women have access to screening, health care providers are informed in a timely manner about the results of the screening test and can in turn share this information with their client, and that women can access appropriate treatment or referral if needed.”

Professor Groesbeck Parham, Director of the CIDRZ Cervical Cancer Prevention Program, professor of gynaecological oncology at UNC-Chapel Hill, agreed with Denny and said that despite technological advances in trying to understand cervical cancer, “we won’t get very far unless we put this disease in the women who have it in the proper social context”

“That’s the only thing that’s going to drive this off the planet as a social movement, because it is a social disease. Women diagnosed with HPV are often stigmatised and live in shame, and this needs to be addressed, said Parham.

Image Credits: WHO.

The Swiss-based journal Vaccines has retracted a controversial paper linking deaths to COVID-19 vaccines, which prompted the resignation of six members of its editorial board last week.

The paper was titled ‘The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations – We Should Rethink the Policy’, and it attracted massive support from anti-vaxxers who question the safety of vaccines.

Prior to its retraction, the journal issued an “expression of concern” flagging that “serious concerns have been raised about misinterpretation of the data and the conclusions” in the paper, particularly that three deaths reported to be linked to vaccinations is “incorrect and distorted”.

The paragraph that attracted the most controversy argued: “The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination.”

The  paper based its statistics on adverse effects and deaths on data from Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Center, called Lareb. However, anyone can report an adverse effect or death on the database without independent medical verification. After the paper was published, Lareb’s head of science and research, Eugène van Puijenbroek, wrote to the journal and requested that it retract the paper.

The paper listed as its corresponding author the controversial German psychologist Harald Walach. In 2012, he received the Goldene Brett vorm Kopf  (golden blockhead) ‘prize’ for promoting pseudo-science from the German Society for the Scientific Investigation of Pseudosciences.

Walach and co-authors medical physicist Rainer Klement and data analyst Wouter Aukema, responded to Retraction Watch about the retraction of their paper by saying: “We used imperfect data correctly. We are not responsible for the validity and correctness of the data, but for the correctness of the analysis. We contend that our analysis was correct.”

Editorial board resignations include virologist Florian Krammer, from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Oxford University immunologist Katie Ewer, who helped to develop the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine; New Zealand vaccinologist Helen Petousis-Harris; epidemiologist Diane Harper from the University of Michigan; Australian immunologist Paul Licciardi from Murdoch Children’s Research Institute and virologist Andrew Pekosz from the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, according to Science magazine.

 

 

 

Image Credits: International Monetary Fund/Ernesto Benavides.

A COVID-19 outreach program in Karnataka state, India.

Despite a series of controversies, Bharat Biotech, which produces Indian homegrown vaccine Covaxin, hopes for World Health Organization (WHO) emergency use listing (EUL) soon, following last week’s publication of its promising Phase 3 results.

The vaccine was given emergency authorisation by the Indian government in early January – even before it had concluded a Phase 3 trial or published its Phase 2 results.  It has since been accused of irregularities during its Phase 3 trial and of being involved in a corrupt deal in Brazil.

However, Bharat finally published a preprint of its Phase 3 trial results via the BMJ’s reputable preprint service last week, which showed that Covaxin had 93.4% protection against severe COVID-19, and 65.2% protection against the Delta variant. 

The trial involved 25,798 people between the ages of 18 to 98 years in 25 sites across India. But trialists at the Bhopal site reported that they had been paid $10 to take part and some had been unable to read the consent form as they were illiterate, according to media reports. 

While these results still have to be peer-reviewed, the company is in the process of submitting “rolling data” to the WHO, according to the WHO EUL status report.

Over the weekend, Bharat company chairperson and managing director Dr Krishna Ella said that that the trial results had established India and developing world countries’ ability to “focus on innovation and novel product development”.

The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has worked with the company to develop the vaccine, and Balram Bhargava, ICMR Director and India’s Secretary of the Department of Health Research, welcomed the results.

Describing the trial as India’s largest COVID-19 Phase 3 clinical trial, Bhargava said that Covaxin “has consolidated the position of Indian academia and industry in the global arena”.

Corruption Allegations in Brazil

However, the company has also been embroiled in a corruption scandal in Brazil, which resulted in the suspension last week of a 20 million-dose order of the vaccine worth $324-million pending the outcome of investigations. The allegations of irregularities reach as high as President Jair Bolsanaro, according to Quartz.

The issue was raised by India’s opposition Congress Party last Friday, which accused the Modi government of being “conspicuously silent” about the deal with Brazil despite the fact that public money had been used to develop the vaccine.

“Taxpayers’ money was put into this and which is why we have a right to question: what has happened with that money and why is the government conspicuously silent on it?” according to Congress spokesperson Supriya Shrinate, who claimed that the ICMR was to get 5% from the sale of the vaccine.

Part of the Brazilian scandal centres on a company linked to Bharat, which is apparently tried to act as a ‘broker’, selling the vaccines on to the Brazilian government at the vastly inflated price of $15 per dose. This is more expensive than the Pfizer vaccine, which has WHO EUL.

A whistleblower in the Brazilian Health Department told a Senate panel that he was facing pressure from an aide of a close ally of Bolsonaro to sign a contract for the vaccines at a massively inflated price, according to the Guardian

Ministry head of imports Luis Ricardo Miranda, told the panel that he had not approved an import license for the vaccine because an invoice for the first shipment asking for upfront payment had been sent by a company not mentioned in the contract.

Wagner de Campos Rosário, of the federal office of the comptroller general, said in a press briefing reported by CNN Brasil last week that the deal had been suspended “as a simple preventive measure, since there are complaints that could not be explained well by the complainant”. He expected the investigation to take around 10 days.

However, both Bharat and Bolsonaro have denied wrongdoing.

Image Credits: Flickr – Trinity Care Foundation, Flickr – Trinity Care Foundation.

Antibiotics are commonly used in animals to boost their growth and keep them from picking up infections.

Their consensus was inevitable. As the 74th World Health Assembly (WHA) discussed a solution in May to contain the grave and growing threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), one mandate emerged: any action must take a multisectoral One Health approach to human, animal, and environmental health. 

Antibiotics are commonly used in animals – often without the input of veterinarians – to boost their growth and keep them from picking up infections. Estimates indicate that more than 70% of the antimicrobials sold globally are used in animals, and in some countries up to 80%, mostly for growth promotion. This indiscriminate antimicrobial use fuels resistance. 

Drug-resistant germs can cross over from animals to humans through direct contact with farm animals or through meat handling or consumption. Inappropriate antimicrobial use in animals is now recognized as a major contributor to drug resistance. 

Some 700,000 people already die due to antimicrobial resistance each year, and that may increase to millions per year if we don’t do more to stop inappropriate use of antibiotics. Meanwhile, rising incomes and growing urban populations throughout the world have increased the demand for meat, which means more livestock farming.

Many countries are eager to contain AMR. According to a WHA-related report, 144 countries now have a national action plan to do so. However, sectors differ in the amount of progress they’ve made. While there is general awareness and progress in the human health sector, work in the animal sector is lagging, and work in the environmental sector has only begun.

As the WHA affirmed, six years after it launched a Global Action Plan on AMR, we need collaborative, multisectoral coordination to address public health threats at the intersection of humans, animals, and the environment. It’s the only way to effectively address this widespread issue. 

The global health nonprofit I work for is supporting Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) activities aimed at improving multisectoral coordination on AMR as part of the USAID Medicines, Technologies, and Pharmaceutical Services Program. We’ve worked in multiple countries, using WHO-recommended benchmarks to improve their capacity to detect, assess, report, and respond to public health events per International Health Regulations.

As my colleagues and I explained in a paper, “Strengthening multisectoral coordination on antimicrobial resistance: a landscape analysis of efforts in 11 countries,” it’s critical to help countries establish national multisectoral task forces and ensure that they function effectively. They must include high-level governmental officials and other stakeholders from both human and animal health, along with the agricultural, environmental, and food sectors.

Multi-sectoral Collaboration Needed to Tackle AMR

In some countries, these coordinating bodies lacked adequate political support and the authority to act. Ethiopia had weak coordination among its AMR stakeholders, no monitoring and evaluation capability to measure progress, no central reporting mechanism on AMR-related activities, and no functional technical working groups in line with One Health to actually implement activities against AMR. We convened national stakeholders to address these issues and improve overall functionality of the multisectoral coordination body on AMR and its technical working groups.

Countries need enabling environments such as administrative and financial support, adequate human resources, and practical know-how on the process and parameters of how these multi sectoral bodies operate. They also need ways to gather, analyze, and monitor data.

Support pays off: with our collaboration, the human, animal, agriculture, and environmental sectors in Cameroon collaborated on a plan to execute the country’s national action plan on AMR. Bangladesh and Kenya developed multisectoral monitoring and evaluation frameworks to track their action plans.

In Uganda, the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries released its first-ever guidelines in February for antimicrobial use in animals.

Previous efforts by stakeholders to address AMR have largely been siloed. To get diverse sectors and disciplines to the table at the central level and to form mutual trust, frank discussions about why collaboration is critical, explaining the science, and finding common ground among sectors are needed.

The private sector has a stake in outcomes, too, especially as they relate to maintaining the effectiveness of medicines or protecting livestock.

Increasing drug resistance in E. coli, Salmonella, and other bacteria prompted Côte d’Ivoire to embark on an ambitious multi sectoral antimicrobial stewardship plan. Health and vet facilities began to monitor drug prescribing and  infection prevention and control procedures, while another committee looked into the sale of medicines without prescriptions and the sale of fake or substandard drugs. Greater attention to hygiene and prescribing also helped health facilities deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Every country needs the same inclusive approach. It is a big undertaking, and many lower-income countries are just beginning to achieve liftoff in implementing their national AMR plans. However, as we struggle to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, we cannot take our eyes off of the creeping global problem of AMR, which threatens to claim even more lives.

Dr Mohan P. Joshi

Mohan P. Joshi is a physician and senior principal technical advisor at the global health nonprofit Management Sciences for Health, where he is the technical lead for issues related to antimicrobial resistance and global health security.

Image Credits: Commons Wikimedia.

India’s Stelis Biopharma manufacturing site, where the Russian Sputnik V vaccine will be produced

Despite the emergence of new WHO concerns over quality control at Sputnik V’s domestic production facilities, the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) is pushing ahead with a massive international “open-license” manufacturing effort for its Sputnik V vaccine – which breaks the traditional model of vaccine production and leverages existing capacity in poorer countries, desperate for doses.

As such, RDIF has “broken the model of closed intellectual property” and adopted a vaccine scale-up model that is “fundamentally different” to most vaccine developers, Leena Menghaney, Global IP Advisor for MSF’s Access Campaign, told Health Policy Watch in an interview.

But at the same time, a recent WHO review of manufacturing practices at one of the vaccine’s nine Russian plants identified a number of substandard manufacturing practices – illustrating how challenging quality control may be for the wider Russian model. 

The WHO review is not the only one to have found issues. 

Earlier this year, Brazil’s medicines regulator rejected Sputnik V’s request for approval, due to the contamination of some batches of the adenovirus vector, among other issues. 

Meanwhile, Slovakia’s regulator also has voiced concerns that the batches of Sputnik V it received did “not have the same characteristics and properties” as the version of Sputnik V reviewed in a Lancet study, which published favourable Phase III trial results for the vaccine earlier in February – with an efficacy of 91 % against symptomatic COVID-19 disease and 100% against severe COVID.

And the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has delayed Sputnik V’s approval following the RDIF’s failure to submit additional clinical trial data by a deadline that was initially set for early June.

At the same time, low- and middle-income countries, desperate for vaccines, have largely ignored such concerns. Since Russia’s own approval last August, almost seventy, mostly low- and middle-income countries have greenlighted the vaccine, which features a low price and easy storage requirements – and is even more attractive after India’s Serum Institute halted its AstraZeneca vaccine exports via the Global COVAX facility in March.

Even more significantly, a number of countries, including India, Serbia, Argentina, and Iran, have already begun their own mass production of Sputnik V vaccines. That includes half a dozen manufacturers in India, which are set to produce 65%-70% of Sputnik V’s global supply, or about 850 million doses or more a year, according to RDIF projections. 

Should those aims indeed be reached, the RDIF and its partners could potentially produce nearly 10% of the world’s total vaccines for 2021.


Non-Exclusive Deals With Multiple Manufacturers 

“The RDIF did what most vaccine developers and global health actors like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation should have done, which is to adopt a non-exclusive and open approach to vaccine manufacturing,” said Menghaney.

Instead of sealing exclusive licenses with a handful of manufacturers, the RDIF has shared its vaccine technology and know-how with some 27 manufacturers, predominantly based in India or upper middle income countries, according to the Geneva Graduate Institute’s COVID Vaccine Manufacturing Tracker.

That sets the RDIF apart from most other major pharma vaccine developers, which are primarily manufacturing, as well as distributing, vaccines in high-income countries – according to the Geneva Graduate Institute’s COVID Vaccine Manufacturing Tracker.

Pfizer and Moderna, for instance, have signed a total of 6 and 9 agreements, respectively, with manufacturers. All are based in high-income countries like France, Switzerland, or Germany – except for one deal between Pfizer/BioNTech and China’s Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical Group. Even Johnson & Johnson, which recently struck an expanded manufacturing deal with Aspen Pharmacare in South Africa, is primarily producing vaccines in the US and Europe.  And in the case of AstraZeneca, which has been the most aggressive in licensing production in low- or middle-income countries, including the Serum Institute of India, those licenses are exclusive.  

“The RDIF did not limit itself to one manufacturer,” added Menghaney. “If anyone wants [to produce] Sputnik V, they can go to RDIF and get it.”

The RDIF has sealed deals with manufacturers from upper middle income countries, in contrast to the rest of Western vaccine developers, which are primarily manufacturing, as well as distributing vaccines in high-income countries

Sharing Regulatory Dossiers within Countries

Another aspect of RDIF’s approach, also evidenced in India, has involved the sharing of the same vaccine “regulatory dossier” with multiple manufacturers. In India, those companies include: Dr. Reddy’s; Panacea Biotech; Stelis Pharma (Strides arm); Hetero; Gland Pharma; Virchow; and the Serum Institute of India, said Menghaney.

Sharing of dossiers is rarely done, due to trade secret and non-disclosure issues, Menghaney noted: “Instead of making manufacturers compete with each other, the RDIF encouraged them to produce the same common technical dossier and to work together to improve the yield of the vaccine.” 

The use of a common dossier not only hastened India’s regulatory approval of multiple new manufacturing facilities, but it has also allowed manufacturers to work together to optimise the yield of Sputnik V and to address quality control issues, such as contamination, which are common bottlenecks in the mass-production of adenovirus-based vaccines like Sputnik V. 

“The RDIF took a collaborative approach to manufacture the vaccine but also to scale it up,” said Menghaney, adding that no other company has adopted such a collaborative regulatory process for a COVID vaccine to date.

She contrasts that with AstraZeneca, which signed about a dozen exclusive deals with manufacturers, including the Republic of Korea and the Serum Institute of India, effectively blocking other manufacturers in the same country from bidding to produce the vaccine. 

The problems around such exclusivity, became more evident last spring, when the Serum Institute of India halted its exports of the AstraZeneca “Covishield” vaccine to over 100 low-income countries in Africa and elsewhere participating in the WHO co-sponsored COVAX vaccine facility after Indian COVID cases began to skyrocket. That, in turn, set off a domino effect, stalling vaccine campaigns that had only just begun in LMICs around the world, and leaving them more dependent than ever on vaccine donations from rich countries, or alternatively vaccines from China or Russia.

“The Serum Institute has an exclusive deal with AstraZeneca, and not just for India,” she said. “This probably means that these countries won’t be receiving any doses of the Oxford vaccine from other sources unless the agreement between AZ and SII is reviewed.”

The RDIF’s approach, she said, is all the more welcome to access advocates against the backdrop of still limited vaccine sharing pledges to the global COVAX facility and continuing reluctance by the big mRNA pharma firms, like Pfizer and Moderna to freely share their vaccine know-how.

RDIF Refuses To Reply On Manufacturing Quality Control Issues 

Despite that bright assessment, the preliminary WHO report, published last week, unearthed a number of concerning contamination issues at the Russian “Ufa Vitamin Plant” which manages the domestic Sputnik vaccine’s “fill and finish” process – where vaccine active ingredient is transformed into an injectible product.

WHO voiced six concerns with the plant, including: “integrity of data and test results”; potential “cross-contamination” of the batches; and poor hygiene standards. The report followed a WHO-led inspection between the 31st of May and the 4th of June. 

The Ufa Vitamin Plant asserted in a statement on June 23 that the WHO concerns were addressed “within 48 hours”. 

“Following the receipt of the comments from WHO, Ufa VITA responded to all the questions and concerns raised within 48 hours,” the firm announced last week. “We invite WHO for another inspection. We remain fully transparent and will continue with the WHO prequalification process.”

RDIF, however, has so far remained mum on the quality control issues raised by WHO – including non-response to queries by Health Policy Watch. 

And the WHO-reported concerns still remain outstanding, according to the public WHO dossier on the vaccine. 

WHO’s prequalification team flagged six concerns following its inspection of the Russian Ufa Vitamin Plant – a “fill-and-finish” facility

Sputnik V Approval Process: “Additional Data Required”

In response to a Health Policy Watch’s query, WHO declined to provide further clarifications, pointing only to its latest EUL update, dated 29 June, which continues to state, with respect to Sputnik V: 

“Additional data (Non-CLIN, CLIN, CMC) Required. Following up on inspection observations; Anticipated date [of approval] will be set once all data is submitted and followup of inspection observations completed.”

“Subject to certain requirements being met, WHO will continue to assess Sputnik V vaccines from different manufacturing sites and will publish decisions on their EUL status when all the data are available and the review is concluded,” WHO’s latest news update on Sputnik also stated.

Contamination Is a Common Concern 

Contamination is a common challenge faced by manufacturers of adenovirus-based vaccines, Ian Jones, Professor of Virology at the University of Reading in the UK, told Health Policy Watch. Potentially such contamination can make the adenovirus, which is supposed to remain non-infective, “replication-competent.” 

“The Sputnik V vaccine technology is basically just growing a virus,” he said. “However, it is not as trustworthy as the RNA as it is a biological, as opposed to chemical process. There are issues with yields, the risk of contamination and, for the adenovirus vectors [which deliver the vaccine], the need to measure the levels of ‘real’ adenovirus, a small amount of which is generated as part of the process. So, in many ways the older technology is a less good technology than mRNA technology.”

Ensuring high hygiene standards in all vaccine production facilities, including fill-and-finish facilities, remains “very important”, emphasized Jones, to avoid contamination of batches with other pathogens as well.

“High hygiene is very important in all such facilities to avoid bacterial contamination. The material will be injected, so passes the skin that normally acts as a barrier to pathogen entry,” he observed.

Contamination is a common issue in the scale-up of adenovirus-based vaccines

Pharma Manufacturers Say RDIF Issues Illustrate Challenges They Face 

Pharma leaders have repeatedly asserted that quality control issues, such as the ones identified by WHO at the RDIF plant, are illustrative of the challenges that they would face were they to issue open licenses as a means of scaling up vaccine production – as per the RDIF model.   

“It’s a very complex sector, with complicated science, very complicated manufacturing processes, we have to be very careful to whom we transfer the know-how, in particular because of the imperative of safety and quality,” said Bharat Biotech’s Executive Director of Quality Operations Sai Prasad, who is also President of the Developing Countries Vaccine Manufacturers’ Network (DCVMN), at an IFPMA-hosted webinar in late April. Bharat Biotech developed India’s first indigenous COVID vaccine – although that, too, has yet to gain WHO approval.  

“…. Don’t underestimate the requirements of standardized, manufacturing, quality control, and quality assurance,” Thomas Cueni, Director General of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Producers (IFPMA), told Health Policy Watch in a recent interview.  

Stephane Bancel, CEO of Moderna

Speaking at an April 2021 event, Moderna’s Stephane Bancel noted that technology transfers are a “matter of trust – trust between the partners but also patient trust: 70% of vaccine manufacturing is about quality control and quality assurance.” 

“That is why we should not get lost into thinking that intellectual property is the bottleneck. The limiting step is manufacturing know-how and capacity, ability to find skilled workers who can take part in the complex manufacturing process, as well as the raw materials.”

“Basically companies have the responsibility for the quality of their products….Companies really need to have the ability to pick their partners on the basis of checklists, which is really about quality, quality, quality…”

RDIF’s Has Little To Lose from Open Approach 

The Sputnik V vaccine uses twenty-year-old adenovirus technology, which lacks substantial intellectual property protections

In fact, the RDIF has significant built-in incentives to try the open license approach – which western manufacturers may often lack, Knowledge Ecology International’s Director James Love told Health Policy Watch.

“The RDIF lacks significant manufacturing capacity, does not think it is protecting a highly proprietary manufacturing platform, and sees a political benefit if having its vaccine being used,” emphasized Love.

That is in contrast to companies such as Pfizer, Moderna, and other vaccine front runners, which already have significant manufacturing capacity – as well as novel technologies that they wish to protect, he said.  

And RDIF’s open license approach clearly has its limits as well. For example, the company has not shared its vaccine recipe to the WHO-backed COVID-19 Technology Access Pool (C-TAP), Love noted. Even though C-TAP was launched over a year ago, it remains empty to date of vaccine recipes from pharma developers in east or west, north or south.

The RDIF also has given no signal, to date, about whether it would join the WHO co-sponsored global COVAX facility should its vaccine finally be approved by the WHO.  

“I don’t think the RDIF has suddenly become cuddly and philanthropic,” added Jones. “They want the hard currency the sales will bring…I think they also want to demonstrate that they can be a world player in the vaccine business [to become] a more permanent global supplier.”

“Had they [Russia] invented a novel technology, it is not clear to me their current stance would have been taken.”

-Elaine Ruth Fletcher contributed to this story.

Image Credits: RDIF, Stelis BioSource, Wikimedia Commons.

cuba biden
The Biden administration has been asked to clarify its sanctions policy vis a vis Cuba, with respect to COVID vaccines.

The Biden administration has been asked to clarify that sanctions against Cuba would not extend to collaborations in the development, manufacturing, distribution and sale of COVID-19 vaccines that the island nation is in the process of developing.

A memorandum, sent by Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) on 28 June to the White House, asks the US government to “clear the air” regarding its economic sanctions policies – and thus ensure that private companies and other organizations can work with Cuba on its vaccine programme. 

“Over the past year and a half, U.S. sanctions against Cuba have cast a cloud over the ability of companies and non-profit organizations to work with Cuba on its vaccine program. The Biden administration needs to clear the air and reassure the WHO, suppliers of inputs, and others that none of the U.S. sanctions against Cuba extend to activities to make, sell or distribute its vaccines,” said KEI Director James Love in his memo.  

The ongoing economic blockade of Cuba during the pandemic was described by Argentina’s President Alberto Fernandez, as “obscene” in his closing remarks to the 74th World Health Assembly (WHA) in May. He called for it to be lifted – alongside the removal of patent protections for COVID vaccines. 

Cuba scientists are facing challenges in the development and scale-up of the manufacture of their vaccine candidates, which have been reported to have significant potential, due to restrictions imposed by the longtime US economic sanctions against the communist island state. 

Cuba’s Vaccines in Late Stages of R&D; Abdala Vaccine 92% Effective Against Coronavirus 

Cuba’s COVID-19 vaccines are seen as Latin America’s hope.

Despite ongoing challenges, Cuba is in its late stages of research and development with two out of five of its indigenous COVID-19 vaccines – Abdala and Soberana 2.  

On 21 June, Cuba announced that its three dose Abdala vaccine against COVID-19 was 92% effective. Earlier, it said that its Soberana 2 vaccine was 62% effective with two doses, with its efficacy expected to rise with administration of the third dose.  

“This is excellent news and fills us with optimism in the region, where there is still a great deficit of vaccines,” said Jose Moya, WHO Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) representative in Cuba as quoted by El Pais. 

Once trial data is published, Cuba will then file for regulatory approval with its national medicines authority.  Health officials meanwhile aim to have 70% of the island’s inhabitants vaccinated by this fall.  

The Cuban government is also in the process of engaging the WHO in the evaluation of its vaccine candidates, for WHo regulatory approval.

“If all goes well, the Cuban vaccines will be able to join the eight already prequalified in the world before the end of the year,” Moya added.

Cuban Vaccines – Potential Importance to Latin America

These announcements could mean good news for neigehboring Latin American states, which have been unable to access sufficient vaccines from big suppliers in the US, Europe, India, China, or Russia – even as Latin America has been the global epicenter of the pandemic in recent weeks.

PAHO has meanwhile called for urgent donations of vaccines in light of the growing spread of COVID in Latin America and the Caribbean, also uging G7 nations to expedite delivery of promised donations, especially since vaccine rollouts have progressed more slowly than hoped-for in Latin America.   At a recent meeting in the United Kingdom, the Group of Seven (G7) pledged one billion COVID vaccine doses to countries around the world,

Calls on US to Support Evaluation and Registration of Cuba’s Vaccines 

The KEI letter also asked that the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), and other federal agencies directly engage with Cuban research institutes to fund expanded or additional clinical trials, and support them in achieving global regulatory approval.  

Love cites a 13 June 2016 Memorandum of Understanding between the US Department of Health and Human Services and the Ministry of Public Health of Cuba, which called for deepening public health cooperation on communicable diseases – understandings put in place during the administration of former US President Barack Obama  – but frozen during the term of US President Donald Trump. 

The KEI letter also refers  to a January White House memorandum published in January, just after President Joe Biden took office, outlining COVID-related sanctions relief measures that it would take. That memorandum states: 

“The Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of HHS and the Administrator of USAID, shall promptly review existing United States and multilateral financial and economic sanctions to evaluate whether they are unduly hindering responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, and provide recommendations to the President, through the APNSA and the COVID-19 Response Coordinator, for any changes in approach.”

Despite this statement, Biden’s campaign promises to “go back” to the Obama policy of engagement with Cuba remains unfulfilled, with the US currently focused on its own interests, a senior administration official was recently quoted as saying by the Washington Post.

“We have an entire world and a region in disarray,” the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “We are combating a pandemic and dealing with a breaking down of democracy in a whole host of countries. That is the environment we are in. When it comes down to Cuba, we’ll do what’s in the national security interest of the United States.”

Image Credits: News Prensa Latina/Twitter, C-Span.

Rwanda
COVAX made promises of 700 million doses but delivered 30-40 million, says African Union Special Envoy.

The African Union (AU) Special Envoy on COVID-19 has bluntly blamed the WHO co-sponsored COVAX facility for the dire vaccine shortage on the continent, saying that it had failed to disclose its vaccine supply problems early enough.

Strive Masiyiwa, AU Special Envoy and head of the African COVID-19 Vaccine Acquisition Task Team (AVATT) said that had COVAX been honest about its lack of vaccine supplies at the start of the year, the continent might not be facing such a dire shortage of vaccines.

When AVATT met COVAX “back in January”, said Masiyiwa, “we were given a schedule in writing that we would receive vaccines from the end of February, going through to December”.

“But COVAX failed to disclose that they were still trying to get money, that pledges [of $8.2 billion] which had been made by certain donors had not been met,” said Masiyiwa, in his most forthright condemnation of the global vaccine platform yet.

“That’s pretty material information. Had we known that actually this was hope and not reality, we may have acted very differently,” Masiyiwa told the Africa CDC weekly COVID briefing on Thursday, which also disclosed that AVATT had procured 400 million COVID-19 single-dose vaccines from Johnson & Johnson that will start to arrive next month.

Early Indications that Serum Institute of India Could Not Deliver

Strive Masiyiwa, African Union Special Envoy and head of the AU COVID-19 Vaccine Acquisition Task Team (AVATT)

He also questioned the global vaccine programme’s reliance on the Serum Institute of India (SII), revealing that AVATT had met with the SII late in 2020 – well before India’s COVID crisis – and decided not to do business with it because it was clear it would be unable to meet its orders.

“We found ourselves in March, scrambling. Now we are told that is India’s problem. And we think the problems are much deeper than that,” said Masiyiwa.

“We will not solve our problem because of donations. We will solve our problem because we’ve gone out and we have bought our vaccines,” he added, disclosing that all but two African countries had secured loans to pay for the AVATT-acquired vaccines.

“The price we pay for any vaccine is exactly the same price as COVAX. I can tell you on this platform because I’ve heard silly rumours. We purchase the Johnson & Johnson vaccine at $7.50 per dose,” he added, saying that AVATT would be “transparent” about vaccine prices.

Masiyiwa said that the Johnson & Johnson order – to be delivered over the course of a year – would cover half the continent’s people, while donors had undertaken to come up with the other half.

“We are moving hard ahead on our commitment. We always said we would start around about August, and the shipments are being prepared. The countries are being prepared. But we are calling on the donor community to stop making pledges, pay up your money and meet the commitments you’ve made. Because we’ve heard the pledges. We just need to see the vaccines now.”

Meanwhile, Kate Elder, Medecins sans Frontieres policy advisor on vaccines, described COVAX as having been “constructed to work within the current parameters of the pharmaceutical market, where you see how much money you can raise and then see what you can negotiate with industry for it”. 

“COVAX was not set up to succeed,” said Elder, speaking shortly before a recent board meeting of the global vaccine body, Gavi, which manages COVAX. “COVAX was left behind as wealthy governments secured their doses through bilateral deals with an industry that acted as expected: selling doses first to the buyers who could afford to pay the most.”

“COVAX is currently grossly behind on achieving its goals. COVAX had aimed to provide two billion doses by the end of 2021, but so far has only distributed 88 million (the goal by the end of June was to distribute around 337 million),” said MSF.

“Less than half of one percent of total populations of COVAX countries have received at least a first dose of vaccine through COVAX. As the global health community increasingly discusses models to be prepared for future pandemics, MSF cautions that the shortcomings of the COVAX model must not be replicated.”

 

Image Credits: WHO.